A Practical Approach to Using Trend Arrows on the Dexcom G5 CGM System for the Management of Adults With Diabetes

Grazia Aleppo, Lori M Laffel, Andrew J Ahmann, Irl B Hirsch, Davida F Kruger, Anne Peters, Ruth S Weinstock, Dennis R Harris, Grazia Aleppo, Lori M Laffel, Andrew J Ahmann, Irl B Hirsch, Davida F Kruger, Anne Peters, Ruth S Weinstock, Dennis R Harris

Abstract

After reviewing previously published methods, we developed a practical approach to adjusting insulin doses based on insulin sensitivity for adult patients with diabetes using rtCGM trend arrow data.

Keywords: continuous glucose monitoring; diabetes; fine-tuning; insulin dose adjustment; insulin dosing; trend arrows.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Dexcom G5 trend arrows. Dexcom G5 presents trend arrow data as icons on the Dexcom G5 Receiver and on the Dexcom G5 Mobile and Dexcom Follow apps (App) on compatible smart devices. According to the manufacturer, trend arrows indicate rates of glucose change (mg/dL per minute) and can be described as the anticipated glucose change in 30 minutes. Notably, the FLAT arrow (➡) indicates steady glucose values but does not indicate zero change. Note that trend arrows are determined by recent rtCGM measurements (generally the most recent 10 minutes of glucose values). In general, anticipated glucose may be less accurate when trying to predict changes over extended periods of time (e.g., beyond 20 to 30 minutes) due to the many factors that may influence glucose levels. Conversion: mg/dL × 0.0555 = mmol/L.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Previous methods to adjust insulin doses using trend arrows. Three previously published methods for adjusting insulin dose using rtCGM trend arrow data are compared [DirecNet (Abbott system) [6], Scheiner (Medtronic and Dexcom systems) [7], and Pettus/Edelman (Dexcom system)] [8]. The DirecNet method takes total insulin dosage including carbohydrate consumption (if any) into consideration. Scheiner and Pettus/Edelman methods are based on anticipated change in blood glucose with the Scheiner method being more conservative in insulin adjustment. Notably, the author of the Scheiner method has presented slightly modified values in recent presentations (personal communication) relative to past publication [7]. We use the more recently presented values in this comparison. All three require calculations beyond correction and carbohydrate consumption. All three assume the patient has insulin requiring diabetes and is using rapid-acting insulin for meals and correction. Note that the recently published Klonoff/Kerr formula recommends adjusting insulin doses by 1, 1.5, or 2 U supplements/decrements for rates of change of 1 to 2, 2 to 3, and >3 mg/dL/min, respectively [9]. Conversion: mg/dL × 0.0555 = mmol/L.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
New approach to adjust insulin doses using trend arrows in adults with diabetes. This figure outlines our approach to adjusting insulin dose using trend arrow data from the Dexcom G5. The approach is based on anticipated glucose change and typical insulin sensitivity ranges in adults. This simplified, practical approach provides adjustments in terms of insulin units over the range of insulin sensitivities to minimize additional calculations. It is generally recommended to start adjusting conservatively to understand how the recommendations impact individuals. The authors also recommend individuals use the REPLACE-BG study approach to minimize hypo- and hyperglycemia during the 4 hours following a meal (Fig. 4) rather than these insulin dose adjustments. It is essential to understand that adjusting insulin dose using trend arrows does not replace but adds to standard calculations using ICR and CF. The approach assumes the patient has insulin requiring diabetes, is using rapid-acting insulin for meals and correction, and is using ICR and CF factors that have been accurately determined. Conversion: mg/dL × 0.0555 = mmol/L. CF, correction factor in mg/dL indicates glucose lowering per unit of rapid-acting insulin; ICR, insulin to carbohydrate ratio; U, units of rapid-acting insulin.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Approach to postmeal monitoring and treatment using trend arrows. These suggestions are based on the REPLACE-BG trial [19], which demonstrated that the use of nonadjunctive rtCGM for insulin dose decisions was a safe and effective alternative to conventional adjunctive CGM use. In that setting, instructions were given to participants to monitor trend arrows and minimize glucose extremes following meals. It is especially important to take a standard approach to prevent insulin “stacking” and provide correction at appropriate times following meals. Importantly, these suggestions only use the patient’s CF and do not use the adjustments for trend arrows presented in Fig. 3. It is recommended that no corrective action be taken within the first 2 hours of eating to prevent glucose extremes. Recommendations serve as a guide for postprandial monitoring and correction. Beyond 4 hours, it is assumed that most, if not all, carbohydrate has entered the system and that there is no active insulin on board. In this case, the authors recommend using the trend arrows for dose adjustment (Fig. 3). Conversion: mg/dL × 0.0555 = mmol/L. CGM, continuous glucose monitor.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Sensitivity comparison of methods to adjust insulin doses using trend arrows in adult patients. The figure is a visual comparison of insulin dose adjustments according to previous methods based on anticipated glucose (Scheiner and Pettus/Edelman) and our suggested approach based on insulin sensitivity ranges (Endocrine Society approach). The illustration shows that our approach aligns well with existing methods that indirectly use insulin sensitivity to adjust insulin doses while overcoming some of the limitations (e.g., a need for additional calculations and minimum increments possible for MDI-treated patients). When applied to lower CF ranges (e.g., <25), our approach is more conservative, whereas in the midrange (e.g., 50 to <75), it is more aggressive. However, one must consider that the conversions used in our approach are based on 30 minutes. When considering the anticipated glucose at 1 hour, our suggested dose adjustments become more conservative. For example, a single UP trend arrow indicates that glucose is rising 2 to 3 mg/dL/min. At 30 minutes, the anticipated glucose would be 60 to 90 mg/dL higher. However, the anticipated glucose could be as much as 120 to 180 mg/dL higher at 60 minutes if exposed to other perturbations. If an individual’s CF was 60, our approach would recommend adding 1.5 U of rapid-acting insulin to the premeal bolus. The additional 1.5 U of insulin would be expected to provide additional glucose lowering of 60 mg/dL over the 60 minutes. Given that the 60-minute anticipated glucose could potentially be much higher at 1-hour, our suggestion could be considered conservative. The expected glucose would be closer to target, postprandially, without overcorrecting and without increasing risk for hypoglycemia. As noted, these recommendations are starting points and should be readjusted as experience increases and responsiveness is observed and understood. Conversion: mg/dL × 0.0555 = mmol/L. CF, correction factor in mg/dL indicates glucose lowering per unit of rapid-acting insulin; U, units of rapid-acting insulin.

References

    1. Beck RW, Riddlesworth T, Ruedy K, Ahmann A, Bergenstal R, Haller S, Kollman C, Kruger D, McGill JB, Polonsky W, Toschi E, Wolpert H, Price D; DIAMOND Study Group . Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections: the DIAMOND Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017;317(4):371–378.
    1. Battelino T, Conget I, Olsen B, Schütz-Fuhrmann I, Hommel E, Hoogma R, Schierloh U, Sulli N, Bolinder J; SWITCH Study Group . The use and efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy: a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia. 2012;55(12):3155–3162.
    1. Lind M, Polonsky W, Hirsch IB, Heise T, Bolinder J, Dahlqvist S, Schwarz E, Ólafsdóttir AF, Frid A, Wedel H, Ahlén E, Nyström T, Hellman J. Continuous glucose monitoring vs conventional therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections: the GOLD Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017;317(4):379–387.
    1. Beck RW, Riddlesworth TD, Ruedy KJ, Ahmann A, Haller S, Kruger D, Aronoff S, Aronson R, Toschi E, Kollman C, Bergenstal RM. Continuous glucose monitoring vs usual care in type 2 diabetes patients on multiple daily insulin injections: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(6):365–374.
    1. Ruedy KJ, Parkin CG, Riddlesworth TD, Graham C; DIAMOND Study Group . Continuous glucose monitoring in older adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes using multiple daily injections of insulin: results from the DIAMOND trial. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(6):1138–1146.
    1. Buckingham B, Xing D, Weinzimer S, Fiallo-Scharer R, Kollman C, Mauras N, Tsalikian E, Tamborlane W, Wysocki T, Ruedy K, Beck R; Diabetes Research In Children Network (DirecNet) Study Group . Use of the DirecNet Applied Treatment Algorithm (DATA) for diabetes management with a real-time continuous glucose monitor (the FreeStyle Navigator). Pediatr Diabetes. 2008;9(2):142–147.
    1. Scheiner G. Practical CGM: Improving Patient Outcomes Through Continuous Glucose Monitoring. 4th edAlexandria, VA: American Diabetes Association; 2015.
    1. Pettus J, Edelman SV. Recommendations for using real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) data for insulin adjustments in type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(1):138–147.
    1. Klonoff DC, Kerr D. A simplified approach using rate of change arrows to adjust insulin with real-time continuous glucose monitoring. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(6):1063–1069.
    1. Hirsch IB, Abelseth J, Bode BW, Fischer JS, Kaufman FR, Mastrototaro J, Parkin CG, Wolpert HA, Buckingham BA. Sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy: results of the first randomized treat-to-target study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2008;10(5):377–383.
    1. JDRF CGM Study Group JDRF randomized clinical trial to assess the efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in the management of type 1 diabetes: research design and methods. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2008;10(4):310–321.
    1. Scheiner G. Continuous glucose monitoring. Making sense of your numbers. Diabetes Self Manag. 2008;25(3):42, 44, 48–50.
    1. Peters AL, Ahmann AJ, Battelino T, Evert A, Hirsch IB, Murad MH, Winter WE, Wolpert H. Diabetes technology-continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy and continuous glucose monitoring in adults: an Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101(11):3922–3937.
    1. Fonseca VA, Grunberger G, Anhalt H, Bailey TS, Blevins T, Garg SK, Handelsman Y, Hirsch IB, Orzeck EA, Roberts VL, Tamborlane W; Consensus Conference Writing Committee . Continuous glucose monitoring: a consensus conference of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology. Endocr Pract. 2016;22(8):1008–1021.
    1. Faccioli S, Del Favero S, Visentin R, Bonfanti R, Iafusco D, Rabbone I, Marigliano M, Schiaffini R, Bruttomesso D, Cobelli C. PedArPan Study Group . Accuracy of a CGM sensor in pediatric subjects with type 1 diabetes. comparison of three insertion sites: arm, abdomen, and gluteus. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(6):1147–1154.
    1. Basu A, Veettil S, Dyer R, Peyser T, Basu R. Direct evidence of acetaminophen interference with subcutaneous glucose sensing in humans: a pilot study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18(Suppl 2):S243–S247.
    1. Maahs DM, DeSalvo D, Pyle L, Ly T, Messer L, Clinton P, Westfall E, Wadwa RP, Buckingham B. Effect of acetaminophen on CGM glucose in an outpatient setting. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(10):e158–e159.
    1. Klonoff DC, Nayberg I, Stauder U, Oualali H, Domenger C. Half-unit insulin pens: disease management in patients with diabetes who are sensitive to insulin. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(3):623–630.
    1. Aleppo G, Ruedy KJ, Riddlesworth TD, Kruger DF, Peters AL, Hirsch I, Bergenstal RM, Toschi E, Ahmann AJ, Shah VN, Rickels MR, Bode BW, Philis-Tsimikas A, Pop-Busui R, Rodriguez H, Eyth E, Bhargava A, Kollman C, Beck RW; REPLACE-BG Study Group . REPLACE-BG: a randomized trial comparing continuous glucose monitoring with and without routine blood glucose monitoring in adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(4):538–545.
    1. Weinstock RS, DuBose SN, Bergenstal RM, Chaytor NS, Peterson C, Olson BA, Munshi MN, Perrin AJ, Miller KM, Beck RW, Liljenquist DR, Aleppo G, Buse JB, Kruger D, Bhargava A, Goland RS, Edelen RC, Pratley RE, Peters AL, Rodriguez H, Ahmann AJ, Lock JP, Garg SK, Rickels MR, Hirsch IB; T1D Exchange Severe Hypoglycemia in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Study Group . Risk factors associated with severe hypoglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2015;39(4):603–610.
    1. Bremer JP, Jauch-Chara K, Hallschmid M, Schmid S, Schultes B. Hypoglycemia unawareness in older compared with middle-aged patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(8):1513–1517.
    1. Punthakee Z, Miller ME, Launer LJ, Williamson JD, Lazar RM, Cukierman-Yaffee T, Seaquist ER, Ismail-Beigi F, Sullivan MD, Lovato LC, Bergenstal RM, Gerstein HC; ACCORD Group of Investigators; ACCORD-MIND Investigators . Poor cognitive function and risk of severe hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes: post hoc epidemiologic analysis of the ACCORD trial. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(4):787–793.
    1. Giorda CB, Ozzello A, Gentile S, Aglialoro A, Chiambretti A, Baccetti F, Gentile FM, Lucisano G, Nicolucci A, Rossi MC; HYPOS-1 Study Group of AMD . Incidence and risk factors for severe and symptomatic hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. Results of the HYPOS-1 study. Acta Diabetol. 2015;52(5):845–853.
    1. Cariou B, Fontaine P, Eschwege E, Lièvre M, Gouet D, Huet D, Madani S, Lavigne S, Charbonnel B. Frequency and predictors of confirmed hypoglycaemia in type 1 and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in a real-life setting: results from the DIALOG study. Diabetes Metab. 2015;41(2):116–125.
    1. Bally L, Laimer M, Stettler C. Exercise-associated glucose metabolism in individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2015;18(4):428–433.
    1. Teich T, Riddell MC. The enhancement of muscle insulin sensitivity after exercise: a Rac1-independent handoff to some other player? Endocrinology. 2016;157(8):2999–3001.
    1. Riddell MC, Gallen IW, Smart CE, Taplin CE, Adolfsson P, Lumb AN, Kowalski A, Rabasa-Lhoret R, McCrimmon RJ, Hume C, Annan F, Fournier PA, Graham C, Bode B, Galassetti P, Jones TW, Millán IS, Heise T, Peters AL, Petz A, Laffel LM. Exercise management in type 1 diabetes: a consensus statement. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(5):377–390.
    1. Erbach M, Freckmann G, Hinzmann R, Kulzer B, Ziegler R, Heinemann L, Schnell O. Interferences and limitations in blood glucose self-testing: an overview of the current knowledge. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016;10(5):1161–1168.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren