Continuous Glucose Monitoring Efficacy in Routine Use

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Efficacy in Routine Use One-half century ago, hand-held devices for home self-monitoring of blood glucose became more widely accessible. Most of the current health care providers who help people with diabetes consider self-monitoring of blood glucose a cornerstone of daily diabetes management. They likely could not imagine that highly respected diabetologists from Oxford, United Kingdom, published an article in Diabetes Care in 1980 stating that “In many patients, sufficiently good control can be obtained by this method [referring to glucose measurements limited to the outpatient clinic visits] so that it is not necessary to ask them to measure their own blood glucose concentrations or to ask them to obtain the fairly expensive meters for reading glucose oxidase strips” (1). The introduction of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) 15 years ago received a very similar initial reception from many distinguished diabetologists. The comparison of CGM downloads with “spaghetti” and the fear of “data overload” were so universal that a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a real-time CGM, despite substantial and clinically meaningful benefit, barely got accepted for publication (2). However, evidence-based medicine prevailed, and the landmark Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation’s RCT clearly demonstrated a robust benefit of CGM in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) (3). Several RCTs followed, demonstrating the safety and efficacy of CGM in hypoglycemia (4), in the pediatric population (5), integrated with an insulin pump (6, 7), used with basal-bolus therapy (8, 9), and during pregnancy (10). Consequently, several distinguished professional associations published consensus statements and/or recommendations on CGM (11, 12). More recently, successful use of CGM was also demonstrated in people with type 2 diabetes, and many individuals with T1D and type 2 diabetes and their care teams rely on CGM as a main tool for daily diabetes management (13). Finally, time in range was proposed as a CGM-derived metric for both routine clinical management as well as clinical research (14). CGM also enabled the rapid development of closed-loop insulin delivery with several artificial pancreas systems (15–18)—a dream of a few, one good decade ago, and a clinical reality today (19). However, the question of the safety and efficacy of CGM in routine day-to-day home use remained largely open. Longitudinal reports from individual national diabetes centers associate improved metabolic control with increasing use of insulin pumps and CGM (20), and analyses of spontaneous uploads from CGM users demonstrated substantial benefits of CGM use (21). However, a large prospective routine-use study was missing. In a previous issue of the journal, a report from Belgium provides this extremely important piece of evidence. The prospective observational study was required by the Belgian national public insurance system upon a full reimbursement approval and included 515 adult patients with T1D for a 12-month prespecified follow-up (22). The main indication for starting CGM was hypoglycemia (56%), followed by inadequate glycemic control (26%). Baseline hemoglobin (Hb)A1c, in 417 (81%) patients who used CGM connected to an insulin pump for at least 12 months, was 7.7 ± 0.9% (61 ± 9.8 mmol/mol) and decreased to 7.4 ± 0.8% (57 ± 8.7 mmol/mol) at 12 months (P < 0.0001). Sex [female (59%)], higher education (64%), white (97%), a long history of T1D, impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (47%), and 5.7 ± 4.6 years of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion use at baseline were the most important characteristics of this population. As expected, HbA1c, at 4, 8, and 12 months, decreased more in patients who started CGM because of inadequate glycemic control compared with patients who started because of hypoglycemia or pregnancy. Pregnant women had the lowest baseline HbA1c [7.2 ± 0.7% (55.0 ± 7.7 mmol/mol)] and decreased it even further to 6.6 ± 0.7% (49.0 ± 7.7 mmol/mol) at 4 months (P < 0.0005) and 6.9 ± 0.9% (52.0 ± 9.8 mmol/mol) at 12 months. Only the indication for starting the CGM was an independent predictor of changes in HbA1c in the multivariable analysis (P < 0.0001). The proportion of patients who achieved HbA1c < 7% (<53 mmol/mol) increased from 23% to 33% at 12 months (P = 0.001). Several other predefined, clinically important outcome measures were significantly improved: hospitalizations for severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis decreased from 16% to 4% (P < 0.0005), along with a decrease in admission days from 54 to 18 per 100 patient-years (P < 0.0005), representing a nationwide cost reduction of €345,509 ($430,000) during the study period. Additionally, work absenteeism decreased, and quality of life improved significantly, with a strong decrease in fear of hypoglycemia. Several CGM parameters also demonstrated benefit: the percentage of values <70 mg/dL (3.9 mM) was 5.6 ± 3.8% in the first 2 weeks compared with 4.5 ± 3.2% after 12 months (P = 0.002), independent of baseline HbA1c; glucose variability, measured by coefficient of variation (95% confidence interval), decreased from 38.7% (38.0 to 39.4) in the first 2 weeks to 37.9% (37.2 to 38.6) at 12 months (P = 0.02). The effectiveness of CGM observed in this study may be attributable to several factors. Mean sensor use was 87.5%, which is more than in most RCTs and reported real-world use; high percentage of sensor use is repeatedly associated with higher effectiveness of CGM (3, 6, 7). Furthermore, the attrition was very low. As a result of the specific design of the study, dictated by the Belgian health authorities, clinical teams selected highly motivated patients who were able to attain a high benefit from the CGM technology. The trial, however, has all of the limitations of an observational study without a prospective control group. Specific training, education, and more intense contact with health care professionals may have contributed to the favorable outcomes. Additionally, the unavailability of blinded CGM measurements before the start of reimbursement precluded the comparison of time spent in hypoglycemia, desired range, and hyperglycemia before and after the use of CGM. With the available amount of data from RCTs, which together include several thousand patient months, meta-analyses of these data, and judicious appraisal of studies by professional groups, the effectiveness of CGM and its clinical benefit remain beyond reasonable doubt. The Belgian experience (22) augments the evidence from good, routine clinical practice by dedicated medical teams and a unique public reimbursement system able to foster improved medical care through applied research. Despite the intense involvement of the study participants, the quality of life significantly increased. These important findings will likely benefit people with T1D in many other countries and compel various reimbursement authorities to assume a similar attitude toward CGM reimbursement. Let’s join forces and act together so that this will, in turn, stimulate scientists and corporations to develop even more accurate, smarter, smaller, less burdensome, more automated, and integrated CGM systems that will assimilate smoothly into hours, days, and years of life with diabetes, finally reducing the overwhelming burden of this chronic disease to individuals and the society. Abbreviations: Abbreviations: CGM continuous glucose monitoring Hb hemoglobin RCT randomized controlled trial T2D type 2 diabetes Acknowledgments Financial Support: T.B. is funded, in part, by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Grant UC4DK108611, European Commission-Innovative Medicines Initiative Grant INNODIA, and Slovenian National Research Agency (ARRS) Grant P-0343. Disclosure Summary: T.B. served on advisory boards of Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Boehringer, Medtronic, DreaMed Diabetes, and Bayer Health Care. T.B.’s institution received research grant support, with receipt of travel and accommodation expenses, in some cases, from Abbott, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, GluSense, Sanofi, Sandoz, and Diamyd. T.B. received honoraria for participation on speaker bureaus of Eli Lilly, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Sanofi, and Roche. T.B. owns stocks in DreaMed Diabetes. References 1. Ward EA, Phillips MA, Ward GM, Simpson RW, Mullins R, Turner RC. Clinic- rather than self-monitoring of home blood samples: relevance of day-to-day variability to decision making. Diabetes Care . 1980; 3( 1): 171– 174. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  2. Deiss D, Bolinder J, Riveline JP, Battelino T, Bosi E, Tubiana-Rufi N, Kerr D, Phillip M. Improved glycemic control in poorly controlled patients with type 1 diabetes using real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care . 2006; 29( 12): 2730– 2732. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  3. Tamborlane WV, Beck RW, Bode BW, Buckingham B, Chase HP, Clemons R, Fiallo-Scharer R, Fox LA, Gilliam LK, Hirsch IB, Huang ES, Kollman C, Kowalski AJ, Laffel L, Lawrence JM, Lee J, Mauras N, O’Grady M, Ruedy KJ, Tansey M, Tsalikian E, Weinzimer S, Wilson DM, Wolpert H, Wysocki T, Xing D; Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med . 2008; 359( 14): 1464– 1476. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  4. Battelino T, Phillip M, Bratina N, Nimri R, Oskarsson P, Bolinder J. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care . 2011; 34( 4): 795– 800. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  5. Battelino T, Conget I, Olsen B, Schütz-Fuhrmann I, Hommel E, Hoogma R, Schierloh U, Sulli N, Bolinder J; SWITCH Study Group. The use and efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy: a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia . 2012; 55( 12): 3155– 3162. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  6. Bergenstal RM, Tamborlane WV, Ahmann A, Buse JB, Dailey G, Davis SN, Joyce C, Peoples T, Perkins BA, Welsh JB, Willi SM, Wood MA; STAR 3 Study Group. Effectiveness of sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med . 2010; 363( 4): 311– 320. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  7. Bergenstal RM, Klonoff DC, Garg SK, Bode BW, Meredith M, Slover RH, Ahmann AJ, Welsh JB, Lee SW, Kaufman FR; ASPIRE In-Home Study Group. Threshold-based insulin-pump interruption for reduction of hypoglycemia. N Engl J Med . 2013; 369( 3): 224– 232. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  8. Bolinder J, Antuna R, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P, Kröger J, Weitgasser R. Novel glucose-sensing technology and hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet . 2016; 388( 10057): 2254– 2263. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  9. Lind M, Polonsky W, Hirsch IB, Heise T, Bolinder J, Dahlqvist S, Schwarz E, Ólafsdóttir AF, Frid A, Wedel H, Ahlén E, Nyström T, Hellman J. 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 . 2017; 317( 4): 379– 387. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  10. Feig DS, Donovan LE, Corcoy R, Murphy KE, Amiel SA, Hunt KF, Asztalos E, Barrett JFR, Sanchez JJ, de Leiva A, Hod M, Jovanovic L, Keely E, McManus R, Hutton EK, Meek CL, Stewart ZA, Wysocki T, O’Brien R, Ruedy K, Kollman C, Tomlinson G, Murphy HR; CONCEPTT Collaborative Group. Continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (CONCEPTT): a multicentre international randomised controlled trial. Lancet . 2017; 390( 10110): 2347– 2359. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  11. Phillip M, Danne T, Shalitin S, Buckingham B, Laffel L, Tamborlane W, Battelino T; Consensus Forum Participants. Use of continuous glucose monitoring in children and adolescents (*). Pediatr Diabetes . 2012; 13( 3): 215– 228. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  12. Peters AL, Ahmann AJ, Battelino T, Evert A, Hirsch IB, Murad MH, Winter WE, Wolpert H. Diabetes technology-continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy and continuous glucose monitoring in adults: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . 2016; 101( 11): 3922– 3937. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  13. Carlson AL, Mullen DM, Bergenstal RM. Clinical use of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther . 2017; 19( S2): S4– S11. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  14. Danne T, Nimri R, Battelino T, Bergenstal RM, Close KL, DeVries JH, Garg S, Heinemann L, Hirsch I, Amiel SA, Beck R, Bosi E, Buckingham B, Cobelli C, Dassau E, Doyle FJ III, Heller S, Hovorka R, Jia W, Jones T, Kordonouri O, Kovatchev B, Kowalski A, Laffel L, Maahs D, Murphy HR, Nørgaard K, Parkin CG, Renard E, Saboo B, Scharf M, Tamborlane WV, Weinzimer SA, Phillip M. International consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care . 2017; 40( 12): 1631– 1640. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  15. Phillip M, Battelino T, Atlas E, Kordonouri O, Bratina N, Miller S, Biester T, Stefanija MA, Muller I, Nimri R, Danne T. Nocturnal glucose control with an artificial pancreas at a diabetes camp. N Engl J Med . 2013; 368( 9): 824– 833. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  16. Stewart ZA, Wilinska ME, Hartnell S, Temple RC, Rayman G, Stanley KP, Simmons D, Law GR, Scott EM, Hovorka R, Murphy HR. Closed-loop insulin delivery during pregnancy in women with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med . 2016; 375( 7): 644– 654. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  17. El-Khatib FH, Balliro C, Hillard MA, Magyar KL, Ekhlaspour L, Sinha M, Mondesir D, Esmaeili A, Hartigan C, Thompson MJ, Malkani S, Lock JP, Harlan DM, Clinton P, Frank E, Wilson DM, DeSalvo D, Norlander L, Ly T, Buckingham BA, Diner J, Dezube M, Young LA, Goley A, Kirkman MS, Buse JB, Zheng H, Selagamsetty RR, Damiano ER, Russell SJ. Home use of a bihormonal bionic pancreas versus insulin pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre randomised crossover trial. Lancet . 2017; 389( 10067): 369– 380. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  18. Brown SA, Breton MD, Anderson SM, Kollar L, Keith-Hynes P, Levy CJ, Lam DW, Levister C, Baysal N, Kudva YC, Basu A, Dadlani V, Hinshaw L, McCrady-Spitzer S, Bruttomesso D, Visentin R, Galasso S, Del Favero S, Leal Y, Boscari F, Avogaro A, Cobelli C, Kovatchev BP. Overnight closed-loop control improves glycemic control in a multicenter study of adults with type 1 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . 2017; 102( 10): 3674– 3682. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  19. Bergenstal RM, Garg S, Weinzimer SA, Buckingham BA, Bode BW, Tamborlane WV, Kaufman FR. Safety of a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system in ptients with type 1 diabetes. JAMA . 2016; 316( 13): 1407– 1408. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  20. Bratina N, Shalitin S, Phillip M, Battelino T. Type 1 diabetes in the young: organization of two national centers in Israel and Slovenia. Zdr Varst . 2015; 54( 2): 139– 145. Google Scholar PubMed  21. Foster NC, Miller KM, Tamborlane WV, Bergenstal RM, Beck RW; T1D Exchange Clinic Network. Continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections. Diabetes Care . 2016; 39( 6): e81– e82. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  22. Charleer S, Mathieu C, Nobels F, De Block C, Radermecker RP, Hermans MP, Taes Y, Vercammen C, T’Sjoen G, Crenier L, Fieuws S, Keymeulen B, Gillard P; RESCUE Trial Investigators. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control, acute admissions, and quality of life: a real-world study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . 2018; 103( 3): 1224– 1232. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Copyright © 2018 Endocrine Society http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism Oxford University Press

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Efficacy in Routine Use

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/continuous-glucose-monitoring-efficacy-in-routine-use-D9nvtYkSTs
Publisher
Endocrine Society
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Endocrine Society
ISSN
0021-972X
eISSN
1945-7197
D.O.I.
10.1210/jc.2018-00275
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

One-half century ago, hand-held devices for home self-monitoring of blood glucose became more widely accessible. Most of the current health care providers who help people with diabetes consider self-monitoring of blood glucose a cornerstone of daily diabetes management. They likely could not imagine that highly respected diabetologists from Oxford, United Kingdom, published an article in Diabetes Care in 1980 stating that “In many patients, sufficiently good control can be obtained by this method [referring to glucose measurements limited to the outpatient clinic visits] so that it is not necessary to ask them to measure their own blood glucose concentrations or to ask them to obtain the fairly expensive meters for reading glucose oxidase strips” (1). The introduction of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) 15 years ago received a very similar initial reception from many distinguished diabetologists. The comparison of CGM downloads with “spaghetti” and the fear of “data overload” were so universal that a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a real-time CGM, despite substantial and clinically meaningful benefit, barely got accepted for publication (2). However, evidence-based medicine prevailed, and the landmark Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation’s RCT clearly demonstrated a robust benefit of CGM in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) (3). Several RCTs followed, demonstrating the safety and efficacy of CGM in hypoglycemia (4), in the pediatric population (5), integrated with an insulin pump (6, 7), used with basal-bolus therapy (8, 9), and during pregnancy (10). Consequently, several distinguished professional associations published consensus statements and/or recommendations on CGM (11, 12). More recently, successful use of CGM was also demonstrated in people with type 2 diabetes, and many individuals with T1D and type 2 diabetes and their care teams rely on CGM as a main tool for daily diabetes management (13). Finally, time in range was proposed as a CGM-derived metric for both routine clinical management as well as clinical research (14). CGM also enabled the rapid development of closed-loop insulin delivery with several artificial pancreas systems (15–18)—a dream of a few, one good decade ago, and a clinical reality today (19). However, the question of the safety and efficacy of CGM in routine day-to-day home use remained largely open. Longitudinal reports from individual national diabetes centers associate improved metabolic control with increasing use of insulin pumps and CGM (20), and analyses of spontaneous uploads from CGM users demonstrated substantial benefits of CGM use (21). However, a large prospective routine-use study was missing. In a previous issue of the journal, a report from Belgium provides this extremely important piece of evidence. The prospective observational study was required by the Belgian national public insurance system upon a full reimbursement approval and included 515 adult patients with T1D for a 12-month prespecified follow-up (22). The main indication for starting CGM was hypoglycemia (56%), followed by inadequate glycemic control (26%). Baseline hemoglobin (Hb)A1c, in 417 (81%) patients who used CGM connected to an insulin pump for at least 12 months, was 7.7 ± 0.9% (61 ± 9.8 mmol/mol) and decreased to 7.4 ± 0.8% (57 ± 8.7 mmol/mol) at 12 months (P < 0.0001). Sex [female (59%)], higher education (64%), white (97%), a long history of T1D, impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (47%), and 5.7 ± 4.6 years of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion use at baseline were the most important characteristics of this population. As expected, HbA1c, at 4, 8, and 12 months, decreased more in patients who started CGM because of inadequate glycemic control compared with patients who started because of hypoglycemia or pregnancy. Pregnant women had the lowest baseline HbA1c [7.2 ± 0.7% (55.0 ± 7.7 mmol/mol)] and decreased it even further to 6.6 ± 0.7% (49.0 ± 7.7 mmol/mol) at 4 months (P < 0.0005) and 6.9 ± 0.9% (52.0 ± 9.8 mmol/mol) at 12 months. Only the indication for starting the CGM was an independent predictor of changes in HbA1c in the multivariable analysis (P < 0.0001). The proportion of patients who achieved HbA1c < 7% (<53 mmol/mol) increased from 23% to 33% at 12 months (P = 0.001). Several other predefined, clinically important outcome measures were significantly improved: hospitalizations for severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis decreased from 16% to 4% (P < 0.0005), along with a decrease in admission days from 54 to 18 per 100 patient-years (P < 0.0005), representing a nationwide cost reduction of €345,509 ($430,000) during the study period. Additionally, work absenteeism decreased, and quality of life improved significantly, with a strong decrease in fear of hypoglycemia. Several CGM parameters also demonstrated benefit: the percentage of values <70 mg/dL (3.9 mM) was 5.6 ± 3.8% in the first 2 weeks compared with 4.5 ± 3.2% after 12 months (P = 0.002), independent of baseline HbA1c; glucose variability, measured by coefficient of variation (95% confidence interval), decreased from 38.7% (38.0 to 39.4) in the first 2 weeks to 37.9% (37.2 to 38.6) at 12 months (P = 0.02). The effectiveness of CGM observed in this study may be attributable to several factors. Mean sensor use was 87.5%, which is more than in most RCTs and reported real-world use; high percentage of sensor use is repeatedly associated with higher effectiveness of CGM (3, 6, 7). Furthermore, the attrition was very low. As a result of the specific design of the study, dictated by the Belgian health authorities, clinical teams selected highly motivated patients who were able to attain a high benefit from the CGM technology. The trial, however, has all of the limitations of an observational study without a prospective control group. Specific training, education, and more intense contact with health care professionals may have contributed to the favorable outcomes. Additionally, the unavailability of blinded CGM measurements before the start of reimbursement precluded the comparison of time spent in hypoglycemia, desired range, and hyperglycemia before and after the use of CGM. With the available amount of data from RCTs, which together include several thousand patient months, meta-analyses of these data, and judicious appraisal of studies by professional groups, the effectiveness of CGM and its clinical benefit remain beyond reasonable doubt. The Belgian experience (22) augments the evidence from good, routine clinical practice by dedicated medical teams and a unique public reimbursement system able to foster improved medical care through applied research. Despite the intense involvement of the study participants, the quality of life significantly increased. These important findings will likely benefit people with T1D in many other countries and compel various reimbursement authorities to assume a similar attitude toward CGM reimbursement. Let’s join forces and act together so that this will, in turn, stimulate scientists and corporations to develop even more accurate, smarter, smaller, less burdensome, more automated, and integrated CGM systems that will assimilate smoothly into hours, days, and years of life with diabetes, finally reducing the overwhelming burden of this chronic disease to individuals and the society. Abbreviations: Abbreviations: CGM continuous glucose monitoring Hb hemoglobin RCT randomized controlled trial T2D type 2 diabetes Acknowledgments Financial Support: T.B. is funded, in part, by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Grant UC4DK108611, European Commission-Innovative Medicines Initiative Grant INNODIA, and Slovenian National Research Agency (ARRS) Grant P-0343. Disclosure Summary: T.B. served on advisory boards of Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Boehringer, Medtronic, DreaMed Diabetes, and Bayer Health Care. T.B.’s institution received research grant support, with receipt of travel and accommodation expenses, in some cases, from Abbott, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, GluSense, Sanofi, Sandoz, and Diamyd. T.B. received honoraria for participation on speaker bureaus of Eli Lilly, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Sanofi, and Roche. T.B. owns stocks in DreaMed Diabetes. References 1. Ward EA, Phillips MA, Ward GM, Simpson RW, Mullins R, Turner RC. Clinic- rather than self-monitoring of home blood samples: relevance of day-to-day variability to decision making. Diabetes Care . 1980; 3( 1): 171– 174. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  2. Deiss D, Bolinder J, Riveline JP, Battelino T, Bosi E, Tubiana-Rufi N, Kerr D, Phillip M. Improved glycemic control in poorly controlled patients with type 1 diabetes using real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care . 2006; 29( 12): 2730– 2732. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  3. Tamborlane WV, Beck RW, Bode BW, Buckingham B, Chase HP, Clemons R, Fiallo-Scharer R, Fox LA, Gilliam LK, Hirsch IB, Huang ES, Kollman C, Kowalski AJ, Laffel L, Lawrence JM, Lee J, Mauras N, O’Grady M, Ruedy KJ, Tansey M, Tsalikian E, Weinzimer S, Wilson DM, Wolpert H, Wysocki T, Xing D; Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med . 2008; 359( 14): 1464– 1476. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  4. Battelino T, Phillip M, Bratina N, Nimri R, Oskarsson P, Bolinder J. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care . 2011; 34( 4): 795– 800. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  5. Battelino T, Conget I, Olsen B, Schütz-Fuhrmann I, Hommel E, Hoogma R, Schierloh U, Sulli N, Bolinder J; SWITCH Study Group. The use and efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy: a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia . 2012; 55( 12): 3155– 3162. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  6. Bergenstal RM, Tamborlane WV, Ahmann A, Buse JB, Dailey G, Davis SN, Joyce C, Peoples T, Perkins BA, Welsh JB, Willi SM, Wood MA; STAR 3 Study Group. Effectiveness of sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med . 2010; 363( 4): 311– 320. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  7. Bergenstal RM, Klonoff DC, Garg SK, Bode BW, Meredith M, Slover RH, Ahmann AJ, Welsh JB, Lee SW, Kaufman FR; ASPIRE In-Home Study Group. Threshold-based insulin-pump interruption for reduction of hypoglycemia. N Engl J Med . 2013; 369( 3): 224– 232. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  8. Bolinder J, Antuna R, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P, Kröger J, Weitgasser R. Novel glucose-sensing technology and hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet . 2016; 388( 10057): 2254– 2263. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  9. Lind M, Polonsky W, Hirsch IB, Heise T, Bolinder J, Dahlqvist S, Schwarz E, Ólafsdóttir AF, Frid A, Wedel H, Ahlén E, Nyström T, Hellman J. 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 . 2017; 317( 4): 379– 387. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  10. Feig DS, Donovan LE, Corcoy R, Murphy KE, Amiel SA, Hunt KF, Asztalos E, Barrett JFR, Sanchez JJ, de Leiva A, Hod M, Jovanovic L, Keely E, McManus R, Hutton EK, Meek CL, Stewart ZA, Wysocki T, O’Brien R, Ruedy K, Kollman C, Tomlinson G, Murphy HR; CONCEPTT Collaborative Group. Continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (CONCEPTT): a multicentre international randomised controlled trial. Lancet . 2017; 390( 10110): 2347– 2359. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  11. Phillip M, Danne T, Shalitin S, Buckingham B, Laffel L, Tamborlane W, Battelino T; Consensus Forum Participants. Use of continuous glucose monitoring in children and adolescents (*). Pediatr Diabetes . 2012; 13( 3): 215– 228. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  12. Peters AL, Ahmann AJ, Battelino T, Evert A, Hirsch IB, Murad MH, Winter WE, Wolpert H. Diabetes technology-continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy and continuous glucose monitoring in adults: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . 2016; 101( 11): 3922– 3937. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  13. Carlson AL, Mullen DM, Bergenstal RM. Clinical use of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther . 2017; 19( S2): S4– S11. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  14. Danne T, Nimri R, Battelino T, Bergenstal RM, Close KL, DeVries JH, Garg S, Heinemann L, Hirsch I, Amiel SA, Beck R, Bosi E, Buckingham B, Cobelli C, Dassau E, Doyle FJ III, Heller S, Hovorka R, Jia W, Jones T, Kordonouri O, Kovatchev B, Kowalski A, Laffel L, Maahs D, Murphy HR, Nørgaard K, Parkin CG, Renard E, Saboo B, Scharf M, Tamborlane WV, Weinzimer SA, Phillip M. International consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care . 2017; 40( 12): 1631– 1640. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  15. Phillip M, Battelino T, Atlas E, Kordonouri O, Bratina N, Miller S, Biester T, Stefanija MA, Muller I, Nimri R, Danne T. Nocturnal glucose control with an artificial pancreas at a diabetes camp. N Engl J Med . 2013; 368( 9): 824– 833. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  16. Stewart ZA, Wilinska ME, Hartnell S, Temple RC, Rayman G, Stanley KP, Simmons D, Law GR, Scott EM, Hovorka R, Murphy HR. Closed-loop insulin delivery during pregnancy in women with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med . 2016; 375( 7): 644– 654. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  17. El-Khatib FH, Balliro C, Hillard MA, Magyar KL, Ekhlaspour L, Sinha M, Mondesir D, Esmaeili A, Hartigan C, Thompson MJ, Malkani S, Lock JP, Harlan DM, Clinton P, Frank E, Wilson DM, DeSalvo D, Norlander L, Ly T, Buckingham BA, Diner J, Dezube M, Young LA, Goley A, Kirkman MS, Buse JB, Zheng H, Selagamsetty RR, Damiano ER, Russell SJ. Home use of a bihormonal bionic pancreas versus insulin pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre randomised crossover trial. Lancet . 2017; 389( 10067): 369– 380. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  18. Brown SA, Breton MD, Anderson SM, Kollar L, Keith-Hynes P, Levy CJ, Lam DW, Levister C, Baysal N, Kudva YC, Basu A, Dadlani V, Hinshaw L, McCrady-Spitzer S, Bruttomesso D, Visentin R, Galasso S, Del Favero S, Leal Y, Boscari F, Avogaro A, Cobelli C, Kovatchev BP. Overnight closed-loop control improves glycemic control in a multicenter study of adults with type 1 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . 2017; 102( 10): 3674– 3682. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  19. Bergenstal RM, Garg S, Weinzimer SA, Buckingham BA, Bode BW, Tamborlane WV, Kaufman FR. Safety of a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system in ptients with type 1 diabetes. JAMA . 2016; 316( 13): 1407– 1408. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  20. Bratina N, Shalitin S, Phillip M, Battelino T. Type 1 diabetes in the young: organization of two national centers in Israel and Slovenia. Zdr Varst . 2015; 54( 2): 139– 145. Google Scholar PubMed  21. Foster NC, Miller KM, Tamborlane WV, Bergenstal RM, Beck RW; T1D Exchange Clinic Network. Continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections. Diabetes Care . 2016; 39( 6): e81– e82. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  22. Charleer S, Mathieu C, Nobels F, De Block C, Radermecker RP, Hermans MP, Taes Y, Vercammen C, T’Sjoen G, Crenier L, Fieuws S, Keymeulen B, Gillard P; RESCUE Trial Investigators. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control, acute admissions, and quality of life: a real-world study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . 2018; 103( 3): 1224– 1232. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Copyright © 2018 Endocrine Society

Journal

Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and MetabolismOxford University Press

Published: Mar 30, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off