REPLACE-BG: A Randomized Trial Comparing Continuous Glucose Monitoring With and Without Routine Blood Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Well-Controlled Type 1 Diabetes

Grazia Aleppo, Katrina J Ruedy, Tonya D Riddlesworth, Davida F Kruger, Anne L Peters, Irl Hirsch, Richard M Bergenstal, Elena Toschi, Andrew J Ahmann, Viral N Shah, Michael R Rickels, Bruce W Bode, Athena Philis-Tsimikas, Rodica Pop-Busui, Henry Rodriguez, Emily Eyth, Anuj Bhargava, Craig Kollman, Roy W Beck, REPLACE-BG Study Group, Grazia Aleppo, Katrina J Ruedy, Tonya D Riddlesworth, Davida F Kruger, Anne L Peters, Irl Hirsch, Richard M Bergenstal, Elena Toschi, Andrew J Ahmann, Viral N Shah, Michael R Rickels, Bruce W Bode, Athena Philis-Tsimikas, Rodica Pop-Busui, Henry Rodriguez, Emily Eyth, Anuj Bhargava, Craig Kollman, Roy W Beck, REPLACE-BG Study Group

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) without confirmatory blood glucose monitoring (BGM) measurements is as safe and effective as using CGM adjunctive to BGM in adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes (T1D).

Research design and methods: A randomized noninferiority clinical trial was conducted at 14 sites in the T1D Exchange Clinic Network. Participants were ≥18 years of age (mean 44 ± 14 years), had T1D for ≥1 year (mean duration 24 ± 12 years), used an insulin pump, and had an HbA1c ≤9.0% (≤75 mmol/mL) (mean 7.0 ± 0.7% [53 ± 7.7 mmol/mol]); prestudy, 47% were CGM users. Participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to the CGM-only (n = 149) or CGM+BGM (n = 77) group. The primary outcome was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) over the 26-week trial, with a prespecified noninferiority limit of 7.5%.

Results: CGM use averaged 6.7 ± 0.5 and 6.8 ± 0.4 days/week in the CGM-only and CGM+BGM groups, respectively, over the 26-week trial. BGM tests per day (including the two required daily for CGM calibration) averaged 2.8 ± 0.9 and 5.4 ± 1.4 in the two groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Mean time in 70-180 mg/dL was 63 ± 13% at both baseline and 26 weeks in the CGM-only group and 65 ± 13% and 65 ± 11% in the CGM+BGM group (adjusted difference 0%; one-sided 95% CI -2%). No severe hypoglycemic events occurred in the CGM-only group, and one occurred in the CGM+BGM group.

Conclusions: Use of CGM without regular use of confirmatory BGM is as safe and effective as using CGM with BGM in adults with well-controlled T1D at low risk for severe hypoglycemia.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02258373.

© 2017 by the American Diabetes Association.

References

    1. Miller KM, Foster NC, Beck RW, et al. .; T1D Exchange Clinic Network . Current state of type 1 diabetes treatment in the U.S.: updated data from the T1D Exchange clinic registry. Diabetes Care 2015;38:971–978
    1. Fonseca VA, Grunberger G, Anhalt H, et al. .; 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;22:1008–1021
    1. Peters AL, Ahmann AJ, Battelino T, et al. . Diabetes technology-continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy and continuous glucose monitoring in adults: an Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2016;101:3922–3937
    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. 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. Gandhi GY, Kovalaske M, Kudva Y, et al. . Efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring in improving glycemic control and reducing hypoglycemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:952–965
    1. Pickup JC, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ. Glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes during real time continuous glucose monitoring compared with self monitoring of blood glucose: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials using individual patient data. BMJ 2011;343:d3805.
    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. 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. Weiss R, Garg SK, Bode BW, et al. . Hypoglycemia reduction and changes in hemoglobin A1c in the ASPIRE In-Home Study. Diabetes Technol Ther 2015;17:542–547
    1. Yeh HC, Brown TT, Maruthur N, et al. . Comparative effectiveness and safety of methods of insulin delivery and glucose monitoring for diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:336–347
    1. Bailey TS, Chang A, Christiansen M. Clinical accuracy of a continuous glucose monitoring system with an advanced algorithm. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2015;9:209–214
    1. Christiansen M, Bailey T, Watkins E, et al. . A new-generation continuous glucose monitoring system: improved accuracy and reliability compared with a previous-generation system. Diabetes Technol Ther 2013;15:881–888
    1. Damiano ER, McKeon K, El-Khatib FH, Zheng H, Nathan DM, Russell SJ. A comparative effectiveness analysis of three continuous glucose monitors: the Navigator, G4 Platinum, and Enlite. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2014;8:699–708
    1. Kovatchev BP, Patek SD, Ortiz EA, Breton MD. Assessing sensor accuracy for non-adjunct use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther 2015;17:177–186
    1. Matuleviciene V, Joseph JI, Andelin M, et al. . A clinical trial of the accuracy and treatment experience of the Dexcom G4 sensor (Dexcom G4 system) and Enlite sensor (Guardian REAL-time system) tested simultaneously in ambulatory patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2014;16:759–767
    1. Zisser HC, Bailey TS, Schwartz S, Ratner RE, Wise J. Accuracy of the SEVEN continuous glucose monitoring system: comparison with frequently sampled venous glucose measurements. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2009;3:1146–1154
    1. Pettus J, Price DA, Edelman SV. How patients with type 1 diabetes translate continuous glucose monitoring data into diabetes management decisions. Endocr Pract 2015;21:613–620
    1. Clarke WL, Cox DJ, Gonder-Frederick LA, Julian D, Schlundt D, Polonsky W. Reduced awareness of hypoglycemia in adults with IDDM. A prospective study of hypoglycemic frequency and associated symptoms. Diabetes Care 1995;18:517–522
    1. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group Validation of measures of satisfaction with and impact of continuous and conventional glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther 2010;12:679–684
    1. Cox DJ, Irvine A, Gonder-Frederick L, Nowacek G, Butterfield J. Fear of hypoglycemia: quantification, validation, and utilization. Diabetes Care 1987;10:617–621
    1. Foster NC, Miller KM, Tamborlane WV, Bergenstal RM, Beck RW; T1D Exchange Clinic Network . Continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections. Diabetes Care 2016;39:e81–e82
    1. Senior PA, Bellin MD, Alejandro R, et al. .; Clinical Islet Transplantation Consortium . Consistency of quantitative scores of hypoglycemia severity and glycemic lability and comparison with continuous glucose monitoring system measures in long-standing type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2015;17:235–242

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner