Real-world glycaemic outcomes in patients with type 1 diabetes using glucose sensors-Experience from a single centre in Dublin.

AIMS: To evaluate changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1 c) and sensor-based glycaemic metrics after glucose sensor commencement in adults with T1D. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational single-centre study on HbA1 c, and sensor-based glycaemic data following the initiation of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in adults with T1D (n = 209). RESULTS: We observed an overall improvement in HbA1 c from 66 (59-78) mmol/mol [8.2 (7.5-9.3)%] pre-sensor to 60 (53-71) mmol/mol [7.6 (7.0-8.6)%] on-sensor (p < .001). The pre-sensor HbA1 c improved from 66 (57-74) mmol/mol [8.2 (7.4-8.9)%] to 62 (54-71) mmol/mol [7.8 (7.1-8.7)%] within the first year of usage to 60 (53-69) mmol/mol [7.6 (7.0-8.4)%] in the following year (n = 121, p < .001). RT-CGM-user had a significant improvement in HbA1 c (Dexcom G6; p < .001, r = 0.33 and Guardian 3; p < .001, r = 0.59) while a non-significant reduction was seen in FGM-user (Libre 1; p = .279). Both MDI (p < .001, r = 0.33) and CSII group (p < .001, r = 0.41) also demonstrated significant HbA1 c improvement. Patients with pre-sensor HbA1 c of ≥64 mmol/mol [8.0%] (n = 125), had attenuation of pre-sensor HbA1 c from 75 (68-83) mmol/mol [9.0 (8.4-9.7)%] to 67 (59-75) mmol/mol [8.2 (7.6-9.0)%] (p < .001, r = 0.44). Altogether, 25.8% of patients achieved the recommended HbA1 c goal of ≤53 mmol/mol and 16.7% attained the recommended ≥70% time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that minimally invasive glucose sensor technology in adults with T1D is associated with improvement in glycaemic outcomes. However, despite significant improvements in HbA1 c, achieving the recommended goals for all glycaemic metrics remained challenging.

Real-World Outcomes of Glucose Sensor Use in Type 1 Diabetes-Findings from a Large UK Centre.

Flash glucose monitoring (FGM) and real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) are increasingly used in clinical practice, with improvements in HbA1c and time in range (TIR) reported in clinical studies. We aimed to evaluate the impact of FGM and RT-CGM use on glycaemic outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) under routine clinical care. We performed a retrospective data analysis from electronic outpatient records and proprietary web-based glucose monitoring platforms. We measured HbA1c (pre-sensor vs. on-sensor data) and sensor-based outcomes from the previous three months as per the international consensus on RT-CGM reporting guidelines. Amongst the 789 adults with T1DM, HbA1c level decreased from 61.0 (54.0, 71.0) mmol/mol to 57 (49, 65.8) mmol/mol in 561 people using FGM, and from 60.0 (50.0, 70.0) mmol/mol to 58.8 (50.3, 66.8) mmol/mol in 198 using RT-CGM (p < 0.001 for both). We found that 23% of FGM users and 32% of RT-CGM users achieved a time-in-range (TIR) (3.9 to 10 mmol/L) of >70%. For time-below-range (TBR) < 4 mmol/L, 70% of RT-CGM users and 58% of FGM users met international recommendations of <4%. Our data add to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of FGM and RT-CGM in T1DM.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Intensive Care Unit Following Total Pancreatectomy with Islet Autotransplantation in Children: Establishing Accuracy of the Dexcom G6 Model.

Hyperglycemia is detrimental to postoperative islet cell survival in patients undergoing total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation (TPIAT). This makes continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) a useful management tool. We evaluated the accuracy of the Dexcom G6 CGM in pediatric intensive care unit patients following TPIAT. Twenty-five patients who underwent TPIAT had Dexcom G6 glucose values compared to paired serum glucose values. All paired glucose samples were obtained within 5 minutes of each other during the first seven days post TPIAT. Data were evaluated using mean absolute difference (MAD), mean absolute relative difference (MARD), %20/20, %15/15 accuracy, and Clarke Error Grid analysis. Exclusions included analysis during the CGM "warm-up" period and hydroxyurea administration (known drug interference). A total of 183 time-matched samples were reviewed during postoperative days 2-7. MAD was 14.7 mg/dL and MARD was 13.4%, with values of 15.2%, 14.0%, 12.1%, 11.4%, 13.2% and 14.1% at days 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively. Dexcom G6 had a %20/20 accuracy of 78%, and a %15/15 accuracy of 64%. Clarke Error Grid analysis showed that 77% of time-matched values were clinically accurate, and 100% were clinically acceptable. The Dexcom G6 CGM may be an accurate tool producing clinically acceptable values to make reliable clinical decisions in the immediate post-TPIAT period.

Accuracy, Utilization, and Effectiveness Comparisons of Different Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems.

BACKGROUND: Accuracy and feature sets of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems may influence device utilization and outcomes. We compared clinical trial accuracy and real-world utilization and effectiveness of two different CGM systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Separately conducted accuracy studies of a fifth-generation and a sixth-generation CGM system involved 50 and 159 adults, respectively. For between-system performance comparisons, propensity score methods were utilized to balance cohort characteristics. Real-world outcomes were assessed in 10,000 anonymized patients who had switched from the fifth-generation to the sixth-generation system and had used connected mobile devices to upload data from both systems, allowing pairwise comparisons of device utilization and glucose concentration distributions. RESULTS: Propensity score-adjusted mean absolute relative differences for the fifth- and sixth-generation systems were 9.0% and 9.9%, and the percentages of values within ±20%/20 mg/dL were 93.1% and 92.5%, respectively. The sixth-generation system, but not the fifth-generation system, met accuracy criteria for interoperable CGM systems. Both systems had high real-world utilization rates (93.8% and 95.3% in the fifth- and sixth-generation systems, respectively). Use of the sixth-generation system was associated with fewer glucose values <55 mg/dL (<3.1 mmol/L) (0.7% vs. 1.1%, P < 0.001) and more values 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) (57.3% vs. 56.0%, P < 0.001) than the fifth-generation system. CONCLUSIONS: CGM performance outcomes can be compared through the propensity score analysis of clinical trial data and pairwise comparisons of real-world data. The systems compared here had nearly equivalent accuracy and utilization rates. Longer term biochemical and psychosocial benefits observed with the fifth-generation system are also expected with the sixth-generation system.