Effect of flash glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes: a nationwide, longitudinal observational study of 14,372 flash users compared with 7691 glucose sensor naive controls

David Nathanson, Ann-Marie Svensson, Mervete Miftaraj, Stefan Franzén, Jan Bolinder, Katarina Eeg-Olofsson, David Nathanson, Ann-Marie Svensson, Mervete Miftaraj, Stefan Franzén, Jan Bolinder, Katarina Eeg-Olofsson

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis: The aim of this work was to evaluate changes in glycaemic control (HbA1c) and rates of severe hypoglycaemia over a 2 year period after initiation of flash glucose monitoring (FM) in type 1 diabetes.

Methods: Using data from the Swedish National Diabetes Registry, 14,372 adults with type 1 diabetes with a new registration of FM during 2016-2017 and with continued FM for two consecutive years thereafter, and 7691 control individuals using conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) during the same observation period, were included in a cohort study. Propensity sores and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to balance FM users with SMBG users. Changes in HbA1c and events of severe hypoglycaemia were compared.

Results: After the start of FM, the difference in IPTW change in HbA1c was slightly greater in FM users compared with the control group during the follow-up period, with an estimated mean absolute difference of -1.2 mmol/mol (-0.11%) (95% CI -1.64 [-0.15], -0.75 [-0.07]; p < 0.0001) after 15-24 months. The change in HbA1c was greatest in those with baseline HbA1c ≥70 mmol/mol (8.5%), with the estimated mean absolute difference being -2.5 mmol/mol (-0.23%) (95% CI -3.84 [-0.35], -1.18 [-0.11]; p = 0.0002) 15-24 months post index. The change was also significant in the subgroups with initial HbA1c ≤52 mmol/mol (6.9%) and 53-69 mmol/mol (7.0-8.5%). Risk of severe hypoglycaemic episodes was reduced by 21% for FM users compared with control individuals using SMBG (OR 0.79 [95% CI 0.69, 0.91]; p = 0.0014)].

Conclusions/interpretation: In this large cohort, the use of FM was associated with a small and sustained improvement in HbA1c, most evident in those with higher baseline HbA1c levels. In addition, FM users experienced lower rates of severe hypoglycaemic events compared with control individuals using SMBG for self-management of glucose control.

Keywords: Continuous glucose monitoring; Flash glucose monitoring; Glucose control; Hypoglycaemia; Type 1 diabetes.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart for selection process of the study population
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Weighted (IPTW) change in HbA1c and 95% CIs for FM users and control individuals during the observational period from index up to 20 months after index. n=the total number of observations contributing at each time point
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
General updated mean HbA1c for FM users (a) and for control individuals (b), categorised into low (≤52 mmol/mol), intermediate (53–69 mmol/mol) and high (≥70 mmol/mol) HbA1c levels. The graphs show unadjusted data, therefore a comparison between the groups based on the figure should be made cautiously as data are not adjusted for confounders. The shaded area depicts indicative 95% CIs for the smooth functions of HbA1c. Note that the 95% CI does not account for multiple repeated measures from the same individual. The spikes in the graph depicting general updated mean for HbA1c observed pre-index in the group with HbA1c ≥70 mmol/mol and the pre-index dips in the group with HbA1c ≤52 mmol/mol are caused by the effect of the ‘regression to the mean’ and are accordingly not associated with an effect of an intervention or selection bias

References

    1. Ajjan RA, Cummings MH, Jennings P, Leelarathna L, Rayman G, Wilmot EG. Accuracy of flash glucose monitoring and continuous glucose monitoring technologies: implications for clinical practice. Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2018;15(3):175–184. doi: 10.1177/1479164118756240.
    1. Bonora B, Maran A, Ciciliot S, Avogaro A, Fadini GP. Head-to-head comparison between flash and continuous glucose monitoring systems in outpatients with type 1 diabetes. J Endocrinol Invest. 2016;39(12):1391–1399. doi: 10.1007/s40618-016-0495-8.
    1. McGill JB, Ahmann A. Continuous glucose monitoring with multiple daily insulin treatment: outcome studies. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(S3):S3–S12. doi: 10.1089/dia.2017.0090.
    1. Rodbard D. Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of recent studies demonstrating improved glycemic outcomes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(S3):S25–S37. doi: 10.1089/dia.2017.0035.
    1. Svensson A-M, Eliasson B, Linder E et al (2020) Nationwide results 1996-2019, Swedish National Diabetes Register NDR. 10.18158/rycvFEvAU. Available from . Accessed 19 Feb 2021
    1. Evans M, Welsh Z, Ells S, Seibold A. The impact of flash glucose monitoring on glycaemic control as measured by HbA1c: a meta-analysis of clinical trials and real-world observational studies. Diabetes Ther. 2020;11(1):83–95. doi: 10.1007/s13300-019-00720-0.
    1. Leelarathna L, Wilmot EG. Flash forward: a review of flash glucose monitoring. Diabet Med. 2018;35(4):472–482. doi: 10.1111/dme.13584.
    1. Bolinder J, Antuna R, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P, Kröger J, Weitgasser R. Novel glucose-sensing technology and hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388(10057):2254–2263. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31535-5.
    1. Oskarsson P, Antuna R, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P, Kröger J, Weitgasser R, Bolinder J. Impact of flash glucose monitoring on hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes managed with multiple daily injection therapy: a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the IMPACT randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia. 2018;61(3):539–550. doi: 10.1007/s00125-017-4527-5.
    1. Lind M, Bounias I, Olsson M, Gudbjornsdottir S, Svensson AM, Rosengren A. Glycaemic control and incidence of heart failure in 20,985 patients with type 1 diabetes: an observational study. Lancet. 2011;378(9786):140–146. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60471-6.
    1. Lind M, Svensson AM, Kosiborod M, et al. Glycemic control and excess mortality in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(21):1972–1982. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1408214.
    1. Hastie T, Tibshirani R. Generalized additive models for medical research. Stat Methods Med Res. 1995;4(3):187–196. doi: 10.1177/096228029500400302.
    1. Rosenbaum PRRD. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(2):41–55. doi: 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41.
    1. Rosenbaum PRRD. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc. 1984;79:516–524. doi: 10.1002/sim.7046.
    1. Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med. 2015;34(28):3661–3679. doi: 10.1002/sim.6607.
    1. McCaffrey DF, Ridgeway G, Morral AR. Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psychol Methods. 2005;9(4):403–425. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.403.
    1. Tyndall V, Stimson RH, Zammitt NN, et al. Marked improvement in HbA1c following commencement of flash glucose monitoring in people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2019;62(8):1349–1356. doi: 10.1007/s00125-019-4894-1.
    1. Charleer S, De Block C, Van Huffel L, et al. Quality of life and glucose control after 1 year of nationwide reimbursement of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults living with type 1 diabetes (FUTURE): a prospective observational real-world cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(2):389–397. doi: 10.2337/dc19-1610.
    1. Deshmukh H, Wilmot EG, Gregory R, et al. Effect of flash glucose monitoring on glycemic control, hypoglycemia, diabetes-related distress and resource utlization in the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) nationwide audit. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(9):2153–2160. doi: 10.2337/dc20-0738.
    1. Maiorino MI, Signoriello S, Maio A, et al. Effects of continuous glucose monitoring on metrics of glycemic control in diabetes: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(5):1146–1156. doi: 10.2337/dc19-1459.
    1. Battelino T, Conget I, Olsen B, et al. 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. doi: 10.1007/s00125-012-2708-9.
    1. Lind M, Polonsky W, Hirsch IB, et al. 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. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.19976.
    1. Reddy M, Jugnee N, El Laboudi A, Spanudakis E, Anantharaja S, Oliver N. A randomized controlled pilot study of continuous glucose monitoring and flash glucose monitoring in people with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia. Diabet Med. 2018;35(4):483–490. doi: 10.1111/dme.13561.
    1. Bosi E, Choudhary P, de Valk HW, et al. Efficacy and safety of suspend-before-low insulin pump technology in hypoglycaemia-prone adults with type 1 diabetes (SMILE): an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7(6):462–472. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30150-0.
    1. Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, et al. Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(8):1593–1603. doi: 10.2337/dci19-0028.
    1. Dunn TC, Xu Y, Hayter G, Ajjan RA. Real-world flash glucose monitoring patterns and associations between self-monitoring frequency and glycaemic measures: a European analysis of over 60 million glucose tests. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;137:37–46. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2017.12.015.
    1. Hermanns N, Ehrmann D, Schipfer M, Kroger J, Haak T, Kulzer B. The impact of a structured education and treatment programme (FLASH) for people with diabetes using a flash sensor-based glucose monitoring system: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019;150:111–121. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2019.03.003.
    1. Heinemann L, Freckmann G. CGM versus FGM; or, continuous glucose monitoring is not flash glucose monitoring. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;9(5):947–950. doi: 10.1177/1932296815603528.
    1. Yaron M, Roitman E, Aharon-Hananel G, et al. Effect of flash glucose monitoring technology on glycemic control and treatment satisfaction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(7):1178–1184. doi: 10.2337/dc18-0166.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren