Diabetes-related research priorities of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study in Germany.

To investigate (i) the importance and priorities of research objectives for people with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM); (ii) subgroups with specific research priorities; (iii) associated factors (e.g., sociodemographic characteristics) of the subgroups. The cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2018 using data from 869 respondents (29.0% response, 31.2% female, mean age 61.3 years, 62.7% T2DM) from a German statutory health insurance population. Diabetes-related research priorities were assessed with a questionnaire. Subgroups and associated factors were identified using latent class analysis. Three subgroups were found in T1DM: (1) high priority for the research topic 'healing diabetes' and moderate priority for the research topic 'prevention of long-term complications', (2) priorities for simplifying handling (high) and stress reduction (moderate), (3) priorities for healing diabetes (high) and simplifying handling (high). Three subgroups were found in T2DM: (1) priorities for simplifying handling (moderate), diabetes prevention (moderate) and prevention of long-term complications (moderate), (2) priorities for stress reduction (high) and diabetes prevention (moderate), (3) priorities for simplifying handling (high) and stress reduction (high). Classes differed in age and HbA1c. Knowledge about research priorities enables researchers to align their work with the needs of people with diabetes.

Evaluating Glucose Control With a Novel Composite Continuous Glucose Monitoring Index.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to describe a novel composite continuous glucose monitoring index (COGI) and to evaluate its utility, in adults with type 1 diabetes, during hybrid closed-loop (HCL) therapy and multiple daily injections (MDI) therapy combined with real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). METHODS: COGI consists of three key components of glucose control as assessed by CGM: Time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR), and glucose variability (GV) (weighted by 50%, 35% and 15%). COGI ranges from 0 to 100, where 1% increase of time <3.9 mmol/L (<70 mg/dl) is equivalent to 4.7% reduction of TIR between 3.9-10 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dl), and 0.5 mmol/L (9 mg/dl) increase in standard deviation is equivalent to 3% reduction in TIR. RESULTS: Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) users with HbA1c >7.5-10%, had significantly higher COGI during 12 weeks of HCL compared to sensor-augmented pump therapy, mean (SD), 60.3 (8.6) versus 69.5 (6.9), P < .001. Similarly, in CSII users with HbA1c <7.5%, HCL improved COGI from 59.9 (11.2) to 74.8 (6.6), P < .001. In MDI users with HbA1c >7.5% to 9.9%, use of real-time CGM led to improved COGI, 49.8 (14.2) versus 58.2 (9.1), P < .0001. In MDI users with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia, use of real-time CGM led to improved COGI, 53.4 (12.2) versus 66.7 (11.1), P < .001. CONCLUSIONS: COGI summarizes three key aspects of CGM data into a concise metric that could be utilized to evaluate the quality of glucose control and to demonstrate the incremental benefit of a wide range of treatment modalities.

Young Children Have Higher Variability of Insulin Requirements: Observations During Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify age-related variability of insulin needs during day and night closed-loop insulin delivery. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from hybrid closed-loop studies involving young children (1-6 years old, n = 20), children (7-12 years, n = 21), adolescents (13-17 years, n = 15), and adults (>18 years, n = 58) with type 1 diabetes. The coefficient of variation quantified variability of insulin needs during 3 weeks of unrestricted-living hybrid closed-loop use. RESULTS: Data from 2,365 nights and 2,367 days in 114 participants were analyzed. The coefficient of variation of insulin delivery was higher in young children compared with adults (mean difference at nighttime 10.7 percentage points [95% CI 2.9-18.4], P = 0.003; daytime 6.4 percentage points [95% CI 2.0-10.9], P = 0.002) and compared with adolescents (mean difference at nighttime 10.2 percentage points [95% CI 0.0-20.4], P = 0.049; daytime 7.0 percentage points [95% CI 1.1-12.8], P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes management in young children is complicated by higher variability in insulin requirements, supporting fast-track clinical practice adoption of closed-loop in this vulnerable population.

Hypoglycaemia incidence and recovery during home use of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes.

Glucose excursion was assessed prior to and post hypoglycaemia to increase understanding of hypoglycaemia incidence and recovery during hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery. We retrospectively analysed data from 60 adults with type 1 diabetes who received, in a crossover randomized design, day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery and insulin pump therapy, the latter with or without real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Over 4-week study periods, we identified hypoglycaemic episodes, defined as sensor glucose <3.0 mmol/L, and analysed sensor glucose relative to the onset of hypoglycaemia. We identified 377 hypoglycaemic episodes during hybrid closed-loop intervention vs 662 during control intervention (P < .001), with a predominant reduction of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. The slope of sensor glucose prior to hypoglycaemia was steeper during closed-loop intervention than during control intervention (P < .01), while insulin delivery was reduced (P < .01). During both day and night, participants recovered from hypoglycaemia faster when treated by closed-loop intervention. At 120 minutes post hypoglycaemia, sensor glucose levels were higher during closed-loop intervention compared to the control period (P < .05). In conclusion, closed-loop intervention reduces the risk of hypoglycaemia, particularly overnight, with swift recovery from hypoglycaemia leading to higher 2-hour post-hypoglycaemia glucose levels.

Behavioral Patterns and Associations with Glucose Control During 12-Week Randomized Free-Living Clinical Trial of Day and Night Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated patterns of meal intake, insulin bolus delivery, and fingerstick glucose measurements during hybrid closed-loop and sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy, including associations with glucose control. METHODS: Data were retrospectively analyzed from pump-treated adults with type 1 diabetes who underwent, in random order, 12 weeks free-living closed-loop (n = 32) and 12 weeks SAP (n = 33) periods. We quantified daily patterns of main meals, snacks, prandial insulin boluses, correction boluses, and fingerstick glucose measurements by analyzing data recorded on the study glucometer and on study insulin pump. RESULTS: We analyzed 1942 closed-loop days and 2530 SAP days. The total number of insulin boluses was reduced during closed-loop versus SAP periods by mean 1.0 per day (95% confidence interval 0.6-1.4, P < 0.001) mainly because of a reduced number of correction boluses by mean 0.7 per day (0.4-1.0, P < 0.001). Other behavioral patterns were unchanged. The carbohydrate content of snacks but not the number of snacks was positively correlated with (1) glycemic variability as measured by standard deviation of sensor glucose (closed-loop P < 0.05; SAP P < 0.01), (2) mean sensor glucose (P < 0.05), and (3) postintervention HbA1c (P < 0.05). Behavioral patterns explained 47% of between-subject variance in glucose variability during SAP period and 30%-33% of variance of means sensor glucose and postintervention HbA1c. CONCLUSION: Fewer correction boluses are delivered during closed-loop period. The size of snacks appears to worsen glucose control possibly because of carbohydrate-rich content of snacks. Modifiable behavioral patterns may be important determinants of glucose control.

Closing the Loop in Adults, Children and Adolescents With Suboptimally Controlled Type 1 Diabetes Under Free Living Conditions: A Psychosocial Substudy.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to explore psychosocial experiences of closed loop technology for adults, children, and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and their parents taking part in two multicenter, free-living, randomized crossover home studies. METHODS: Participants using insulin pump therapy were randomized to either 12 weeks of automated closed-loop glucose control, then 12 weeks of sensor augmented insulin pump therapy (open loop), or vice versa. Closed loop was used for 24 hours by adults and overnight only by children and adolescents. Participants completed the Diabetes Technology Questionnaire (DTQ) periodically and shared their views in semistructured interviews. This analysis characterizes the impact of the technology, positive and negative aspects of living with the device, alongside participants' expectations, hopes, and anxieties. RESULTS: Participants were 32 adults, age 38.6 ± 9.6 years, 55% male, and 26 children, mean age 12 years (range 6-18 years), 54% male. DTQ results indicated moderately favorable impact of, and satisfaction with, both open and closed loop interventions, but little evidence of a comparative advantage of either. Key positive themes included perceived improved blood glucose control, improved general well-being, particularly on waking, improved sleep, reduced burden of diabetes, and visibility of data. Key negative themes included having to carry around the equipment and dislike of the pump and second cannula (ie, sensor) inserted. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants reported a positive experience of the closed loop technology. Results are consistent with previous research with size of equipment continuing to be a problem. Progress is being made in the usability of the closed-loop system.

Faster insulin action is associated with improved glycaemic outcomes during closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes.

We aimed to evaluate the relationship between insulin pharmacodynamics and glycaemic outcomes during closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy. We retrospectively analysed data from a multicentre randomized control trial involving 32 adults with type 1 diabetes receiving day-and-night closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy over 12 weeks. We estimated time-to-peak insulin action (t max,IA ) and insulin sensitivity ( S I ) during both interventions, and correlated these with demographic factors and glycaemic outcomes. During both interventions, t max,IA was positively correlated with pre- and post-intervention HbA1c (r = 0.50-0.52, P < .01) and mean glucose (r = 0.45-0.62, P < .05), and inversely correlated with time sensor glucose, which was in target range 3.9 to 10 mmol/L (r = -0.64 to -0.47, P < .05). Increased body mass index was associated with higher t max,I and lower S I (both P < .05). During closed-loop insulin delivery, t max,IA was positively correlated with glucose variability ( P < .05). Faster insulin action is associated with improved glycaemic control during closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy.

Variability of Insulin Requirements Over 12 Weeks of Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify variability of insulin requirements during closed-loop insulin delivery. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed overnight, daytime, and total daily insulin amounts delivered during a multicenter closed-loop trial involving 32 adults with type 1 diabetes. Participants applied hybrid day-and-night closed-loop insulin delivery under free-living home conditions over 12 weeks. The coefficient of variation was adopted to measure variability of insulin requirements in individual subjects. RESULTS: Data were analyzed from 1,918 nights, 1,883 daytime periods and 1,564 total days characterized by closed-loop use over 85% of time. Variability of overnight insulin requirements (mean [SD] coefficient of variation 31% [4]) was nearly twice as high as variability of total daily requirements (17% [3], P < 0.001) and was also higher than variability of daytime insulin requirements (22% [4], P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Overnight insulin requirements were significantly more variable than daytime and total daily amounts. This may explain why some people with type 1 diabetes report frustrating variability in morning glycemia.

Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring During Three Closed-Loop Home Studies Under Free-Living Conditions.

OBJECTIVES: Closed-loop (CL) systems modulate insulin delivery based on glucose levels measured by a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). Accuracy of the CGM affects CL performance and safety. We evaluated the accuracy of the Freestyle Navigator(®) II CGM (Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA) during three unsupervised, randomized, open-label, crossover home CL studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Paired CGM and capillary glucose values (10,597 pairs) were collected from 57 participants with type 1 diabetes (41 adults [mean±SD age, 39±12 years; mean±SD hemoglobin A1c, 7.9±0.8%] recruited at five centers and 16 adolescents [mean±SD age, 15.6±3.6 years; mean±SD hemoglobin A1c, 8.1±0.8%] recruited at two centers). Numerical accuracy was assessed by absolute relative difference (ARD) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197:2013 15/15% limits, and clinical accuracy was assessed by Clarke error grid analysis. RESULTS: Total duration of sensor use was 2,002 days (48,052 h). Overall sensor accuracy for the capillary glucose range (1.1-27.8 mmol/L) showed mean±SD and median (interquartile range) ARD of 14.2±15.5% and 10.0% (4.5%, 18.4%), respectively. Lowest mean ARD was observed in the hyperglycemic range (9.8±8.8%). Over 95% of pairs were in combined Clarke error grid Zones A and B (A, 80.1%, B, 16.2%). Overall, 70.0% of the sensor readings satisfied ISO criteria. Mean ARD was consistent (12.3%; 95% of the values fall within ±3.7%) and not different between participants (P=0.06) within the euglycemic and hyperglycemic range, when CL is actively modulating insulin delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent accuracy of the CGM within the euglycemic-hyperglycemic range using the Freestyle Navigator II was observed and supports its use in home CL studies. Our results may contribute toward establishing normative CGM performance criteria for unsupervised home use of CL.

How to Assess the Quality of Glucose Clamps? Evaluation of Clamps Performed With ClampArt, a Novel Automated Clamp Device.

BACKGROUND: There are no widely accepted parameters to assess the quality of glucose clamps. Thus, we selected different parameters describing clamp quality. These parameters were then evaluated in glucose clamps carried out with ClampArt, a novel CE-marked, state-of-the-art fully automated glucose clamp device employing continuous blood glucose (BG) measurements and minute-by-minute adaptations of glucose infusion rate (GIR). METHODS: Thirty-nine glucose clamps were performed in 10 healthy and 29 subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) (total duration 583 h). ClampArt-based BG measurements were compared with those obtained with a laboratory reference method. Clamp quality was assessed by 5 parameters: (1) difference (mg/dl) of all paired BG measurements of ClampArt versus reference method ("trueness"), (2) coefficient of variation (CV, %) of ClampArt's BG measurements at target clamp level ("precision"), (3) mean absolute relative difference (MARD, %) at target clamp level ("accuracy"), (4) difference (mg/dl) between ClampArt and target BG ("control deviation"), and (5) percentage operational time ("utility"). RESULTS: ClampArt-based BG measurements showed a trueness of 1.2 ± 2.5 mg/dl. CV and MARD at target BG were 5.5 ± 2.1% and 5.3 ± 2.3%, respectively. There were only small deviations from target level (1.2 ± 1.6 mg/dl). Operational time was as high as 95.4% ± 4.1% (means ± SD). CONCLUSIONS: The selected parameters seem to be adequate to characterize clamp quality. The novel, fully automated clamp device ClampArt achieves high clamp quality, which in future trials should be compared with other (automated and manual) clamp methods.

Pharmacodynamic effects of canagliflozin, a sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor, from a randomized study in patients with type 2 diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single and multiple ascending-dose study evaluated the pharmacodynamic effects and safety/tolerability of canagliflozin, a sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Patients (N = 116) discontinued their antihyperglycemic medications 2 weeks before randomization. Patients received canagliflozin 30, 100, 200, or 400 mg once daily or 300 mg twice daily, or placebo at 2 study centers in the United States and Germany, or canagliflozin 30 mg once daily or placebo at 1 study center in Korea, while maintaining an isocaloric diet for 2 weeks. On Days -1, 1, and 16, urinary glucose excretion (UGE), plasma glucose (PG), fasting PG (FPG), and insulin were measured. The renal threshold for glucose (RTG) was calculated from UGE, PG, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Safety was evaluated based on adverse event (AE) reports, vital signs, electrocardiograms, clinical laboratory tests, and physical examinations. RESULTS: Canagliflozin increased UGE dose-dependently (,80-120 g/day with canagliflozin $100 mg), with increases maintained over the 14-day dosing period with each dose. Canagliflozin dose-dependently decreased RTG, with maximal reductions to ,4-5 mM (72-90 mg/dL). Canagliflozin also reduced FPG and 24-hour mean PG; glucose reductions were seen on Day 1 and maintained over 2 weeks. Plasma insulin reductions with canagliflozin were consistent with observed PG reductions. Canagliflozin also reduced body weight. AEs were transient, mild to moderate in intensity, and balanced across groups; 1 canagliflozin-treated female reported an episode of vaginal candidiasis. Canagliflozin did not cause hypoglycemia, consistent with the RTG values remaining above the hypoglycemia threshold. At Day 16, there were no clinically meaningful changes in urine volume, urine electrolyte excretion, renal function, or routine laboratory test values. CONCLUSIONS: Canagliflozin increased UGE and decreased RTG, leading to reductions in PG, insulin, and body weight, and was generally well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00963768.

Assessing the effectiveness of 3†months day and night home closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a randomised crossover study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite therapeutic advances, many people with type 1 diabetes are still unable to achieve optimal glycaemic control, limited by the occurrence of hypoglycaemia. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of day and night home closed-loop over the medium term compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycaemic control. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will adopt an open label, three-centre, multinational, randomised, two-period crossover study design comparing automated closed-loop glucose control with sensor augmented insulin pump therapy. The study will aim for 30 completed participants. Eligible participants will be adults (≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy and suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)≥7.5% (58 mmol/mmol) and ≤10% (86 mmol/mmol)). Following a 4-week optimisation period, participants will undergo a 3-month use of automated closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy, with a 4-6 week washout period in between. The order of the interventions will be random. All analysis will be conducted on an intention to treat basis. The primary outcome is the time spent in the target glucose range from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L based on continuous glucose monitoring levels during the 3 months free living phase. Secondary outcomes include HbA1c changes; mean glucose and time spent above and below target glucose levels. Further, participants will be invited at baseline, midpoint and study end to participate in semistructured interviews and complete questionnaires to explore usability and acceptance of the technology, impact on quality of life and fear of hypoglycaemia. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained at all sites. Before screening, all participants will be provided with oral and written information about the trial. The study will be disseminated by peer-review publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01961622 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Pharmacodynamic effects of canagliflozin, a sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor, from a randomized study in patients with type 2 diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single and multiple ascending-dose study evaluated the pharmacodynamic effects and safety/tolerability of canagliflozin, a sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Patients (N = 116) discontinued their antihyperglycemic medications 2 weeks before randomization. Patients received canagliflozin 30, 100, 200, or 400 mg once daily or 300 mg twice daily, or placebo at 2 study centers in the United States and Germany, or canagliflozin 30 mg once daily or placebo at 1 study center in Korea, while maintaining an isocaloric diet for 2 weeks. On Days -1, 1, and 16, urinary glucose excretion (UGE), plasma glucose (PG), fasting PG (FPG), and insulin were measured. The renal threshold for glucose (RTG) was calculated from UGE, PG, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Safety was evaluated based on adverse event (AE) reports, vital signs, electrocardiograms, clinical laboratory tests, and physical examinations. RESULTS: Canagliflozin increased UGE dose-dependently (∼80-120 g/day with canagliflozin ≥100 mg), with increases maintained over the 14-day dosing period with each dose. Canagliflozin dose-dependently decreased RTG, with maximal reductions to ∼4-5 mM (72-90 mg/dL). Canagliflozin also reduced FPG and 24-hour mean PG; glucose reductions were seen on Day 1 and maintained over 2 weeks. Plasma insulin reductions with canagliflozin were consistent with observed PG reductions. Canagliflozin also reduced body weight. AEs were transient, mild to moderate in intensity, and balanced across groups; 1 canagliflozin-treated female reported an episode of vaginal candidiasis. Canagliflozin did not cause hypoglycemia, consistent with the RTG values remaining above the hypoglycemia threshold. At Day 16, there were no clinically meaningful changes in urine volume, urine electrolyte excretion, renal function, or routine laboratory test values. CONCLUSIONS: Canagliflozin increased UGE and decreased RTG, leading to reductions in PG, insulin, and body weight, and was generally well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00963768.

Day and night home closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes: three-center randomized crossover study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of day and night closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes under free-living conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Seventeen adults with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy (means ± SD age 34 ± 9 years, HbA1c 7.6 ± 0.8%, and duration of diabetes 19 ± 9 years) participated in an open-label multinational three-center crossover study. In a random order, participants underwent two 8-day periods (first day at the clinical research facility followed by 7 days at home) of sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy (SAP) or automated closed-loop insulin delivery. The primary end point was the time when sensor glucose was in target range between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L during the 7-day home phase. RESULTS: During the home phase, the percentage of time when glucose was in target range was significantly higher during closed-loop compared with SAP (median 75% [interquartile range 61-79] vs. 62% [53-70], P = 0.005). Mean glucose (8.1 vs. 8.8 mmol/L, P = 0.027) and time spent above target (P = 0.013) were lower during closed loop, while time spent below target was comparable (P = 0.339). Increased time in target was observed during both daytime (P = 0.017) and nighttime (P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SAP, 1 week of closed-loop insulin delivery at home reduces mean glucose and increases time in target without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia in adults with relatively well-controlled type 1 diabetes.

Day and night closed-loop control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a comparison of two closed-loop algorithms driving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus patient self-management.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two validated closed-loop (CL) algorithms versus patient self-control with CSII in terms of glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was a multicenter, randomized, three-way crossover, open-label trial in 48 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus for at least 6 months, treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Blood glucose was controlled for 23 h by the algorithm of the Universities of Pavia and Padova with a Safety Supervision Module developed at the Universities of Virginia and California at Santa Barbara (international artificial pancreas [iAP]), by the algorithm of University of Cambridge (CAM), or by patients themselves in open loop (OL) during three hospital admissions including meals and exercise. The main analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Main outcome measures included time spent in target (glucose levels between 3.9 and 8.0 mmol/L or between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L after meals). RESULTS: Time spent in the target range was similar in CL and OL: 62.6% for OL, 59.2% for iAP, and 58.3% for CAM. While mean glucose level was significantly lower in OL (7.19, 8.15, and 8.26 mmol/L, respectively) (overall P = 0.001), percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) was almost threefold reduced during CL (6.4%, 2.1%, and 2.0%) (overall P = 0.001) with less time ≤2.8 mmol/L (overall P = 0.038). There were no significant differences in outcomes between algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: Both CAM and iAP algorithms provide safe glycemic control.

Common standards of basal insulin titration in type 2 diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus has become a worldwide major health problem, and the number of people affected is steadily increasing. Thus, not all patients suffering from the disease can be treated by specialized diabetes centers or outpatient clinics, but by primary care physicians. The latter, however, might have time constraints and have to deal with many kinds of diseases or with multimorbid patients, so their focus is not so much on lowering high blood glucose values. Thus, the physicians, as well as the patients themselves, are often reluctant to initiate and adjust insulin therapy, although basal insulin therapy is considered the appropriate strategy after oral antidiabetic drug failure, according to the latest international guidelines. A substantial number of clinical studies have shown that insulin initiation and optimization can be managed successfully by using titration algorithms-even in cases where patients themselves are the drivers of insulin titration. Nevertheless, tools and strategies are needed to facilitate this process in the daily life of both primary health care professionals and patients with diabetes.

Accuracy and reliability of continuous glucose monitoring systems: a head-to-head comparison.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the accuracy and reliability of three continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied the Animas® (West Chester, PA) Vibe™ with Dexcom® (San Diego, CA) G4™ version A sensor (G4A), the Abbott Diabetes Care (Alameda, CA) Freestyle® Navigator I (NAV), and the Medtronic (Northridge, CA) Paradigm® with Enlite™ sensor (ENL) in 20 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. All systems were investigated both in a clinical research center (CRC) and at home. In the CRC, patients received a meal with a delayed and increased insulin dose to induce a postprandial glucose peak and nadir. Hereafter, randomization determined which two of the three systems would be worn at home until the end of functioning, attempting use beyond manufacturer-specified lifetime. Patients performed at least five reference finger sticks per day. An analysis of variance was performed on all data points ≥15 min apart. RESULTS: Overall average mean absolute relative difference (MARD) (SD) measured at the CRC was 16.5% (14.3%) for NAV and 16.4% (15.6%) for ENL, outperforming G4A at 20.5% (18.2%) (P<0.001). Overall MARD when assessed at home was 14.5% (16.7%) for NAV and 16.5 (18.8%) for G4A, outperforming ENL at 18.9% (23.6%) (P=0.006). Median time until end of functioning was similar: 10.0 (1.0) days for G4A, 8.0 (3.5) days for NAV, and 8.0 (1.5) days for ENL (P=0.119). CONCLUSIONS: In the CRC, G4A was less accurate than NAV and ENL sensors, which seemed comparable. However, at home, ENL was less accurate than NAV and G4A. Moreover, CGM systems often show sufficient accuracy to be used beyond manufacturer-specified lifetime.