The Effects and Effect Sizes of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Secondary Analysis of the HypoDE Study

Associations between use of diabetes technology and diabetes distress: a Danish cross-sectional survey of adults with type 1 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

The study aimed to investigate independent and combined associations between insulin delivery method (insulin pump therapy (IPT) vs multiple daily injections (MDI)), glucose monitoring method (intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) and real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) vs blood glucose metre (BGM)) and diabetes distress (DD) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We combined data from two Danish questionnaire-based surveys, the Steno Tech Survey (n=1591) and the Type 1 Diabetes Distress Scale (T1-DDS) validation survey (n=4205), in which individuals aged ≥18 years with T1D were invited to participate. The 28-item T1-DDS was used to measure DD and DD scores were categorised as little or no distress (score <2.0), moderate distress (2.0-2.9) and high distress (score ≥3.0). Associations between insulin delivery, glucose monitoring methods and DD were assessed using linear regression.

RESULTS

Among 2068 adults with T1D who responded to one of the surveys, the use of IPT was associated with a lower total T1-DDS score (-0.09, 95% CI 0.16 to -0.03) compared with MDI and adjusted for glucose monitoring method. The use of CGM was associated with a higher total T1-DDS score (0.11, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.18) compared with BGM and adjusted for the insulin delivery method. IPT was still associated with a lower T1-DDS score, regardless of being combined with BGM (-0.17, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.06) or CGM (-0.13, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.05), compared with MDI with CGM. No association was found between the type of CGM (isCGM vs rtCGM) and DD among either IPT or MDI users when restricting analysis to individuals using CGM.

CONCLUSIONS

Among Danish adults with T1D, the use of IPT was associated with lower levels of DD, while CGM use was associated with higher levels of DD. DD should be addressed when introducing people with T1D to diabetes technology, CGM in particular.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04311164 (Results).

Person-reported outcomes in diabetes care: What are they and why are they so important?

In this review, we aim to show how person-reported outcomes (PROs) and person-reported experiences (PREs) can significantly contribute to the way diabetes care is delivered, the involvement of people with diabetes in diabetes care, and the collaboration between health care professionals and people with diabetes. This review focuses on the definition and measurement of PROs and PREs, the importance of PROs and PREs for person-centred diabetes care, and integrating the perspectives of people with diabetes in the evaluation of medical, psychological and technological interventions. PROs have been increasingly accepted by Health Technology Assessment bodies and are therefore valued in the context of reimbursement decisions and consequently by regulators and other health care stakeholders for the allocation of health care resources. Furthermore, the review identified current challenges to the assessment and use of PROs and PREs in clinical care and research. These challenges relate to the combination of questionnaires and ecological momentary assessment for measuring PROs and PREs, lack of consensus on a core outcome set, limited sensitivity to change within many measures and insufficient standardization of what can be considered a minimal clinically important difference. Another issue that has not been sufficiently addressed is the involvement of people with diabetes in the design and development of measures to assess PROs and PREs.

Effect of diabetes technologies on the fear of hypoglycaemia among people living with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Fear of hypoglycaemia (FOH) significantly disrupts the daily management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and increases the risk of complications. Recent technological advances can improve glucose metrics and reduce hypoglycaemia frequency, yet their impact on FOH is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aimed to synthesize the current literature to understand the impact of diabetes technologies on FOH in T1D.

Methods

In this SRMA, we searched PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception up to May 21st, 2023 for studies assessing the effect of using real-time or intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitors (rtCGM or isCGM); insulin pumps (CSII); and their combinations on FOH as the primary outcome, measured using the Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey (HFS; including total, worries [HFS-W], and behaviours [HFS-B] scores), in non-pregnant adults with T1D. Data was extracted by the first and second authors. Results were pooled using a random-effects model based on study design (RCT and non-RCT), with subgroup analysis based on the type of technology, reported change in hypoglycaemia frequency, and duration of use. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane and Joanna Briggs Institute tools. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021253618.

Findings

A total of 51 studies (n = 8966) were included, 22 of which were RCTs. Studies on rtCGM and CSII reported lower FOH levels with ≥8 weeks of use. Studies on CSII and rtCGM combinations reported lower FOH levels after ≥13 weeks of automated insulin delivery (AID) use or 26 weeks of sensor-augmented pump (SAP) use. The meta-analysis showed an overall lower FOH with technologies, specifically for the HFS-W subscale. The RCT meta-analysis showed lower HFS-W scores with rtCGM use (standard mean difference [95%CI]: -0.14 [-0.23, -0.05], I2 = 0%) and AID (-0.17 [-0.33, -0.01], I2 = 0%). Results from non-RCT studies show that SAP users (-0.33 [-0.38, -0.27], I2 = 0%) and rtCGM users (-0.38 [-0.61, -0.14], I2 = 0%) had lower HFS-W.

Interpretation

We found consistent, yet small to moderate, effects supporting that diabetes technologies (specifically rtCGM, SAP, and AID) may reduce hypoglycaemia-related worries in adults with T1D. Current literature, however, has limitations including discrepancies in baseline characteristics and limited, mainly descriptive, statistical analysis. Thus, future studies should assess FOH as a primary outcome, use validated surveys, and appropriate statistical analysis to evaluate the clinical impacts of technology use beyond just glucose metrics.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Ltd.

Treatment Satisfaction and Well-Being With CGM in People With T1D: An Analysis Based on the GOLD Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

The GOLD trial demonstrated that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) managed with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) improved not only glucose control but also overall well-being and treatment satisfaction. This analysis investigated which factors contributed to improved well-being and treatment satisfaction with CGM.

METHODS

The GOLD trial was a randomized crossover trial comparing CGM versus self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) over 16 months. Endpoints included well-being measured by the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5) and treatment satisfaction by the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) as well as glucose metrics. Multivariable R2-decomposition was used to understand which variables contributed most to treatment satisfaction.

RESULTS

A total of 139 participants were included. Multivariable analyses revealed that increased convenience and flexibility contributed to 60% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 50%-69%) of the improvement in treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version [DTSQc]) observed with CGM, whereas perceived effects on hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia only contributed to 6% (95% CI = 2%-11%) of improvements. Significant improvements in well-being (WHO-5) by CGM were observed for the following: feeling cheerful (P = .025), calm and relaxed (P = .024), being active (P = .046), and waking up fresh and rested (P = .044). HbA1c reductions and increased time in range (TIR) were associated with increased treatment satisfaction, whereas glycemic variability was not. HbA1c reduction showed also an association with increased well-being and increased TIR with less diabetes-related distress.

CONCLUSIONS

While CGM improves glucose control in people with T1D on MDI, increased convenience and flexibility through CGM is of even greater importance for treatment satisfaction and patient well-being. These CGM-mediated effects should be taken into account when considering CGM initiation.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on the Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Optimizing Diabetes Management

Diabetes is prevalent, and it imposes a substantial public health burden globally and in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region. The cornerstone for optimizing diabetes management and treatment outcomes is glucose monitoring, the techniques of which have evolved from self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) to glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Contextual differences with Western populations and limited regionally generated clinical evidence warrant regional standards of diabetes care, including glucose monitoring in APAC. Hence, the APAC Diabetes Care Advisory Board convened to gather insights into clinician-reported CGM utilization for optimized glucose monitoring and diabetes management in the region. We discuss the findings from a pre-meeting survey and an expert panel meeting regarding glucose monitoring patterns and influencing factors, patient profiles for CGM initiation and continuation, CGM benefits, and CGM optimization challenges and potential solutions in APAC. While CGM is becoming the new standard of care and a useful adjunct to HbA1c and SMBG globally, glucose monitoring type, timing, and frequency should be individualized according to local and patient-specific contexts. The results of this APAC survey guide methods for the formulation of future APAC-specific consensus guidelines for the application of CGM in people living with diabetes.

Applications of continuous glucose monitoring across settings and populations: Report from the 23rd Hong Kong diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors-East meets west symposium

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is now an integral part of glycaemic management in people with type 1 diabetes and those with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. Immediate access to information on CGM glucose levels and trends helps to inform food choices, titration and timing of insulin doses and prompts corrective actions in the event of impending hypo- or hyperglycaemia. Although glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) remains an important measure of the average of glucose, CGM metrics including time-in-range (TIR) and other metrics on glycaemic variability and hypoglycaemia are strongly endorsed by people with diabetes as impacting their daily lives. There is growing consensus on definitions and targets of CGM metrics with an increasing number of studies demonstrating correlations between CGM metrics and incident complications of diabetes. Implementation of new technologies needs to take into consideration factors such as cost-effectiveness, accessibility as well as acceptability of the person with diabetes and healthcare professional. The United Kingdom is one of the few countries that have developed clinical pathways for integrating CGM into the routine care of people with type 1 diabetes. Besides type 1 diabetes, special groups such as people with impaired kidney function and women during pregnancy may derive additional benefits from CGM.

Time With Diabetes Distress and Glycemia-Specific Distress: New Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for the Psychosocial Burden of Diabetes Using Ecological Momentary Assessment in an Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate time with diabetes distress using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) in people with type 1 diabetes and analyze its associations with glycemic management based on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We used EMA to assess diabetes distress in a sample of recently hospitalized adults with type 1 diabetes once a day for 17 consecutive days in an ambulatory setting. Additionally, participants were asked daily about hypoglycemia distress (<70 mg/dL [3.9 mmol/L]), hyperglycemia distress (>180 mg/dL [10 mmol/L]), and variability distress (glucose fluctuations). Per person, the percentage of days with elevated distress was calculated (time with distress). Multilevel regression was used to analyze daily associations of distress ratings with CGM-derived parameters. EMA-derived associations between diabetes distress and glycemic outcomes were compared with questionnaire-derived associations.

RESULTS

Data of 178 participants were analyzed. Participants spent a mean (SD) of days in a state of diabetes distress, 54.6 ± 26.0% in hyperglycemia distress, 45.2 ± 27.5% in variability distress, and 23.0 ± 19.3% in hypoglycemia distress. In multilevel analyses, higher daily ratings of diabetes distress were significantly associated with hyperglycemia (β = 0.41). Results showed high between-person variability as explanation of variance of the models ranged between 22.2 and 98.8%. EMA-derived diabetes distress showed a significant association with mean glucose (r = 0.25), while questionnaire-based diabetes distress did not (r = 0.10). Prospectively, time with diabetes distress was associated with HbA1c at the 3-month follow-up (r = 0.27), while questionnaire-based distress showed no association (r = 0.11).

CONCLUSIONS

Time with distress as assessed with EMA showed a comparative advantage over distress as determined by questionnaire-based assessment of diabetes distress regarding associations with glycemic management.

Patch Pumps: What are the advantages for people with diabetes?

AIM

Patch pumps, i.e. insulin pumps without tubing, are an attractive alternative to conventional insulin pumps for people with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy. In this review, potential patient-relevant advantages and disadvantages of patch pumps are summarized and respective studies on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are assessed.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified through a systematic PubMed search. Reference lists in respective articles and Google Scholar were also checked for additional references. Articles in English published before June 30, 2021, were included; no other criteria on publication dates were set.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included. The results of this analysis provide evidence that patch pumps improve quality of life, reduce diabetes-related distress, increase patient satisfaction, and are preferred by patients compared to conventional insulin pumps and multiple daily injection therapy (MDI). However, several methodological limitations of the studies identified constrain the significance of this analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limited number of studies evaluating the benefits of patch pumps on PROs, there is increasing evidence that people with diabetes prefer patch pumps. Although there are numerous PROs for patch pumps, it is surprising that this aspect has been relatively understudied. More systematic evaluation studies of the benefits of patch pumps on PROs are needed.

Impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia in women with type 1 diabetes in pregnancy: Hypoglycaemia fear, glycaemic and pregnancy outcomes

AIMS

To examine maternal fear of hypoglycaemia, glycaemia and pregnancy outcomes in women with impaired and normal awareness of hypoglycaemia.

METHODS

A pre-planned sub-study of 214 pregnant women with type 1 diabetes who participated in the CONCEPTT trial. Participants completed hypoglycaemia fear surveys (HFS-II) at baseline. Logistic regression and Poisson regression analyses were used to obtain an adjusted estimate for the rate ratio relating awareness to the number of severe hypoglycaemic episodes, and for several neonatal outcomes in relation to the total HFS-II score. The role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use was examined.

RESULTS

Overall, 30% of participants reported impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (n = 64). Women with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia had more episodes of severe hypoglycaemia (mean 0.44 vs. 0.08, p < 0.001) (12-34 weeks gestation) and scored higher on the HFS-II scale (43.7 vs. 36.0, p 0.008), indicating more fear of hypoglycaemia. They spent more time below range (CGM <3.5 mmol/L) and exhibited more glycaemic variability at 12 weeks gestation. Higher overall HFS-II scores were associated with a higher risk of maternal severe hypoglycaemia episodes (Rate Ratio 1.78, 95% CI 1.39-2.27). Women with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia had less maternal weight gain but there were no differences in neonatal outcomes between women with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia and normal hypoglycaemia awareness. Higher HFS-II scores were associated with more nephropathy (Odds Ratio 1.91, 95% CI 1.06-3.4). CGM use after 12 weeks was not associated with the number of episodes of severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49-1.15; p = 0.18).

CONCLUSIONS

In pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia is associated with more maternal severe hypoglycaemia episodes and more fear of hypoglycaemia. Having impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia and/or fear of hypoglycaemia should alert clinicians to this increased risk. Reassuringly, there was no increase in adverse neonatal outcomes.

Common Sense Model program on illness perceptions in patients with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia

BACKGROUND

Illness perceptions are important for patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH), as they determine health-related behaviors and motivations. Patients with IAH in many countries have poor illness perception, and there is a paucity of research exploring the effectiveness of Common Sense Model (CSM)-based interventions in this population.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of a CSM-based intervention program on perceptions of illness in patients with insulin-treated T2DM and IAH.

DESIGN

Quasi-randomized controlled trialMethods: 78 patients with IAH receiving routine care were included. The intervention group (n = 39) participated in a CSM-based program, whereas the control group (n = 39) did not. Illness perceptions, coping styles, hypoglycemia fear, and awareness of hypoglycemia at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months were analyzed and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The intervention group exhibited significant improvements in consequences (β = -1.615, P = 0.032); personal control (β = -1.897, P = 0.006); treatment control (β = -1.274, P = 0.046); and positive coping style (β = 4.872, P = 0.002) at the 3-month follow-up, and timeline (β = 2.769, P = 0.004) at the 1-month follow-up. Hypoglycemia fear and awareness were not significantly improved in the intervention group compared with the control group. No intervention-related adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

A CSM-based intervention program can modify illness perceptions to an extent and improve the positive coping style in patients with IAH.Impact statement: Nurses should conduct a CSM-based intervention program to help patients with IAH improve illness perceptions.

Health care effects and medical benefits of a smartphone-based diabetes self-management application: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Diabetes self-management is a mainstay of diabetes care, but the implementation of self-management regimens into daily life is complex and often results in discouragement and distress. Modern approaches such as smartphone-based self-management applications are therefore needed to support people with diabetes. Since reimbursability would increase the availability of such digital applications to people with diabetes, we designed a study that meets all scientific and methodological requirements set by the German Digital Healthcare Act to allow reimbursement for a specific application (mySugr PRO). Here, we report the protocol of this study that aims at evaluating the efficacy of the digital self-management application with regard to patient-reported outcomes and medical benefits.

Methods/design

This multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group, controlled trial will evaluate the health care effects and medical benefits of mySugr PRO. A total of 466 people with diabetes will be randomly allocated (2:1 randomization) to the interventional group (n = 311) that will use the digital self-management application during the 12-week study period or the control group (n = 155; no usage of the application). Baseline and follow-up examinations will assess diabetes distress as the primary endpoint as well as empowerment, HbA1c, blood glucose data, self-management, general well-being, and treatment satisfaction as secondary endpoints. Statistical analyses will use an intention-to-treat procedure (using multiple imputation for missing values) as well as a per-protocol approach for sensitivity analysis.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this study will be one of the largest diabetes-specific evaluations of a digital health application supporting people with diabetes in their diabetes self-management that follow the requirements of the German Digital Healthcare Act.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00022923. Registered on 22 October 2020.

Real-World Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Systems Among Adolescents and Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Reduced Burden, but Little Interest in Data Analysis

BACKGROUND

Since 2016, German health insurance companies reimburse continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems for persons with insulin-dependent diabetes, leading to a tremendous increase of CGM use. This study assessed the use of CGM, the satisfaction with, and the data analysis behavior among young people.

METHODS

During a diabetes camp for young people from all over Germany, participants anonymously answered a questionnaire on their method of glucose monitoring, satisfaction and quality of CGM use, HbA1c, and diabetes distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale [PAID]-5).

RESULTS

A total of 308 participants (age 21.4 ± 3.5 years; 73% female; diabetes duration 10.1 ± 5.9 years) completed the questionnaire. Approximately, 25% used self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), 46% intermittent-scanning continuous glucose monitoring (iscCGM), and 30% real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM). Mean HbA1c was slightly, but not significantly, higher among SMBG users compared with CGM users (8.0% ± 1.9% vs. 7.7% ± 1.4%; P = .791). Diabetes distress was not associated with the method of glucose monitoring (SMBG 5.6 vs. iscCGM 6.2 vs. rtCGM 6.5; P = .386). Overall, satisfaction with CGM use was very high; 98% of the CGM users reported better well-being with CGM compared with previous SMBG use. Only 19% of CGM users reported regular data analyses; their HbA1c was lower compared with other CGM users (7.2% ± 1.2% vs. 7.7% ± 1.4%; P = .039).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large sample of young people, 75% were using a CGM system. Treatment satisfaction was very high, but CGM use was not associated with reduced diabetes distress or better glycemic control. However, young people who regularly analyzed their CGM data reported lower HbA1c levels.

Associations of Time in Range and Other Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Derived Metrics With Well-Being and Patient-Reported Outcomes: Overview and Trends

Time in glucose ranges is increasingly relevant for research and clinical practice. Whereas the clinical validity of these metrics has been demonstrated with regard to long-term complications, their associations with patient-reported outcomes such as well-being, diabetes distress, and fear of hypoglycemia remain an open research question. This article reviews existing evidence on links between times in glycemic ranges and patient-reported outcomes. It also describes a novel research approach of using ecological momentary assessment to analyze on a more granular level in real time possible associations of these parameters of glycemic control and patient-reported outcomes. Such an approach could further our understanding of how glucose and patient-reported outcomes may be interconnected.