Flash glucose monitoring reduces glycemic variability and hypoglycemia: real-world data from Spain

Fernando Gomez-Peralta, Timothy Dunn, Katherine Landuyt, Yongjin Xu, Juan Francisco Merino-Torres, Fernando Gomez-Peralta, Timothy Dunn, Katherine Landuyt, Yongjin Xu, Juan Francisco Merino-Torres

Abstract

Objective: Observations in real-world settings support and extend findings demonstrated in randomized controlled trials that show flash glucose monitoring improves glycemic control. In this study, Spain-specific relationships between testing frequency and glycemic parameters were investigated under real-world settings.

Research design and methods: Deidentified glucose and user scanning data were analyzed and readers were rank ordered into 20 equal sized groups by daily scan frequency. Glucose parameters were calculated for each group: estimated HbA1c, time below range (<70 and ≤54 mg/dL), within range (70-180 mg/dL), and above range (>180 mg/dL). Glycemic variability (GV) metrics were described and data obtained from sensors in Spain and worldwide were compared.

Results: Spanish users (n=22 949) collected 37.1 million glucose scans, 250 million automatically recorded glucose readings, and checked glucose values via a mean of 13 scans/day. Estimated HbA1c, time below 70 mg/dL, at or below 54 mg/dL, above 180 mg/dL, and GV metrics were significantly lower in the highest compared with lowest scan rate group (39.6 to 3.9 scans/day). Time-in-range was higher for the highest versus lowest scan rate group at 15.6 vs 11.5 hours/day, respectively. GV metrics correlated positively with time below 70 mg/dL, at or below 54 mg/dL, above 180 mg/dL, and negatively with time-in-range. The relationship between glucose metrics and scan rate was similar in Spain and worldwide. However, time in hypoglycemia in Spain was higher in the groups with lower scan rates.

Conclusions: As seen in clinical trials, flash glucose monitoring in real-world settings allows frequent glucose checks. High scan rates are associated with the favorable glycemic markers of increased time-in-range and reduced time in hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, and GV. The same trends, with unique nuances, are observed in both Spanish and global data.

Keywords: blood glucose monitoring; glycemic control; hypoglycemia.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: TD and YX are employees of Abbott Diabetes Care. KL is an employee of Abbott Diagnostics. FGP has taken part in advisory panels for Abbott Diabetes, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk; has participated as principal investigator in clinical trials funded by Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, and Lilly; and has acted as a speaker for Abbott Diabetes, Novartis, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Lilly. JFMT has participated as principal investigator in clinical trials funded by: GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca; has received conference funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck-Sharp-Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Menarini, Janssen, Abbott, Kabi-Fresenius, Nutricia; and has collaborated as a consultant with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Esteve, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Merck-Sharp-Dohme, Rovi, and Sanofi-Aventis.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Cumulative distribution of daily scans by readers. Each point represents 1147 or 5% of readers for a total of 37.1 million scans and 62.4 million monitoring hours.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Relationship between frequency of daily scans and glucometrics. Estimated A1c (%, A), time in hypoglycemia (min/day below 70 mg/dL, B), time in hypoglycemia (min/day at or below 54 mg/dL, C), time-in-range (hours/day within 70–180 mg/dL, D), time in hyperglycemia (hours/day above 180 mg/dL, E), glycemic variability (glucose SD in mg/dL, F).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Correlation between glycemic variability (glucose SD) and glucometrics by 5% bins of rank-ordered glucose SD. Estimated HbA1c (%, A), time in hypoglycemia (min/day below 70 mg/dL, B), time-in-range (hours/day within 70–180 mg/dL, C), and time in hyperglycemia (hours/day above 180 mg/dL, D).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Spanish (solid line) and worldwide (dashed line) glucometric trends versus daily scans. Estimated HbA1c (%, A), time in hypoglycemia (min/day below 70 mg/dL, B), time in hypoglycemia (min/day at or below 54 mg/dL, C), time-in-range (hours/day within 70–180 mg/dL, D), time in hyperglycemia (hours/day above 180 mg/dL, E) and glucose SD (mg/dL, F). Mean values, error bars are 99.9% CIs.

References

    1. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group, Nathan DM, Genuth S, et al. . 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;329:977–86. 10.1056/NEJM199309303291401
    1. Nathan DM, Cleary PA, Backlund J-YC, et al. . Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2643–53. 10.1056/NEJMoa052187
    1. Nathan DM. Long-term complications of diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1676–85. 10.1056/NEJM199306103282306
    1. Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HA, et al. . Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ 2000;321:405–12. 10.1136/bmj.321.7258.405
    1. ADVANCE Collaborative Group, Patel A, MacMahon S, et al. . Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2560–72. 10.1056/NEJMoa0802987
    1. Frier BM, Schernthaner G, Heller SR. Hypoglycemia and cardiovascular risks. Diabetes Care 2011;34:S132–7. 10.2337/dc11-s220
    1. Johnston SS, Conner C, Aagren M, et al. . Evidence linking hypoglycemic events to an increased risk of acute cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2011;34:1164–70. 10.2337/dc10-1915
    1. Hsu P-F, Sung S-H, Cheng H-M, et al. . Association of clinical symptomatic hypoglycemia with cardiovascular events and total mortality in type 2 diabetes: a nationwide population-based study. Diabetes Care 2013;36:894–900. 10.2337/dc12-0916
    1. Elwen FR, Huskinson A, Clapham L, et al. . An observational study of patient characteristics and mortality following hypoglycemia in the community. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 2015;3:e000094 10.1136/bmjdrc-2015-000094
    1. Khunti K, Davies M, Majeed A, et al. . Hypoglycemia and risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in insulin-treated people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a cohort study. Diabetes Care 2015;38:316–22. 10.2337/dc14-0920
    1. Ziegler R, Heidtmann B, Hilgard D, et al. . Frequency of SMBG correlates with HbA1c and acute complications in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes 2011;12:11–17. 10.1111/j.1399-5448.2010.00650.x
    1. Simmons JH, Chen V, Miller KM, et al. . Differences in the management of type 1 diabetes among adults under excellent control compared with those under poor control in the T1D exchange clinic registry. Diabetes Care 2013;36:3573–7. 10.2337/dc12-2643
    1. American Diabetes Association 6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care 2018;41:S55–64. 10.2337/dc18-S006
    1. Benjamin EM. Self-monitoring of blood glucose: the basics. Clin Diabetes 2002;20:45–7. 10.2337/diaclin.20.1.45
    1. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. . Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach. position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetologia 2012;55:1577–96. 10.1007/s00125-012-2534-0
    1. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. . Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2015: a patient-centered approach: update to a position statement of the American diabetes association and the European association for the study of diabetes.. Diabetes Care 2015;38:140–9. 10.2337/dc14-2441
    1. Miller KM, Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, et al. . Evidence of a strong association between frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c levels in T1D exchange clinic registry participants. Diabetes Care 2013;36:2009–14. 10.2337/dc12-1770
    1. Schütt M, Kern W, Krause U, et al. . Is the frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose related to long-term metabolic control? Multicenter analysis including 24,500 patients from 191 centers in Germany and Austria. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2006;114:384–8. 10.1055/s-2006-924152
    1. Lee WC, Smith E, Chubb B, et al. . Frequency of blood glucose testing among insulin-treated diabetes mellitus patients in the United Kingdom. J Med Econ 2014;17:167–75. 10.3111/13696998.2013.873722
    1. Glooko+Diasend Annual Diabetes Report 2016, 2016. Available: [Accessed 22 Feb 2017].
    1. Chico A, Aguilera E, Ampudia-Blasco FJ, et al. . Clinical approach to flash glucose monitoring: an expert recommendation. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2020;14:155–64. 10.1177/1932296819841911
    1. Dunn TC, Xu Y, Hayter G, et al. . 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. 10.1016/j.diabres.2017.12.015
    1. Jangam S, Dunn T, Xu Y, et al. . Flash glucose monitoring improves glycemia in higher risk patients: a longitudinal, observational study under real-life settings. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 2019;7:e000611 10.1136/bmjdrc-2018-000611
    1. Bolinder J, Antuna R, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P, et al. . Novel glucose-sensing technology and hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016;388:2254–63. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31535-5
    1. Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, et al. . Flash glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring for the management of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther 2017;8:55–73. 10.1007/s13300-016-0223-6
    1. Oskarsson P, Antuna R, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P, et al. . 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;61:539–50. 10.1007/s00125-017-4527-5
    1. Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, et al. . Use of flash glucose-sensing technology for 12 months as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Ther 2017;8:573–86. 10.1007/s13300-017-0255-6
    1. Martin CT, Criego AB, Carlson AL, et al. . Advanced technology in the management of diabetes: which comes First-Continuous glucose monitor or insulin pump? Curr Diab Rep 2019;19:50 10.1007/s11892-019-1177-7
    1. Kovatchev B, Cobelli C. Glucose variability: timing, risk analysis, and relationship to hypoglycemia in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2016;39:502–10. 10.2337/dc15-2035
    1. Nathan DM, Kuenen J, Borg R, et al. . Translating the A1C assay into estimated average glucose values. Diabetes Care 2008;31:1473–8. 10.2337/dc08-0545
    1. Bergenstal RM, Beck RW, Close KL, et al. . Glucose management indicator (GMI): a new term for estimating A1c from continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care 2018;41:2275–80. 10.2337/dc18-1581
    1. Danne T, Nimri R, Battelino T, et al. . International consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care 2017;40:1631–40. 10.2337/dc17-1600
    1. Forbes A, Murrells T, Mulnier H, et al. . Mean HbA1c, HbA1c variability, and mortality in people with diabetes aged 70 years and older: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Diab End 2018;6:476–86. 10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30048-2
    1. Sartore G, Chilelli NC, Burlina S, et al. . Association between glucose variability as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and diabetic retinopathy in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Acta Diabetol 2013;50:437–42. 10.1007/s00592-013-0459-9
    1. Jun JE, Lee S-E, Lee Y-B, et al. . Continuous glucose monitoring defined glucose variability is associated with cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2019;35:e3092 10.1002/dmrr.3092
    1. Monnier L, Wojtusciszyn A, Colette C, et al. . The contribution of glucose variability to asymptomatic hypoglycemia in persons with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2011;13:813–8. 10.1089/dia.2011.0049
    1. Monnier L, Colette C, Owens DR. The application of simple metrics in the assessment of glycaemic variability. Diabetes Metab 2018;44:313–9. 10.1016/j.diabet.2018.02.008
    1. Agiostratidou G, Anhalt H, Ball D, et al. . Standardizing Clinically Meaningful Outcome Measures Beyond HbA1c for Type 1 Diabetes: A Consensus Report of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, JDRF International, The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the T1D Exchange. Diabetes Care 2017;40:1622–30. 10.2337/dc17-1624
    1. Perestelo-Pérez L, Rivero-Santana A, García-Lorenzo B, et al. . Efectividad, seguridad y coste-efectividad del sistema flash de monitorización de glucosa en líquido intersticial (FreeStyle Libre®) para la Diabetes Mellitus tipo 1 y 2. Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Servicio de Evaluación del Servicio Canario de la Salud 2016. Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias.

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir