Abstract

AIMS OF THE STUDY The Eversense® CGM System is the first and only continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) that uses a fully subcutaneous implanted sensor. This study aimed to evaluate effectiveness, safety and patient-reported outcomes in patients using the Eversense® CGM System in a realistic clinical setting, assessed at a single Swiss diabetes centre (Luzerner Kantonsspital) with prolonged follow-up. METHODS This was a prospective and retrospective observational study that included patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus in whom at least one Eversense® glucose sensor was implanted between 2017 and 2022. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c levels from the baseline (before implantation of the sensor) to 6 ± 2 and 12 ± 2 months and the last follow-up (newest available value) after implantation. The secondary outcome measures were the number of premature sensor breakdowns, adverse events related to the implantation procedure (infection, bleeding, difficulties with implantation or explantation) and patient-related outcomes (assessed with a questionnaire). RESULTS A total of 33 patients participated in this study. The median follow-up time was 50 (IQR 22.3-58.5) months. In total, 178 sensor implantations were performed. Valid HbA1c results were available for 26 participants. Compared to the baseline values, HbA1c levels at 6 and 12 months and the last follow-up changed by -0.25%, -0.45 and -0.2 (p = 0.278, 0.308 and 0.296, respectively). We recorded 16 (9%) premature sensor breakdowns, all occurring between 2019 and 2020. Apart from one late-onset infection and four complicated sensor removals, no major complications were assessed. The results of the questionnaire showed a subjective improvement in hypoglycaemia rates, a better perception of hypoglycaemia and the impression of better diabetes management. Common issues with the device reported by the patients were technical errors (connection problems) and problems with the removal procedure. CONCLUSIONS The use of the Eversense® CGM System resulted in changes in HbA1c of between -0.2% and -0.45%. The rate of premature sensor breakdown was low. Major complications following sensor implantation or removal were absent, apart from one case of infection and four cases of complicated removal. Patient-reported outcomes with the Eversense® CGM System showed a subjective positive impact on hypoglycaemia rates, greater confidence in managing hypoglycaemia and diabetes in general, and easy handling of the transmitter and mobile app. Technical issues must be considered but are nowadays, with the use of the newest sensor generation, very rare.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE This post hoc analysis assessed continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based metrics and hypoglycemia duration with once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulin analogs in insulin-experienced individuals with long-standing type 2 diabetes from two 26-week phase 3a trials (ONWARDS 2 and ONWARDS 4). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Time in range (TIR) (3.9-10.0 mmol/L), time above range (TAR) (>10.0 mmol/L), and time below range (TBR) (<3.9 mmol/L and <3.0 mmol/L) were assessed during three CGM time periods (switch [weeks 0-4], end of treatment [weeks 22-26], and follow-up [weeks 27-31]) for icodec versus comparators (ONWARDS 2, insulin degludec [basal regimen]; ONWARDS 4, insulin glargine U100 [basal-bolus regimen]) using double-blind CGM data. CGM-derived hypoglycemic episode duration (<3.9 mmol/L) was assessed. RESULTS In both trials, there were no statistically significant differences in TIR, TAR, or TBR (<3.0 mmol/L) for icodec versus comparators across all time periods. In the end-of-treatment period, mean TIR was 63.1% (icodec) vs. 59.5% (degludec) in ONWARDS 2 and 66.9% (icodec) vs. 66.4% (glargine U100) in ONWARDS 4. Mean TBR <3.9 mmol/L and <3.0 mmol/L remained within recommended targets (<4% and <1%, respectively) across time periods and treatment arms. Hypoglycemic episode duration (<3.9 mmol/L) was comparable across time periods and treatment arms (median duration ≤40 min). CONCLUSIONS In insulin-experienced participants with long-standing type 2 diabetes, CGM-based TIR, TAR, and CGM-derived hypoglycemia duration (<3.9 mmol/L) were comparable for icodec and once-daily basal insulin analogs during all time periods. TBR remained within recommended targets.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves glycemic fluctuation and reduces hypoglycemic risk. Whether CGM-guided glycemic control favorably modulates coronary atherosclerosis in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) remains unknown. METHODS The OPTIMAL trial was a prospective, randomized, single-center trial in which 94 T2DM patients with CAD were randomized to CGM- or HbA1c-guided glycemic control for 48 weeks (jRCT1052180152). The primary endpoint was the nominal change in total atheroma volume (TAV) measured by serial IVUS. The secondary efficacy measure was the nominal change in maxLCBI4mm on near-infrared spectroscopy imaging. RESULTS Among the 94 randomized patients, 82 had evaluable images at 48 weeks. Compared to HbA1c-guided glycemic control, CGM-guided control achieved a greater reduction in %coefficient of variation [-0.1 % (-1.8 to 1.6) vs. -3.3 % (-5.1 to -1.5), p = 0.01] and a greater increase in the duration with glucose between 70 and 180 mg/dL [-1.5 % (-6.0 to 2.9) vs. 6.7 % (1.9 to 11.5), p = 0.02]. TAV increased by 0.11 ± 1.9 mm3 in the HbA1c-guided group and decreased by -3.29 ± 2.00 mm3 in the CGM-guided group [difference = -3.4 mm3 (95%CI: -8.9 to 2.0 mm3), p = 0.22]. MaxLCBI4mm, increased by 90.1 ± 25.6 in the HbA1c-guided group and by 50.6 ± 25.6 in the CGM-guided group (difference = -45.6 (95%CI: -118.1 to 26.7) p = 0.21]. A post-hoc exploratory analysis showed a greater regression of maxLCBI4mm in the CGM-guided group [difference = 20.4 % (95%CI:1.3 to 39.5 %), p = 0.03]. CONCLUSIONS CGM-guided control for 48 weeks did not slow disease progression in T2DM patients with CAD. A greater regression of lipidic plaque under CGM-guided glycemic control in the post-hoc analysis requires further investigation.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Accuracy of a seventh-generation "G7" continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system was evaluated in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS Sensors were worn on the upper arm and abdomen. The CGM data were available from 127 of 132 participants, ages 7 to 17 years, across 10.5 days of use, various glucose concentration ranges, and various rates of glucose change for comparisons with temporally matched venous blood glucose measurements (YSI). Data were also available from 28 of 32 participants, ages 2 to 6 years, for whom capillary (fingerstick) blood provided comparator glucose values. Accuracy metrics included the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) between CGM and comparator glucose pairs, the proportion of CGM values within 15 mg/dL or 15% of comparator values <100 or ≥100 mg/dL, respectively, and the analogous %20/20 and %30/30 agreement rates. RESULTS For participants aged 7 to 17, a total of 15 437 matched pairs were obtained from 122 arm-placed and 118 abdomen-placed sensors. For arm-placed sensors, the overall MARD was 8.1% and overall %15/15, %20/20, and %30/30 agreement rates were 88.8%, 95.3%, and 98.7%, respectively. For abdomen-placed sensors, the overall MARD was 9.0% and overall %15/15, %20/20, and %30/30 agreement rates were 86.0%, 92.9%, and 97.7%, respectively. Good accuracy was maintained across wear days, glucose ranges, and rates of glucose change. Among those aged 2 to 6, a total of 343 matched pairs provided an overall MARD of 9.3% and an overall %20/20 agreement rate of 91.5%. CONCLUSIONS The G7 CGM placed on the arm or abdomen was accurate in children and adolescents with T1D. NCT#: NCT04794478.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES Achieving optimal glycemic outcomes in young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is challenging. This study examined the durability of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) coupled with a family behavioral intervention (FBI) to improve glycemia. STUDY DESIGN This one-year study included an initial 26-week randomized controlled trial of CGM with FBI (CGM+FBI) and CGM alone (Standard-CGM) compared with blood glucose monitoring (BGM), followed by a 26-week extension phase wherein the BGM Group received the CGM+FBI (BGM-Crossover) and both original CGM groups continued this technology. RESULTS Time in range (70-180 mg/dL) did not improve with CGM use (CGM+FBI: baseline 37%, 52 weeks 41%; Standard-CGM: baseline 41%, 52 weeks 44%; BGM-Crossover: 26 weeks 38%, 52 weeks 40%). All three groups sustained decreases in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) with CGM use (CGM+FBI: baseline 3.4%, 52 weeks 2.0%; Standard-CGM: baseline 4.1%, 52 weeks 2.1%; BGM-Crossover: 26 weeks 4.5%, 52 weeks 1.7%, P-values <.001). Hemoglobin A1c was unchanged with CGM use (CGM+FBI: baseline 8.3%, 52 weeks 8.2%; Standard-CGM: baseline 8.2%, 52 weeks 8.0%; BGM-Crossover: 26 weeks 8.1%, 52 weeks 8.3%). Sensor use remained high (52-week study visit: CGM+FBI 91%, Standard-CGM 92%, BGM-Crossover 88%). CONCLUSION Over 12 months young children with T1D using newer CGM technology sustained reductions in hypoglycemia and, in contrast to prior studies, persistently wore CGM. However, pervasive hyperglycemia remained unmitigated. This indicates an urgent need for further advances in diabetes technology, behavioral support, and diabetes management educational approaches to optimize glycemia in young children.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Assess the safety and efficacy of automated insulin delivery (AID) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) at high risk for hypoglycemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Participants were 72 adults with T1D who used an insulin pump with Clarke Hypoglycemia Perception Awareness scale score >3 and/or had severe hypoglycemia during the previous 6 months confirmed by time below range (TBR; defined as sensor glucose [SG] reading <70 mg/dL) of at least 5% during 2 weeks of blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Parallel-arm, randomized trial (2:1) of AID (Tandem t:slim ×2 with Control-IQ technology) versus CGM and pump therapy for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was TBR change from baseline. Secondary outcomes included time in target range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL), time above range (TAR), mean SG reading, and time with glucose level <54 mg/dL. An optional 12-week extension with AID was offered to all participants. RESULTS Compared with the sensor and pump (S&P), AID resulted in significant reduction of TBR by -3.7% (95% CI -4.8, -2.6), P < 0.001; an 8.6% increase in TIR (95% CI 5.2, 12.1), P < 0.001; and a -5.3% decrease in TAR (95% CI -87.7, -1.8), P = 0.004. Mean SG reading remained similar in the AID and S&P groups. During the 12-week extension, the effects of AID were sustained in the AID group and reproduced in the S&P group. Two severe hypoglycemic episodes occurred using AID. CONCLUSIONS In adults with T1D at high risk for hypoglycemia, AID reduced the risk for hypoglycemia more than twofold, as quantified by TBR, while improving TIR and reducing hyperglycemia. Hence, AID is strongly recommended for this specific population.

Abstract

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS Lifestyle modification and weight loss are cornerstones of type 2 diabetes management. However, carbohydrate restriction may have weight-independent beneficial effects on glycaemic control. This has been difficult to demonstrate because low-carbohydrate diets readily decrease body weight. We hypothesised that carbohydrate restriction enhances the beneficial metabolic effects of weight loss in type 2 diabetes. METHODS This open-label, parallel RCT included adults with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c 48-97 mmol/mol (6.5-11%), BMI >25 kg/m2, eGFR >30 ml min-1 [1.73 m]-2 and glucose-lowering therapy restricted to metformin or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. Participants were randomised by a third party and assigned to 6 weeks of energy restriction (all foods were provided) aiming at ~6% weight loss with either a carbohydrate-reduced high-protein diet (CRHP, percentage of total energy intake [E%]: CH30/P30/F40) or a conventional diabetes diet (CD, E%: CH50/P17/F33). Fasting blood samples, continuous glucose monitoring and magnetic resonance spectroscopy were used to assess glycaemic control, lipid metabolism and intrahepatic fat. Change in HbA1c was the primary outcome; changes in circulating and intrahepatic triacylglycerol were secondary outcomes. Data were collected at Copenhagen University Hospital (Bispebjerg and Herlev). RESULTS Seventy-two adults (CD 36, CRHP 36, all white, 38 male sex) with type 2 diabetes (mean duration 8 years, mean HbA1c 57 mmol/mol [7.4%]) and mean BMI of 33 kg/m2 were enrolled, of which 67 (CD 33, CRHP 34) completed the study. Body weight decreased by 5.8 kg (5.9%) in both groups after 6 weeks. Compared with the CD diet, the CRHP diet further reduced HbA1c (mean [95% CI] -1.9 [-3.5, -0.3] mmol/mol [-0.18 (-0.32, -0.03)%], p = 0.018) and diurnal mean glucose (mean [95% CI] -0.8 [-1.2, -0.4] mmol/l, p < 0.001), stabilised glucose excursions by reducing glucose CV (mean [95% CI] -4.1 [-5.9, -2.2]%, p < 0.001), and augmented the reductions in fasting triacylglycerol concentration (by mean [95% CI] -18 [-29, -6]%, p < 0.01) and liver fat content (by mean [95% CI] -26 [-45, 0]%, p = 0.051). However, pancreatic fat content was decreased to a lesser extent by the CRHP than the CD diet (mean [95% CI] 33 [7, 65]%, p = 0.010). Fasting glucose, insulin, HOMA2-IR and cholesterol concentrations (total, LDL and HDL) were reduced significantly and similarly by both diets. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION Moderate carbohydrate restriction for 6 weeks modestly improved glycaemic control, and decreased circulating and intrahepatic triacylglycerol levels beyond the effects of weight loss itself compared with a CD diet in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Concurrent differences in protein and fat intakes, and the quality of dietary macronutrients, may have contributed to these results and should be explored in future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03814694. FUNDING The study was funded by Arla Foods amba, The Danish Dairy Research Foundation, and Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg Frederiksberg.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of different glucose monitoring methods on blood glucose control and the incidence of adverse events among patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Methods: Using the method of literature review, the databases PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase were retrieved to obtain relevant research literature, and the selected studies were analyzed and evaluated. This study used Cochrane software RevMan5.4 to statistically analyze all the data. Results: A total of 15 studies were included in this study, including 10 randomized controlled trials and 5 crossover design trials, with a total of 2071 patients. Meta-analysis results showed that continuous blood glucose monitoring (CGM) could significantly reduce the HbA1c level of patients, weighted mean difference (WMD) = -2.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-4.25, -1.14), and P < 0.001 compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Meanwhile, the incidence of severe hypoglycemia in the CGM group was significantly decreased, risk ratio (RR) = 0.52, 95% CI 0.35-0.77, and P = 0.001. However, there was no statistical difference in the probability of diabetic ketoacidosis between CGM and SMBG groups, RR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.57-3.15, and P = 0.5. Conclusion: Continuous blood glucose monitoring is associated with lower blood glucose levels than the traditional blood glucose self-test method.

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of probiotics and glucose-lowering drugs (thiazolidinedione [TZD], glucagon-like pep-tide-1 receptor agonists [GLP-1 RA], dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors, and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors [SGLT-2i]) in patients with type 2 diabetes from randomized con-trolled trials (RCTs). The PubMed, Web of science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched on the treatment effects of probiotics and glucose-lowering drugs on glycemia, lipids, and blood pressure metabolism published between Jan 2015 and April 2021. We performed meta-analyses using the random-effects model. We included 25 RCTs (2,843 participants). Overall, GLP-1RA, SGLT-2i, and TZD significantly reduce fasting blood sugar (FBS) and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), whereas GLP-1 RA increased the risk of hypoglycaemia. Multispecies probiotics decrease FBS, total cholesterol (TC), and systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP). Moreover, subgroup analyses indicated that participants aged >55 years, BMI ≥30 kg/m2, longer duration of intervention, and subjects from Eastern countries, showed significantly higher reduction in FBS and HbA1c, TC, TG and SBP. This meta-analysis revealed that including multiple probiotic rather than glucose-lowering drugs might be more beneficial regarding T2D prevention who suffering from simultaneously hyperglycemia, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension.

Abstract

BACKGROUND This study aims to investigate the prevalence estimate of diabetes mellitus (DM) among people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as well as the prevalence of ADHD among those with DM. In addition, the impact of ADHD on glycemic control in patients with DM was also assessed using a systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available published data. MATERIALS AND METHODS The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycInfo databases were searched for potential studies. Two reviewers independently selected studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All pooled analyses were conducted using the random-effects models on Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS Seventeen observational studies were included. The pooled results showed an increase in the prevalence of DM among patients with ADHD versus those without ADHD [type 1 DM OR 1.37 (95% CI: 1.17-1.61); type 2 DM OR 2.05 (95% CI: 1.37-3.07)]. There was an overall 35% increase in the prevalence of ADHD among patients with type 1 DM [OR: 1.35 (95% CI: 1.08-1.73)]. Children with type 1 DM and ADHD had higher levels of hemoglobin A1c [standardized mean of differences: 0.67 (95% CI: 0.48-0.86)], and prevalence of hypoglycemic and ketoacidosis index compared with those without ADHD. CONCLUSION Our study revealed the bidirectional associations between ADHD and DM. Patients with ADHD and type 1 DM comorbidities were more likely to have poorer diabetes control. More studies are needed to confirm this association and elucidate the underlying mechanism.