TY - JOUR

T1 - Glucose Monitoring Metrics in Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes Using Different Treatment Modalities

T2 - A Real-World Observational Study

AU - Nørgaard, Kirsten

AU - Ranjan, Ajenthen G.

AU - Laugesen, Christian

AU - Tidemand, Katrine G.

AU - Green, Allan

AU - Selmer, Christian

AU - Svensson, Jannet

AU - Andersen, Henrik U.

AU - Vistisen, Dorte

AU - Carstensen, Bendix

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2023 by the American Diabetes Association.

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the association between continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived glycemic metrics and different insulin treatment modalities using real-world data. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study at Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Denmark, included individuals with type 1 diabetes using CGM. Data from September 2021 to August 2022 were analyzed if CGM was used for at least 20% of a 4-week period. Individuals were divided into four groups: multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy, insulin pumps with unintegrated CGM (SUP), sensor-augmented pumps with low glucose management (SAP), and automated insulin delivery (AID). The MDI and SUP groups were further subdivided based on CGM alarm features. The primary outcome was percentage of time in range (TIR: 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) for each treatment group. Secondary outcomes included other glucose metrics and HbA1c. RESULTS: Out of 6,314 attendees, 3,184 CGM users were included in the analysis. Among them, 1,622 used MDI, 504 used SUP, 354 used SAP, and 561 used AID. Median TIR was 54.0% for MDI, 54.9% for SUP, 62,9% for SAP, and 72,1% for AID users. The proportion of individuals achieving all recommended glycemic targets (TIR >70%, time above range <25%, and time below range <4%) was significantly higher in SAP (odds ratio [OR] 2.4 [95% CI 1.6-3.5]) and AID (OR 9.4 [95% CI 6.7-13.0]) compared with MDI without alarm features. CONCLUSIONS: AID appears superior to other insulin treatment modalities with CGM. Although bias may be present because of indications, AID should be considered the preferred choice for insulin pump therapy.

AB - OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the association between continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived glycemic metrics and different insulin treatment modalities using real-world data. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study at Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Denmark, included individuals with type 1 diabetes using CGM. Data from September 2021 to August 2022 were analyzed if CGM was used for at least 20% of a 4-week period. Individuals were divided into four groups: multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy, insulin pumps with unintegrated CGM (SUP), sensor-augmented pumps with low glucose management (SAP), and automated insulin delivery (AID). The MDI and SUP groups were further subdivided based on CGM alarm features. The primary outcome was percentage of time in range (TIR: 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) for each treatment group. Secondary outcomes included other glucose metrics and HbA1c. RESULTS: Out of 6,314 attendees, 3,184 CGM users were included in the analysis. Among them, 1,622 used MDI, 504 used SUP, 354 used SAP, and 561 used AID. Median TIR was 54.0% for MDI, 54.9% for SUP, 62,9% for SAP, and 72,1% for AID users. The proportion of individuals achieving all recommended glycemic targets (TIR >70%, time above range <25%, and time below range <4%) was significantly higher in SAP (odds ratio [OR] 2.4 [95% CI 1.6-3.5]) and AID (OR 9.4 [95% CI 6.7-13.0]) compared with MDI without alarm features. CONCLUSIONS: AID appears superior to other insulin treatment modalities with CGM. Although bias may be present because of indications, AID should be considered the preferred choice for insulin pump therapy.

U2 - 10.2337/dc23-1137

DO - 10.2337/dc23-1137

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 37610784

AN - SCOPUS:85173403083

VL - 46

SP - 1958

EP - 1964

JO - Diabetes Care

JF - Diabetes Care

SN - 1935-5548

IS - 11

ER -