{
event: "article_read",
name: `Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with Type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin`,
author: ``,
tags: `Diabetes`,
publication_date: ``,
interaction_type: "content"
}
Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with Type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin
Key Takeaway
In patients with T2D and poor glycemic control receiving BI without prandial insulin, CGM vs BGM monitoring showed:
Significantly greater improvement in -8month HbA 1c level
Increased time in target glucose range of 70–180mg/dL
Reduction in both time spent at >250 mg/dL and mean glucose level
Why This Matters
Glucose monitoring is critical for safe and effective management of individuals with T2D using insulin
As the role of CGM in T2D using less-intensive insulin regimens is not well defined; present study compared CGM vs BGM monitoring in this study population.
Study Design
This Multicenter, Randomized (N = 175 [CGM Or BGM Group: 2:1]), Open - Label, Parallel - Group Trial Was Conducted At 15 Centers In The United States*
Key inclusion criteria
Age ≥30 years
T2D treated with 1 or 2 daily injections of long- or intermediate-acting basal insulin for ≤6 months
HbA 1c: 7.8%–11.5%
Self-reported BGM testing: ≥3 times per week
Smart phone compatible with CGM device†
Study outcomes
Primary outcome: HbA1c level at 8 months (adjusted for BL value)
Key secondary outcomes:
Time in target glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL
Time at glucose level >250 mg/dL
Mean glucose level at 8 months (adjusted for BL value)
Key Result
A total of 175 participants were randomized (2:1) into CGM vs BGM group
(n = 116 vs 59; mean age = 57 years; mean BL HbA1c = 9.1%)
Primary outcome (cgm vs bgm group):
HbA1c level at 8 months‡8.0% vs 8.4% (adjusted difference in mean change in HbA1c level from baseline:
-0.4% [%95 CI: %0.8− to %0.1−; P = 0.02])
Key secondary outcomes (cgm vs bgm group):
Time in target glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL (mean%): 59% vs 43% (adjusted mean difference: 15% [%95 CI: %8 to %23; P <0.001§])
Time at glucose level >250 mg/dL (mean%):11% vs 27% (adjusted mean difference: −16% [%95 CI: %21− to %11−; P <0.001¶])
Mean glucose levels at 8 months: 179 vs 206 mg/dL (adjusted difference: 26− mg/dL [%95 CI: 41− to 12−; P <0.001])
ADVERSE EVENTS: Severe hypoglycemic event (one in both, CGM and BGM group) and diabetic ketoacidosis (one in CGM group)
CGM satisfaction scale: Mean score (CGM group) = 4.1/5
Limitations
Follow-up duration was only 8 months
Due to virtual visits -8month HbA 1c or CGM data was not available for some participants
Limited generalizability of study findings to most routine clinical practice settings
In one-third of the CGM group HbA1c level still remained >%8 after 8 months highlighting the need for more aggressive pharmacological management
* Included participants not visiting an endocrinologist for diabetes and recruited participants from primary care practices. † For data uploading. ‡Adjusted for BL values (mean BL HbA1c level [CGM vs BGM group] = %9.1 vs %9.0). § Equivalent to 3.6 hours more per day. ¶Equivalent to 3.8 hours less per day. #The study participants had greater contact with the clinic staff vs typical usual care scenario
Martens T, Beck RW, Bailey R, Ruedy KJ, Calhoun P, Peters AL, et al. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2272–2262:(22)325;2021. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.7444. PMID: 34077499.
Related articles
Unmet needs in adults with T2D receiving premixed insulin
By clicking on this link, you will be leaving Campus Sanofi website and going to another, entirely independent website.
Please note: Sanofi provides these links as a service to its website visitors and users; however, Sanofi takes no responsibility for the information on any website but their own.