Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Diabetologia 3/2018

Open Access 01-03-2018 | Article

Impact of flash glucose monitoring on hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes managed with multiple daily injection therapy: a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the IMPACT randomised controlled trial

Authors: Per Oskarsson, Ramiro Antuna, Petronella Geelhoed-Duijvestijn, Jens Krӧger, Raimund Weitgasser, Jan Bolinder

Published in: Diabetologia | Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis

Evidence for the effectiveness of interstitial glucose monitoring in individuals with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy is limited. In this pre-specified subgroup analysis of the Novel Glucose-Sensing Technology and Hypoglycemia in Type 1 Diabetes: a Multicentre, Non-masked, Randomised Controlled Trial’ (IMPACT), we assessed the impact of flash glucose technology on hypoglycaemia compared with capillary glucose monitoring.

Methods

This multicentre, prospective, non-masked, RCT enrolled adults from 23 European diabetes centres. Individuals were eligible to participate if they had well-controlled type 1 diabetes (diagnosed for ≥5 years), HbA1c ≤ 58 mmol/mol [7.5%], were using MDI therapy and on their current insulin regimen for ≥3 months, reported self-monitoring of blood glucose on a regular basis (equivalent to ≥3 times/day) for ≥2 months and were deemed technically capable of using flash glucose technology. Individuals were excluded if they were diagnosed with hypoglycaemia unawareness, had diabetic ketoacidosis or myocardial infarction in the preceding 6 months, had a known allergy to medical-grade adhesives, used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) within the previous 4 months or were currently using CGM or sensor-augmented pump therapy, were pregnant or planning pregnancy or were receiving steroid therapy for any disorders. Following 2 weeks of blinded (to participants and investigator) sensor wear by all participants, participants with sensor data for more than 50% of the blinded wear period (or ≥650 individual sensor results) were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio by a central interactive web response system (IWRS) using the biased-coin minimisation method, to flash sensor-based glucose monitoring (intervention group) or self-monitoring of capillary blood glucose (control group). The control group had two further 14 day blinded sensor-wear periods at the 3 and 6 month time points. Participants, investigators and staff were not masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was the change in time in hypoglycaemia (<3.9 mmol/l) between baseline and 6 months in the full analysis set.

Results

Between 4 September 2014 and 12 February 2015, 167 participants using MDI were enrolled. After screening and the baseline phase, participants were randomised to intervention (n = 82) and control groups (n = 81). One woman from each group was excluded owing to pregnancy; the full analysis set included 161 randomised participants. At 6 months, mean time in hypoglycaemia was reduced by 46.0%, from 3.44 h/day to 1.86 h/day in the intervention group (baseline adjusted mean change, −1.65 h/day), and from 3.73 h/day to 3.66 h/day in the control group (baseline adjusted mean change, 0.00 h/day), with a between-group difference of −1.65 (95% CI −2.21, −1.09; p < 0.0001). For participants in the intervention group, the mean ± SD daily sensor scanning frequency was 14.7 ± 10.7 (median 12.3) and the mean number of self-monitored blood glucose tests performed per day reduced from 5.5 ± 2.0 (median 5.4) at baseline to 0.5 ± 1.0 (median 0.1). The baseline frequency of self-monitored blood glucose tests by control participants was maintained (from 5.6 ± 1.9 [median 5.2] to 5.5 ± 2.6 [median 5.1] per day). Treatment satisfaction and perception of hypo/hyperglycaemia were improved compared with control. No device-related hypoglycaemia or safety-related issues were reported. Nine serious adverse events were reported for eight participants (four in each group), none related to the device. Eight adverse events for six of the participants in the intervention group were also reported, which were related to sensor insertion/wear; four of these participants withdrew because of the adverse event.

Conclusions/interpretation

Use of flash glucose technology in type 1 diabetes controlled with MDI therapy significantly reduced time in hypoglycaemia without deterioration of HbA1c, and improved treatment satisfaction.

Trial registration:

Funding:

Abbott Diabetes Care, Witney, UK
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference DCCT Research Group (1991) Epidemiology of severe hypoglycemia in the diabetes control and complications trial. Am J Med 90:450–459CrossRef DCCT Research Group (1991) Epidemiology of severe hypoglycemia in the diabetes control and complications trial. Am J Med 90:450–459CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Nathan DM, Cleary PA, Backlund JY et al (2005) Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Study Research Group. Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 353:2643–2653CrossRefPubMed Nathan DM, Cleary PA, Backlund JY et al (2005) Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Study Research Group. Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 353:2643–2653CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Khunti K, Alsifri S, Aronson R, the HAT Investigator Group et al (2016) Rates and predictors of hypoglycemia in 27585 people from 24 countries with insulin-treated type 1 and type 2 diabetes: the global HAT study. Diabetes Obes Metab 18:907–915CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Khunti K, Alsifri S, Aronson R, the HAT Investigator Group et al (2016) Rates and predictors of hypoglycemia in 27585 people from 24 countries with insulin-treated type 1 and type 2 diabetes: the global HAT study. Diabetes Obes Metab 18:907–915CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Cryer PE (2004) Diverse cause of hypoglycaemia-associated autonomic failure in diabetes. N Engl J Med 350:2272–2279CrossRefPubMed Cryer PE (2004) Diverse cause of hypoglycaemia-associated autonomic failure in diabetes. N Engl J Med 350:2272–2279CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group (2009) The effect of continuous glucose monitoring in well-controlled type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 32:1378–1383CrossRefPubMedCentral Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group (2009) The effect of continuous glucose monitoring in well-controlled type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 32:1378–1383CrossRefPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Battelino T, Phillip M, Bratina N, Nimri R, Oskarsson P, Bolinder J (2011) Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 34:795–800CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Battelino T, Phillip M, Bratina N, Nimri R, Oskarsson P, Bolinder J (2011) Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 34:795–800CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Deiss D, Bolinder J, Riveline JP et al (2006) Improved glycemic control in poorly controlled patients with type 1 diabetes using real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care 29:2730–2732CrossRefPubMed Deiss D, Bolinder J, Riveline JP et al (2006) Improved glycemic control in poorly controlled patients with type 1 diabetes using real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care 29:2730–2732CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group (2008) Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 359:1464–1476CrossRef The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group (2008) Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 359:1464–1476CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Šoupal J, Petruželková L, Flekač M et al (2016) Comparison of different treatment modalities for type 1 diabetes, including sensor-augmented insulin regimens, in 52 weeks of follow-up: a COMISAIR study. Diabetes Technol Ther 18:532–538CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Šoupal J, Petruželková L, Flekač M et al (2016) Comparison of different treatment modalities for type 1 diabetes, including sensor-augmented insulin regimens, in 52 weeks of follow-up: a COMISAIR study. Diabetes Technol Ther 18:532–538CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Battelino T, Conget I, Olsen B et al (2012) The use and efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy: a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia 55:3155–3162CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Battelino T, Conget I, Olsen B et al (2012) The use and efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy: a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia 55:3155–3162CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Lind M, Polonsky W, Hirsch IB et al (2017) Continuous glucose monitoring vs conventional therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections. The GOLD Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 317:379–387CrossRefPubMed Lind M, Polonsky W, Hirsch IB et al (2017) Continuous glucose monitoring vs conventional therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections. The GOLD Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 317:379–387CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Beck RW, Riddlesworth T, Ruedy K et al (2017) Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections the DIAMOND Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 317:371–378CrossRefPubMed Beck RW, Riddlesworth T, Ruedy K et al (2017) Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections the DIAMOND Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 317:371–378CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Bolinder J, Antuna R, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P, Kröger J, Weitgasser R (2016) Novel glucose-sensing technology and hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 388:2254–2263CrossRefPubMed Bolinder J, Antuna R, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P, Kröger J, Weitgasser R (2016) Novel glucose-sensing technology and hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 388:2254–2263CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Bailey T, Bode BW, Christiansen MP et al (2015) The performance and usability of a factory-calibrated flash glucose monitoring system. Diabetes Technol Ther 17:787–794CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bailey T, Bode BW, Christiansen MP et al (2015) The performance and usability of a factory-calibrated flash glucose monitoring system. Diabetes Technol Ther 17:787–794CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Kovatchev BP, Clarke WL, Breton M, Brayman K, McCall A (2005) Quantifying temporal glucose variability in diabetes via continuous glucose monitoring: mathematical methods and clinical application. Diabetes Technol Ther 7:849–862CrossRefPubMed Kovatchev BP, Clarke WL, Breton M, Brayman K, McCall A (2005) Quantifying temporal glucose variability in diabetes via continuous glucose monitoring: mathematical methods and clinical application. Diabetes Technol Ther 7:849–862CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Earles J et al (2005) Assessing psychosocial distress in diabetes: development of the Diabetes Distress Scale. Diabetes Care 28:626–631CrossRefPubMed Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Earles J et al (2005) Assessing psychosocial distress in diabetes: development of the Diabetes Distress Scale. Diabetes Care 28:626–631CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference The DCCT Research Group (1988) Reliability and validity of a diabetes quality-of-life measure for the diabetes control and complications trial (DCCT). Diabetes Care 11:725–732CrossRef The DCCT Research Group (1988) Reliability and validity of a diabetes quality-of-life measure for the diabetes control and complications trial (DCCT). Diabetes Care 11:725–732CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Bradley C (1994) Diabetes treatment satisfaction questionnaire. In: Bradley C (ed) Handbook of psychology and diabetes. Harwood Academic Publishers, pp 111–132 Bradley C (1994) Diabetes treatment satisfaction questionnaire. In: Bradley C (ed) Handbook of psychology and diabetes. Harwood Academic Publishers, pp 111–132
20.
go back to reference Gonder-Frederick LA, Schmidt KM, Vajda KA et al (2011) Psychometric properties of the hypoglycemia fear survey-II for adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 34:801–806CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gonder-Frederick LA, Schmidt KM, Vajda KA et al (2011) Psychometric properties of the hypoglycemia fear survey-II for adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 34:801–806CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Workgroup on Hypoglycaemia, American Diabetes Association (2005) Defining and reporting hypoglycaemia in diabetes: a report from the American Diabetes Association Workgroup on Hypoglycaemia. Diabetes Care 28:1245–1249CrossRef Workgroup on Hypoglycaemia, American Diabetes Association (2005) Defining and reporting hypoglycaemia in diabetes: a report from the American Diabetes Association Workgroup on Hypoglycaemia. Diabetes Care 28:1245–1249CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Pozzilli P, Battelino T, Danne T, Hovorka R, Jarosz-Chobot P, Renard E (2016) Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in diabetes: patient populations, safety, efficacy, and pharmacoeconomics. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 32:21–39CrossRefPubMed Pozzilli P, Battelino T, Danne T, Hovorka R, Jarosz-Chobot P, Renard E (2016) Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in diabetes: patient populations, safety, efficacy, and pharmacoeconomics. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 32:21–39CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Kristensen PL, Hansen LS, Jespersen MJ et al (2012) Insulin analogues and severe hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 96:17–23CrossRefPubMed Kristensen PL, Hansen LS, Jespersen MJ et al (2012) Insulin analogues and severe hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 96:17–23CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Frier BM (2014) Hypoglycaemia in diabetes mellitus: epidemiology and clinical implications. Nat Rev Endocrinol 10:711–722CrossRefPubMed Frier BM (2014) Hypoglycaemia in diabetes mellitus: epidemiology and clinical implications. Nat Rev Endocrinol 10:711–722CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Toschi E, Wolpert H (2016) Utility of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Endocrinol Metab Clin 45:895–904CrossRef Toschi E, Wolpert H (2016) Utility of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Endocrinol Metab Clin 45:895–904CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Seaquist ER, Anderson J, Childs B et al (2013) Hypoglycemia and diabetes: a report of a workgroup of the American Diabetes Association and the Endocrine Society. Diabetes Care 6:1384–1395CrossRef Seaquist ER, Anderson J, Childs B et al (2013) Hypoglycemia and diabetes: a report of a workgroup of the American Diabetes Association and the Endocrine Society. Diabetes Care 6:1384–1395CrossRef
28.
go back to reference The International Hypoglycaemia Study Group (2017) Glucose concentrations of less than 3.0 mmol/l (54 mg/dl) should be reported in clinical trials: a joint position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetologia 60:3–6CrossRef The International Hypoglycaemia Study Group (2017) Glucose concentrations of less than 3.0 mmol/l (54 mg/dl) should be reported in clinical trials: a joint position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetologia 60:3–6CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Pickup JC, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ (2011) 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 343:d3805CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pickup JC, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ (2011) 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 343:d3805CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference Riddlesworth T, Price D, Cohen N, Beck RW (2017) Hypoglycemic event frequency and the effect of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections. Diabetes Ther 8:947–951CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Riddlesworth T, Price D, Cohen N, Beck RW (2017) Hypoglycemic event frequency and the effect of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections. Diabetes Ther 8:947–951CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference van Beers CA, DeVries JH, Kleijer SJ et al (2016) Continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IN CONTROL): a randomised, open-label, crossover trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 4:893–902CrossRefPubMed van Beers CA, DeVries JH, Kleijer SJ et al (2016) Continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IN CONTROL): a randomised, open-label, crossover trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 4:893–902CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, Normanns H, Rayman G (2017) Flash glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring for the management of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther 8:55CrossRefPubMed Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, Normanns H, Rayman G (2017) Flash glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring for the management of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther 8:55CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Riveline J-P, Schaepelynck P, Chaillous L, for the EVADIAC Sensor Study Group et al (2012) Assessment of patient led or physician-driven continuous glucose monitoring in patients with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes using basal bolus regimens. A 1-year multicenter study. Diabetes Care 12:965–971CrossRef Riveline J-P, Schaepelynck P, Chaillous L, for the EVADIAC Sensor Study Group et al (2012) Assessment of patient led or physician-driven continuous glucose monitoring in patients with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes using basal bolus regimens. A 1-year multicenter study. Diabetes Care 12:965–971CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Pettus J, Edelman S (2016) Use of glucose rate of change arrows to adjust insulin therapy among individuals with type 1 diabetes who use continuous glucose monitoring. J Diabetes Sci Technol 10:1087–1093CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pettus J, Edelman S (2016) Use of glucose rate of change arrows to adjust insulin therapy among individuals with type 1 diabetes who use continuous glucose monitoring. J Diabetes Sci Technol 10:1087–1093CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Impact of flash glucose monitoring on hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes managed with multiple daily injection therapy: a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the IMPACT randomised controlled trial
Authors
Per Oskarsson
Ramiro Antuna
Petronella Geelhoed-Duijvestijn
Jens Krӧger
Raimund Weitgasser
Jan Bolinder
Publication date
01-03-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Diabetologia / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 0012-186X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0428
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-017-4527-5

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

Diabetologia 3/2018 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.