RESUMEN
In this three-year retrospective study, data from 51 patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), receiving a minimum of 3-4 insulin injections per day and self-monitoring their blood glucose (SMBG) four times a day, were derived from our internal medicine residency primary care clinic. The patients were equipped with a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device that shared 24-hour glucose data with the clinic. They were assigned to members of our CGM team, which included internal medicine or transitional year medical residents who functioned under the supervision of a board-certified endocrinologist. The residents, in consultation with our endocrinologist, assessed the patients' glucose management data and adjusted their treatment regimens biweekly by calling the patients, and monthly by seeing the patients in the clinic. Significant results from the study include a reduction in HbA1c from 9.9% to 7.6%, an average blood glucose decrement from 242 mg/dL to 169 mg/dL, a reduction in the incidence of mild hypoglycemia from below 70 mg/dL to 54 mg/dL, from 4.68% to 0.76% per day, and a more pronounced hypoglycemia with glucose less than 54 mg/dL from 3.1% per day to 0.2% per day. We observed a significant increase in the time in the range of the blood glucose from 33% to 67% per day. Furthermore, 9.5% of the patients in this study eventually discontinued their daily insulin injections and continued treatment with oral diabetic medications with or without the use of injectable GLP-1 receptors once a week. Our study affirms that CGM devices significantly improve glycemic control compared to SMBG, supporting its efficacy in optimizing glycemic control in real-world clinical practice. The results imply that this can be accomplished in internal medicine residency clinics and not exclusively in specialized endocrine clinics. As far as we know, this is the first study of its kind in a residency clinic in the USA. This study confirms the benefits of widening the application of CGM in DM, along with the challenges that must be overcome to realize the evidence-based benefits of this technology. CGM needs to become a part of routine monitoring for type 1 and type 2 DM.
RESUMEN
AIMS: For end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with diabetes on haemodialysis, diabetes control is difficult to achieve. Hypoglycaemia is a major problem in these frailty subjects. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices appear therefore to be a good tool to help patients monitor their glycaemic control and to help practitioners optimize treatment. We aimed to compare the laboratory value of Hba1c with the sensor-estimated value of Hba1c (= glucose management indicator, GMI) in ESRD patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) (with or without insulin treatment) on haemodialysis. Secondly, we aimed to identify CGM-derived monitoring parameters [time in range, time in hypo/hyperglycaemia, glycaemic variability (coefficient of variation, CV)] to identify patients at risk of frequent hypo- or hyperglycaemia. METHODS: The FSLPRO-DIAL pilot study (NCT04641650) was a prospective monocentric cohort study including 29 subjects with T2D who achieve the protocol. Inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 18 years, haemodialysis duration for at least 3 months, type 2 diabetes with no change in treatment for at least 3 months. Demographic data and blood sample were collected at the day of inclusion. Freestyle Libre pro IQ sensor (blinded CGM) was inserted for 14 days. After this period, all CGMs data were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Data were available for 27 patients. Mean age was 73 ± 10, mean BMI 27.2 kg/m2, mean duration of diabetes 16.9 years and mean dialysis duration 2.9 years. Twenty-four subjects were treated with insulin. Mean HbA1c was 6.6% (SD 1.2), and mean GMI was 6.7% (SD 0.9) (no significant difference, p = 0.3). Twelve subjects (44.4%) had a discordance between HbA1c and GMI of < 0.5%, 11 (40.8%) had a discordance between 0.5 and 1%, and only 4 (14.8%) had a discordance of > 1%. Mean time in range (70-180 mg/dl) was 71.9%, mean time below range (< 70 mg/dl) was 5.6%, and mean time above range (> 180 mg/dl) was 22.1%. Mean CV was 31.8%. For 13 out of 27 patients, we reduced antidiabetic treatment by stopping treatments or reducing insulin doses. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, there was no global significant difference between HbA1c and GMI in this particular cohort with very well-controlled diabetes. However, the use of the sensor enabled us to identify an excessive time in hypoglycemia in this fragile population and to adapt their treatment.
RESUMEN
We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study between 2020 and 2023 in 26 patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) who were using 3-4 injections per day of insulin and were monitored by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The goal of this retrospective observational cohort study is to compare these two metrics in an internal medicine community primary care residency clinic. We used CGM devices, Dexcom G6 and G7, and Freestyle Libre 3. The goal was to compare the patient's hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) taken during their clinic visit by phlebotomy as a marker for diabetic control with an estimated HbA1c glucose management indicator (GMI) derived from the 30-day CGM readings. HbA1c is derived from the blood, while the GMI value is derived from the interstitial fluid. Both parameters were taken within 30 days of each other. GMI was taken in the last 30 days. We excluded patients with known anemia, chronic kidney disease, polycythemia, cirrhosis of the liver, or metabolic dysfunction associated with steatohepatitis (MASH) because disease states can affect the measured HbA1c. Also, pregnant and African American patients were excluded. We concluded the measured HbA1c was 0.34% (4 mmol/mol) higher than the CGM-derived GMI. The relationship between factors that affect glycemic control was discussed in the article, as well as the future utilization of them in improving diabetic control and management. As the use of CGM continues to grow, addressing differences between laboratory-measured HbA1c and CGM-derived GMI is critical.