Incremental value of continuous glucose monitoring when starting pump therapy in patients with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes: the RealTrend study. Sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy: results of the first randomized treat-to-target study. Patient-reported outcomes for an integrated real-time continuous glucose monitoring/insulin pump system. Continuous glucose monitoring-guided insulin adjustment in children and adolescents on near-physiological insulin regimens: a randomized controlled trial. Sensor-augmented pump therapy from the diagnosis of childhood type 1 diabetes: results of the Paediatric Onset Study (ONSET) after 12 months of treatment. Use of the Continuous Glucose Monitoring System to guide therapy in patients with insulin-treated diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Effectiveness of sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy in type 1 diabetes. Continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring improved metabolic control in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes: a controlled crossover study. Sensor-augmented pump therapy lowers HbA(1c) in suboptimally controlled Type 1 diabetes; a randomized controlled trial.
To compare the improvements in glycemic control associated with transitioning to insulin pump therapy in patients using continuous glucose monitoring versus standard blood glucose self-monitoring.
                The RealTrend study was a 6-month, randomized, parallel-group, two-arm, open-label study of 132 adults and children with uncontrolled type 1 diabetes (A1C >or=8%) being treated with multiple daily injections. One group was fitted with the Medtronic MiniMed Paradigm REAL-Time system (PRT group), an insulin pump with integrated continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring (CGM) capability, with instructions to wear CGM sensors at least 70% of the time. Conventional insulin pump therapy was initiated in the other group (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII] group). Outcome measures included A1C and glycemic variability.
                A total of 115 patients completed the study. Between baseline and trial end, A1C improved significantly in both groups (PRT group -0.81 +/- 1.09%, P < 0.001; CSII group -0.57 +/- 0.94%, P < 0.001), with no significant difference between groups. When the 91 patients who were fully protocol-compliant (including CGM sensor wear >or=70% of the time) were considered, A1C improvement was significantly greater in the PRT group (P = 0.004) (PRT group -0.96 +/- 0.93%, P < 0.001; CSII group -0.55 +/- 0.93%, P < 0.001). Hyperglycemia parameters decreased in line with improvements in A1C with no impact on hypoglycemia.
                CGM-enabled insulin pump therapy improves glycemia more than conventional pump therapy during the first 6 months of pump use in patients who wear CGM sensors at least 70% of the time. The objective of the study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of a device that combines an insulin pump with real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), compared to using an insulin pump with standard blood glucose monitoring systems.
                This 6-month, randomized, multicenter, treat-to-target study enrolled 146 subjects treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion between the ages of 12 and 72 years with type 1 diabetes and initial A1C levels of >or=7.5%. Subjects were randomized to pump therapy with real-time CGM (sensor group [SG]) or to pump therapy and self-monitoring of blood glucose only (control group [CG]). Clinical effectiveness and safety were evaluated.
                A1C levels decreased (P<0.001) from baseline (8.44+/-0.70%) in both groups (SG, -0.71+/-0.71%; CG, -0.56+/-0.072%); however, between-group differences did not achieve significance. SG subjects showed no change in mean hypoglycemia area under the curve (AUC), whereas CG subjects showed an increase (P=0.001) in hypoglycemia AUC during the blinded periods of the study. The between-group difference in hypoglycemia AUC was significant (P<0.0002). Greater than 60% sensor utilization was associated with A1C reduction (P=0.0456). Fourteen severe hypoglycemic events occurred (11 in the SG group and three in the CG group, P=0.04).
                A1C reduction was no different between the two groups. Subjects in the CG group had increased hypoglycemia AUC and number of events during blinded CGM use; however, there was no increase in hypoglycemia AUC or number of events in the SG group. Subjects with greater sensor utilization showed a greater improvement in A1C levels. A 16-week, two-site study evaluated outcomes for a new device (the Paradigm 722 System, Medtronic MiniMed, Northridge, CA) that combines a "smart" continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) pump with real-time (RT) continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and CareLinktrade mark data management software (DMS).
                CSII-naive adults with type 1 diabetes in suboptimal control (mean glycosylated hemoglobin [A1C] = 8.6%) were randomized to the control arm, consisting of multiple daily injections (MDI) and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), or the study arm (CSII with RT-CGM as an adjunct to SMBG). Participants (n = 28) completed the validated Insulin Delivery System Rating Questionnaire (IDSRQ) and the parallel Blood Glucose (BG) Monitoring System Rating Questionnaire (BGMSRQ) at study start and end. Participants in the study arm (n = 14) also completed newly developed User Acceptance Questionnaires (UAQs) for CSII, RT-CGM, and DMS at study end.
                A1C reduction from study start to end was significant (P < 0.05) in both arms (-1.7% for study arm;-1.0% for control arm); there was no significant change in weight in either arm. The IDSRQ showed significantly (P < 0.05) greater benefit for the study arm in convenience, acceptability of BG monitoring requirements, BG control efficacy, diabetes worries, and interpersonal hassles, as well as higher overall satisfaction/preference. The BGMSRQ showed significantly (P < 0.05) greater benefit for the study arm in the BG monitoring system's ability to help manage glycemic control and less interest in changing to another BG monitoring system. The Study Arm UAQs showed positive ratings of system features.
                Several patient-reported outcomes were significantly more positive in the study arm than the control arm; none was significantly more positive in the control arm. The features of the integrated RT-CGM/CSII system were frequently used and highly rated by participants, with high user satisfaction. This randomized controlled trial assesses the effect on glycemic control of continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS)-guided insulin therapy adjustment in young people with type 1 diabetes on intensive diabetes treatment regimens with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) or glargine.
                Pediatric subjects were recruited if they had an HbA(1c) (A1C) <10% and had been on CSII or glargine for at least 3 months. Thirty-six subjects were randomized to insulin adjustment on the basis of 72 h of CGMS every 3 weeks or intermittent self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) for 3 months. A1C and fructosamine were measured at baseline and 6 and 12 weeks. Follow-up A1C was measured at 6 months. Mean baseline A1C was 8.2% (n = 19) in the CGMS group and 7.9% (n = 17) in the control group.
                There was a significant improvement in A1C from baseline values in both groups, but there was no difference in the degree of improvement in A1C at 12 weeks between the CGMS (-0.4% [95% CI -0.7 to -0.1]) and the control group (-0.4% [-0.8 to 0.2]). In the CGMS group, improved A1C was at the cost of increased duration of hypoglycemia.
                CGMS is no more useful than intermittent fingerstick SMBG and frequent review in improving diabetes control in reasonably well-controlled patients on near-physiological insulin regimens when used in an outpatient clinic setting. The value of managing children with type 1 diabetes using a combination of insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring starting from diagnosis for improving subsequent glycaemic control and preserving residual beta cell function was determined.
                A total of 160 children (aged 1-16 years, mean ± SD: 8.7 ± 4.4 years; 47.5% girls) were randomised to receive insulin pump treatment with continuous glucose monitoring or conventional self-monitoring blood glucose measurements. The primary outcome was the level of HbA(1c) after 12 months. Other analyses included fasting C-peptide, glycaemic variability, sensor usage, adverse events, children's health-related quality of life and parent's wellbeing.
                HbA(1c) was not significantly different between the two groups, but patients with regular sensor use had lower values (mean 7.1%, 95% CI 6.8-7.4%) compared with the combined group with no or low sensor usage (mean 7.6%, 95% CI 7.3-7.9%; p=0.032). At 12 months, glycaemic variability was lower in the sensor group (mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions 80.2 ± 26.2 vs 92.0 ± 33.7; p=0.037). Higher C-peptide concentrations were seen in sensor-treated 12- to 16-year-old patients (0.25 ± 0.12 nmol/l) compared with those treated with insulin pump alone (0.19 ± 0.07 nmol/l; p=0.033). Severe hypoglycaemia was reported only in the group without sensors (four episodes).
                Sensor-augmented pump therapy starting from the diagnosis of type 1 diabetes can be associated with less decline in fasting C-peptide particularly in older children, although regular sensor use is a prerequisite for improved glycaemic control.
                ISRCTN.org ISRCTN05450731
                Medtronic International Trading Sàrl, Tolochenaz, Switzerland. To show improved glycemic control in patients with insulin-treated diabetes after adjustments to the diabetes management plan based on either continuous glucose monitoring using the Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS) or frequent self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) using a home blood glucose meter.
                From January to September 2000, patients aged 19 to 76 years with insulin-treated diabetes were assigned to insulin therapy adjustments based on either CGMS or SMBG values. At the end of the study, patients in both groups used the CGMS for 3 days; these values were used to calculate measures of hypoglycemia. Repeated-measures analysis of variance with post hoc comparisons were used to test differences in hemoglobin A1c levels and hypoglycemia between the 2 study groups.
                A total of 128 patients were enrolled in the study. Nineteen discontinued study participation, leaving 51 in the CGMS group and 58 in the SMBG group. No significant differences were noted in demographics or baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. There were no significant differences in hemoglobin A1c levels between the CGMS group and the SMBG group at baseline (9.1% +/- 1.1% vs 9.0% +/- 1.0%, P = .70), and both groups showed statistically significant (P < .001) and similar (P = .95) improvement in hemoglobin A1c levels after 12 weeks of study. However, the CGMS group had a significantly shorter duration of hypoglycemia (sensor glucose, < or = 60 mg/dL) at week 12 of the study (49.4 +/- 40.8 vs 81.0 +/- 61.1 minutes per event, P = .009).
                Use of the CGMS to guide therapy adjustments in patients with insulin-treated diabetes reduces the duration of hypoglycemia compared with therapy adjustments guided by SMBG values alone. Recently developed technologies for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus include a variety of pumps and pumps with glucose sensors.
                In this 1-year, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we compared the efficacy of sensor-augmented pump therapy (pump therapy) with that of a regimen of multiple daily insulin injections (injection therapy) in 485 patients (329 adults and 156 children) with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes. Patients received recombinant insulin analogues and were supervised by expert clinical teams. The primary end point was the change from the baseline glycated hemoglobin level.
                At 1 year, the baseline mean glycated hemoglobin level (8.3% in the two study groups) had decreased to 7.5% in the pump-therapy group, as compared with 8.1% in the injection-therapy group (P<0.001). The proportion of patients who reached the glycated hemoglobin target (<7%) was greater in the pump-therapy group than in the injection-therapy group. The rate of severe hypoglycemia in the pump-therapy group (13.31 cases per 100 person-years) did not differ significantly from that in the injection-therapy group (13.48 per 100 person-years, P=0.58). There was no significant weight gain in either group.
                In both adults and children with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes, sensor-augmented pump therapy resulted in significant improvement in glycated hemoglobin levels, as compared with injection therapy. A significantly greater proportion of both adults and children in the pump-therapy group than in the injection-therapy group reached the target glycated hemoglobin level. (Funded by Medtronic and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00417989.)
                2010 Massachusetts Medical Society To improve metabolic control and prevent complications, both acute and late, we need to adjust treatment on the basis of the blood glucose (BG) profile, as not even the most active BG self-monitoring gives sufficient information.
                We have used Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS; Medtronic MiniMed, Northridge, CA) in a controlled crossover study including 27 diabetic patients aged 12.5 +/- 3.3 (mean; standard deviation; range: 5-19) years. All patients were treated with intensive insulin therapy, 14 with multiple injections, and 13 with pumps. The patients were randomized into an open or blind study arm. Both arms wore the CGMS sensor for 3 days every 2 weeks. CGMS profiles were used in the open study arm to adjust insulin therapy at follow-up visits every 6 weeks. Both the patients and the diabetes team were masked to the CGMS profiles in the blinded arm, and insulin therapy adjustments were based solely on 7-point BG profiles performed by the patients. At 3 months the 2 study arms were crossed over.
                Despite initial problems with a device new to both patients and the diabetes team, hemoglobin A(1)C decreased significantly in the open arm (from 7.70%-7.31%) but not in the blind arm (7.75%-7.65%). A total of 26/27 patients experienced daytime low subcutaneous glucose (<3.0 mmol/L;.8 episodes/day; duration 58 +/- 29 minutes; 5.5% of total time), and 27/27 patients had at least 1 nocturnal episode of low subcutaneous glucose (.4 episodes/night; duration 132 +/- 81 minutes; 10.1% of total time).
                Use of CGMS facilitated an improved treatment, and patients received new insight and increased motivation. In this study, we found CGMS to be a useful tool for education and improving metabolic control. To investigate the efficacy of sensor-augmented pump therapy vs. multiple daily injection therapy in patients with suboptimally controlled Type 1 diabetes.
                In this investigator-initiated multi-centre trial (the Eurythmics Trial) in eight outpatient centres in Europe, we randomized 83 patients with Type 1 diabetes (40 women) currently treated with multiple daily injections, age 18-65 years and HbA(1c) ≥ 8.2% (≥ 66 mmol/mol) to 26 weeks of treatment with either a sensor-augmented insulin pump (n = 44) (Paradigm(®) REAL-Time) or continued with multiple daily injections (n = 39). Change in HbA(1c) between baseline and 26 weeks, sensor-derived endpoints and patient-reported outcomes were assessed.
                The trial was completed by 43/44 (98%) patients in the sensor-augmented insulin pump group and 35/39 (90%) patients in the multiple daily injections group. Mean HbA(1c) at baseline and at 26 weeks changed from 8.46% (SD 0.95) (69 mmol/mol) to 7.23% (SD 0.65) (56 mmol/mol) in the sensor-augmented insulin pump group and from 8.59% (SD 0.82) (70 mmol/mol) to 8.46% (SD 1.04) (69 mmol/mol) in the multiple daily injections group. Mean difference in change in HbA(1c) after 26 weeks was -1.21% (95% confidence interval -1.52 to -0.90, P < 0.001) in favour of the sensor-augmented insulin pump group. This was achieved without an increase in percentage of time spent in hypoglycaemia: between-group difference 0.0% (95% confidence interval -1.6 to 1.7, P = 0.96). There were four episodes of severe hypoglycaemia in the sensor-augmented insulin pump group and one episode in the multiple daily injections group (P = 0.21). Problem Areas in Diabetes and Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire scores improved in the sensor-augmented insulin pump group.
                Sensor augmented pump therapy effectively lowers HbA(1c) in patients with Type 1 diabetes suboptimally controlled with multiple daily injections.
                © 2011 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine © 2011 Diabetes UK.
There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use in children, adults and patients with poorly controlled diabetes. The largest improvements in glycaemic control were seen for sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy in patients with poorly controlled diabetes who had not used an insulin pump before. The risk of severe hypoglycaemia or ketoacidosis was not significantly increased for CGM users, but as these events occurred infrequent these results have to be interpreted cautiously.There are indications that higher compliance of wearing the CGM device improves glycosylated haemoglobin A1c level (HbA1c) to a larger extent.