Assessment of patient-led or physician-driven continuous glucose monitoring in patients with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes using basal-bolus insulin regimens: a 1-year multicenter study

Jean-Pierre Riveline, Pauline Schaepelynck, Lucy Chaillous, Eric Renard, Agnès Sola-Gazagnes, Alfred Penfornis, Nadia Tubiana-Rufi, Véronique Sulmont, Bogdan Catargi, Céline Lukas, Régis P Radermecker, Charles Thivolet, François Moreau, Pierre-Yves Benhamou, Bruno Guerci, Anne-Marie Leguerrier, Luc Millot, Claude Sachon, Guillaume Charpentier, Hélène Hanaire, EVADIAC Sensor Study Group, Jean-Pierre Riveline, Pauline Schaepelynck, Lucy Chaillous, Eric Renard, Agnès Sola-Gazagnes, Alfred Penfornis, Nadia Tubiana-Rufi, Véronique Sulmont, Bogdan Catargi, Céline Lukas, Régis P Radermecker, Charles Thivolet, François Moreau, Pierre-Yves Benhamou, Bruno Guerci, Anne-Marie Leguerrier, Luc Millot, Claude Sachon, Guillaume Charpentier, Hélène Hanaire, EVADIAC Sensor Study Group

Abstract

Objective: The benefits of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) have been demonstrated in patients with type 1 diabetes. Our aim was to compare the effect of two modes of use of CGM, patient led or physician driven, for 1 year in subjects with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes.

Research design and methods: Patients with type 1 diabetes aged 8-60 years with HbA(1c) ≥ 8% were randomly assigned to three groups (1:1:1). Outcomes for glucose control were assessed at 1 year for two modes of CGM (group 1: patient led; group 2: physician driven) versus conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose (group 3: control).

Results: A total of 257 subjects with type 1 diabetes underwent screening. Of these, 197 were randomized, with 178 patients completing the study (age: 36 ± 14 years; HbA(1c): 8.9 ± 0.9%). HbA(1c) improved similarly in both CGM groups and was reduced compared with the control group (group 1 vs. group 3: -0.52%, P = 0.0006; group 2 vs. group 3: -0.47%, P = 0.0008; groups 1 + 2 vs. group 3: -0.50%, P < 0.0001). The incidence of hypoglycemia was similar in the three groups. Patient SF-36 questionnaire physical health score improved in both experimental CGM groups (P = 0.004). Sensor consumption was 34% lower in group 2 than in group 1 (median [Q1-Q3] consumption: group 1: 3.42/month [2.20-3.91] vs. group 2: 2.25/month [1.27-2.99], P = 0.001).

Conclusions: Both patient-led and physician-driven CGM provide similar long-term improvement in glucose control in patients with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes, but the physician-driven CGM mode used fewer sensors.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00726440.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
HbA1c change from baseline (M0) at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in groups 1, 2, and 3. Values are means (95% CIs). The data correspond well to the estimated mean and CI of the model. *P < 0.05 for comparisons between the two experimental groups and the control group at each time point. M, month.

References

    1. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993;329:977–986
    1. American Diabetes Association Standards of medical care in diabetes—2011. Diabetes Care 2011;34(Suppl. 1):S11–S61
    1. Bode BW, Schwartz S, Stubbs HA, Block JE. Glycemic characteristics in continuously monitored patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: normative values. Diabetes Care 2005;28:2361–2366
    1. Thompson CJ, Cummings JF, Chalmers J, Gould C, Newton RW. How have patients reacted to the implications of the DCCT? Diabetes Care 1996;19:876–879
    1. Deiss D, Bolinder J, Riveline JP, et al. Improved glycemic control in poorly controlled patients with type 1 diabetes using real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care 2006;29:2730–2732
    1. Tamborlane WV, Beck RW, Bode BW, et al. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1464–1476
    1. Raccah D, Sulmont V, Reznik Y, et al. Incremental value of continuous glucose monitoring when starting pump therapy in patients with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes: the RealTrend study. Diabetes Care 2009;32:2245–2250
    1. McGarraugh GV, Clarke WL, Kovatchev BP. Comparison of the clinical information provided by the FreeStyle Navigator continuous interstitial glucose monitor versus traditional blood glucose readings. Diabetes Technol Ther 2010;12:365–371
    1. Renard E, Apostol D, Lauton D, Boulet F, Bringer J. Quality of life in diabetic patients treated by insulin pumps. Quality of Life Newsletter 2002;28:11–13
    1. Jacobson AM, de Groot M, Samson JA. The evaluation of two measures of quality of life in patients with type I and type II diabetes. Diabetes Care 1994;17:267–274
    1. Leplège A, Ecosse E, Verdier A, Perneger TV. The French SF-36 Health Survey: translation, cultural adaptation and preliminary psychometric evaluation. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:1013–1023
    1. Bergenstal RM, Tamborlane WV, Ahmann A, et al. STAR 3 Study Group Effectiveness of sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2010;363:311–320
    1. Bode B, Beck RW, Xing D, et al. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group Sustained benefit of continuous glucose monitoring on A1C, glucose profiles, and hypoglycemia in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009;32:2047–2049
    1. Battelino T, Phillip M, Bratina N, Nimri R, Oskarsson P, Bolinder J. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2011;34:795–800
    1. Beck RW, Hirsch IB, Laffel L, et al. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group The effect of continuous glucose monitoring in well-controlled type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009;32:1378–1383
    1. Hirsch IB, Abelseth J, Bode BW, et al. Sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy: results of the first randomized treat-to-target study. Diabetes Technol Ther 2008;10:377–383
    1. Hermanides J, DeVries JH. Sense and nonsense in sensors. Diabetologia 2010;53:593–596
    1. Jenkins AJ, Krishnamurthy B, Best JD, et al. An algorithm guiding patient responses to real-time-continuous glucose monitoring improves quality of life. Diabetes Technol Ther 2011;13:105–109
    1. Jenkins AJ, Krishnamurthy B, Best JD, et al. Evaluation of an algorithm to guide patients with type 1 diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion on how to respond to real-time continuous glucose levels: a randomized controlled trial [erratum in: Diabetes Care 2010;33:1911]. Diabetes Care 2010;33:1242–1248
    1. Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) Study Group Psychological aspects of continuous glucose monitoring in pediatric type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes 2006;7:32–38

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe