SELF BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING UNDERESTIMATES HYPERGLYCEMIA AND HYPOGLYCEMIA AS COMPARED TO CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING IN TYPE 1 AND TYPE 2 DIABETES

Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors to Manage Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: Progress, Challenges, and Recommendations

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) management has been revolutionized with the development and routine utilization of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). CGM technology has allowed for the ability to track dynamic glycemic fluctuations and trends over time allowing for optimization of medical therapy and the prevention of dangerous hypoglycemic events. This review details currently-available real-time and intermittently-scanned CGM devices, clinical benefits, and challenges of CGM use, and current guidelines supporting its use in the clinical care of patients with T1D. We additionally describe future issues that will need to be addressed as CGM technology continues to evolve.

The Association of Glucose Variability and Dementia Incidence in Latinx Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Study

Latinx adults with both cognitive dysfunction and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are significantly more likely than Latinx adults with diabetes alone to have complications such as cardiovascular disease. Glucose variability may be a risk for dementia, but the course of glucose variability in the time before a dementia diagnosis for Latinx adults with T2DM has not been examined. We used a 10-year retrospective cohort of medical records of Latinx patients with T2DM who had at least one use of a continuous glucose monitor. The objective was to examine how glucose variability was associated with future dementia diagnoses. A total of 116 charts were included. Mean of daily differences and mean amplitude of glycemic excursions were more strongly associated with dementia diagnoses than other variability indices (p < .01). Understanding the relationships between cognitive function, glucose variability, and barriers to health care can translate into improved interventions to enhance diabetes care.

Continuous glucose monitoring-based time-in-range using insulin glargine 300 units/ml versus insulin degludec 100 units/ml in type 1 diabetes: The head-to-head randomized controlled InRange trial

AIM

To use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based time-in-range (TIR) as a primary efficacy endpoint to compare the second-generation basal insulin (BI) analogues insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) and insulin degludec 100 U/ml (IDeg-100) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

InRange was a 12-week, multicentre, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, open-label study comparing glucose TIR and variability between Gla-300 and IDeg-100 using blinded 20-day CGM profiles. The inclusion criteria consisted of adults with T1D treated with multiple daily injections, using BI once daily and rapid-acting insulin analogues for at least 1 year, with an HbA1c of 7% or higher and of 10% or less at screening.

RESULTS

Overall, 343 participants were randomized: 172 received Gla-300 and 171 IDeg-100. Non-inferiority (10% relative margin) of Gla-300 versus IDeg-100 was shown for the primary endpoint (percentage TIR ≥ 70 to ≤ 180 mg/dl): least squares (LS) mean (95% confidence interval) 52.74% (51.06%, 54.42%) for Gla-300 and 55.09% (53.34%, 56.84%) for IDeg-100; LS mean difference (non-inferiority): 3.16% (0.88%, 5.44%) (non-inferiority P = .0067). Non-inferiority was shown on glucose total coefficient of variation (main secondary endpoint): LS mean 39.91% (39.20%, 40.61%) and 41.22% (40.49%, 41.95%), respectively; LS mean difference (non-inferiority) -5.44% (-6.50%, -4.38%) (non-inferiority P < .0001). Superiority of Gla-300 over IDeg-100 was not shown on TIR. Occurrences of self-measured and CGM-derived hypoglycaemia were comparable between treatment groups. Safety profiles were consistent with known profiles, with no unexpected findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Using clinically relevant CGM metrics, InRange shows that Gla-300 is non-inferior to IDeg-100 in people with T1D, with comparable hypoglycaemia and safety profiles.

Assessment of postprandial hyperglycemia and circadian fluctuation of glucose concentrations in diabetic dogs using a flash glucose monitoring system

BACKGROUND

Postprandial hyperglycemia (PPH) and circadian glucose concentration fluctuations recorded in the home environment of dogs with naturally occurring diabetes mellitus (DM) have not been reported.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if a flash glucose monitoring system (FGMS; FreeStyle Libre) can detect PPH and circadian fluctuations in glucose concentrations in dogs with variably controlled DM.

ANIMALS

Fourteen client-owned dogs with DM.

METHODS

Prospective observational study. Interstitial glucose (IG) concentrations measured by the FGMS during a 13-day study period were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 17, 446 FGMS IG concentrations were analyzed. For all dogs analyzed together, median IG concentration measured within 30 (288 mg/dL), 60 (286 mg/dL), 90 (285 mg/dL), and 120 (285 mg/dL) minutes of meals was each significantly higher than the median IG concentration at all other times (260 mg/dL, 259 mg/dL, 258 mg/dL, and 257 mg/dL, respectively; range, 40-500 mg/dL; P < .001 for each). Median night-time IG concentration measured from all dogs on 3,547 samples recorded between 1:00 am and 6:00 am (268 mg/dL; range, 40-500 mg/dL) was significantly higher than median IG measured on 13, 899 samples at all other time points (259 mg/dL; range, 40-500 mg/dL; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

The FGMS can be used for future studies of PPH and circadian fluctuations of glucose concentrations in dogs with DM in their home environment.

Hypoglycemia in patient with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin: it can happen

There are many misconceptions about the prevalence and effects of hypoglycemia in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), including hypoglycemia does not occur or does not have adverse consequences in T2D. This narrative review aims to help dispel these myths. Around 25% of people with T2D taking insulin for >5 years were found to have severe hypoglycemic events, which is comparable to the severe hypoglycemia rate in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) diagnosed within 5 years. The total number of hypoglycemic events among insulin-treated T2D, including severe hypoglycemia, is as high or higher than among those with T1D. Recent evidence suggests serious consequences of hypoglycemia may, in some respects, be greater in individuals with T2D, particularly regarding effects on the cardiovascular system. Hypoglycemia is generally patient-reported. Issues with hypoglycemia unawareness, limited glucose testing, limited recall, lack of event logging and fear of failure or shaming limits the number of hypoglycemic episodes reported by people with diabetes. Barriers to healthcare provider inquiry and reporting include lack of knowledge regarding the problem's magnitude, competing priorities during patient visits, lack of incentives to report and limitations to documentation systems for adequate reporting. All people with diabetes should be encouraged to discuss their experiences with hypoglycemia without judgment or shame. Glucose targets, testing schedules (blood glucose or continuous glucose monitoring) and treatment plans should be reviewed often and individualized to the minimize risk of hypoglycemia. Finally, people with T2D on insulin should always be encouraged to have oral glucose and rescue medication immediately available.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Self-monitoring of Blood Glucose in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

Every eleventh adult has diabetes, and every third has prediabetes. Over 95% of diabetics are of type 2. It is well established that diabetes doubles the risk of heart disease and stroke apart from increasing the risk of microvascular complications. Hence, strict glycemic control is necessary. However, it increases the risk of hypoglycemia, especially in patients with longstanding diabetes. Continuous glucose monitors (CGM) use a sensor to continuously measure the glucose levels in the interstitial fluid every 10 seconds and gives out mean values every five minutes. CGMs are emerging tools in the management of type 2 diabetes. The prime objective of this review is to find out if there is enough supporting evidence, suggesting that continuous glucose monitoring is more effective than self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in type 2 diabetes. We conducted a systematic literature search in Medline (PubMed) looking for any studies addressing our objective. It is observed that there is a varying level of evidence supporting that employing a CGM can reduce glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), hypoglycemic events, and increase patient satisfaction. However, some studies reported no significant benefits. This systematic review with meta-analysis concludes that the use of CGM in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is beneficial, as it significantly reduces HbA1c compared to the usual method of SMBG. The pooled mean difference in HbA1c was -0.25 (-0.45, -0.06) and statistically significant (at p = 0.01) when comparing CGM to SMBG.