Glycemic Outcomes in Adults With T1D Are Impacted More by Continuous Glucose Monitoring Than by Insulin Delivery Method: 3 Years of Follow-Up From the COMISAIR Study (original) (raw)
Continuous Glucose Monitoring For Type 1 Diabetes| September 17 2019
13rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Search for other works by this author on:
;
2Department of Paediatrics, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Search for other works by this author on:
;
3Grunberger Diabetes Institute, Bloomfield Hills, MI; and Department of Internal Medicine and Center for Molecular Medicine & Genetics, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI
4Department of Internal Medicine, William Beaumont School of Medicine, Oakland University, Rochester, MI
51st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Search for other works by this author on:
13rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Search for other works by this author on:
13rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Search for other works by this author on:
13rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Search for other works by this author on:
13rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Search for other works by this author on:
13rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Search for other works by this author on:
13rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Search for other works by this author on:
13rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Search for other works by this author on:
13rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Search for other works by this author on:
;
6CGParkin Communications, Inc., Henderson, NV
Search for other works by this author on:
13rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Search for other works by this author on:
13rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Search for other works by this author on:
Diabetes Care 2020;43(1):37–43
Citation
Jan Šoupal, Lenka Petruželková, George Grunberger, Aneta Hásková, Milan Flekač, Martin Matoulek, Ondřej Mikeš, Tomáš Pelcl, Jan Škrha, Eva Horová, Jan Škrha, Christopher G. Parkin, Štěpán Svačina, Martin Prázný; Glycemic Outcomes in Adults With T1D Are Impacted More by Continuous Glucose Monitoring Than by Insulin Delivery Method: 3 Years of Follow-Up From the COMISAIR Study. _Diabetes Care 1 January 2020; 43 (1): 37–43. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc19-0888
Download citation file:
OBJECTIVE
This study assessed the clinical impact of four treatment strategies in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D): real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) with multiple daily insulin injections (rtCGM+MDI), rtCGM with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (rtCGM+CSII), self-monitoring of blood glucose with MDI (SMBG+MDI), and SMBG with CSII (SMBG+CSII).
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
This 3-year, nonrandomized, prospective, real-world, clinical trial followed 94 participants with T1D (rtCGM+MDI, n = 22; rtCGM+CSII, n = 26; SMBG+MDI, n = 21; SMBG+CSII, n = 25). The main end points were changes in A1C, time in range (70–180 mg/dL [3.9–10 mmol/L]), time below range (<70 mg/dL [<3.9 mmol/L]), glycemic variability, and incidence of hypoglycemia.
RESULTS
At 3 years, the rtCGM groups (rtCGM+MDI and rtCGM+CSII) had significantly lower A1C (7.0% [53 mmol/mol], P = 0.0002, and 6.9% [52 mmol/mol], P < 0.0001, respectively), compared with the SMBG+CSII and SMBG+MDI groups (7.7% [61 mmol/mol], P = 0.3574, and 8.0% [64 mmol/mol], P = 1.000, respectively), with no significant difference between the rtCGM groups. Significant improvements in percentage of time in range were observed in the rtCGM subgroups (rtCGM+MDI, 48.7–69.0%, P < 0.0001; and rtCGM+CSII, 50.9–72.3%, P < 0.0001) and in the SMBG+CSII group (50.6–57.8%, P = 0.0114). Significant reductions in time below range were found only in the rtCGM subgroups (rtCGM+MDI, 9.4–5.5%, P = 0.0387; and rtCGM+CSII, 9.0–5.3%, P = 0.0235). Seven severe hypoglycemia episodes occurred: SMBG groups, n = 5; sensor-augmented insulin regimen groups, n = 2.
CONCLUSIONS
rtCGM was superior to SMBG in reducing A1C, hypoglycemia, and other end points in individuals with T1D regardless of their insulin delivery method. rtCGM+MDI can be considered an equivalent but lower-cost alternative to sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy and superior to treatment with SMBG+MDI or SMBG+CSII therapy.
© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.
2019
You do not currently have access to this content.
Sign in
Pay-Per-View Access
$40.00
8,946 Views
180 Web of Science