Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes: A subgroup analysis from the FLASH-UK study.

continuous blood glucose monitoring deprivation insulin type 1 diabetes

Journal

Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association
ISSN: 1464-5491
Titre abrégé: Diabet Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8500858

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 Oct 2023
Historique:
revised: 19 10 2023
received: 24 08 2023
accepted: 20 10 2023
pubmed: 28 10 2023
medline: 28 10 2023
entrez: 28 10 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The FLASH-UK trial showed lower HbA1c with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM), as compared with self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), in adults with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c ≥58 mmol/mol (≥7.5%). Here, we present results from the pre-specified subgroup analysis for the 24-week HbA1c (primary outcome) and selected sensor-based secondary outcomes. This was a multi-centre, parallel-design, randomised controlled trial. The difference in treatment effect between subgroups (baseline HbA1c [≤75 vs. >75 mmol/mol] [≤9.0 vs >9.0%], treatment modality [pump vs injections], prior participation in structured education, age, educational level, impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia, deprivation index quintile sex, ethnic group and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] detected depression category) were evaluated. One hundred fifty-six participants (females 44%, mean [SD] baseline HbA1c 71 [9] mmol/mol 8.6 [0.8%], age 44 [15]) were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio to isCGM (n = 78) or SMBG (n = 78). The mean (SD) baseline HbA1c (%) was 8.7 (0.9) in the isCGM group and 8.5 (0.8) in the SMBG group, lowering to 7.9 (0.8) versus 8.3 (0.9), respectively, at 24 weeks (adjusted mean difference -0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.7 to -0.3; p < 0.001]. For HbA1c, there was no impact of treatment modality, prior participation in structured education, deprivation index quintile, sex or baseline depression category. The between-group difference in HbA1c was larger for younger people (a reduction of 2.7 [95% CI 0.3-5.0; p = 0.028] mmol/mol for every additional 15 years of age). Those with HbA1c 76-97 mmol/mol (>9.0%-11.0%) had a marginally non-significant higher reduction in HbA1c of 8.4 mmol/mol (3.3-13.5) compared to 3.1 (0.3-6.0) in those with HbA1c 58-75 mmol/mol (p = 0.08). For 'Time in range' (% 3.9-10 mmol/L), the difference was larger for those with at least a bachelor's degree. For 'Time below range' (% <3.9 mmol/L), the difference was larger for those using injections, older people and those with less than bachelor's degree. Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring is generally effective across a range of baseline characteristics.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37897112
doi: 10.1111/dme.15249
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e15249

Subventions

Organisme : Diabetes UK
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

© 2023 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Diabetes UK.

Références

Daneman D. Type 1 diabetes. Lancet. 2006;367(9513):847-858.
Vincze G, Barner JC, Lopez D. Factors associated with adherence to self-monitoring of blood glucose among persons with diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2004;30(1):112-125.
Moström P, Ahlén E, Imberg H, Hansson PO, Lind M. Adherence of self-monitoring of blood glucose in persons with type 1 diabetes in Sweden. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2017;5(1):e000342.
Foster NC, Beck RW, Miller KM, et al. State of type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D exchange in 2016-2018. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(2):66-72.
Avari P, Reddy M, Oliver N. Is it possible to constantly and accurately monitor blood sugar levels, in people with type 1 diabetes, with a discrete device (non-invasive or invasive)? Diabet Med. 2020;37(4):532-544.
Leelarathna L, Wilmot EG. Flash forward: a review of flash glucose monitoring. Diabet Med. 2018;35(4):472-482.
Wilmot EG, Evans M, Barnard-Kelly K, et al. Flash glucose monitoring with the FreeStyle Libre 2 compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: the FLASH-UK randomised controlled trial protocol. BMJ Open. 2021;11(7):e050713.
Leelarathna L, Evans ML, Neupane S, et al. Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring for type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(16):1477-1487.
Wang R, Lagakos SW, Ware JH, Hunter DJ, Drazen JM. Statistics in medicine-reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(21):2189-2194.
Gov.uk. English Indices of Deprivation 2019. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government; 2020. Accessed August 10, 2023. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2019
Shah N, Deshmukh H, Wilmot EG, et al. Previous structured education attendance and the relationship with HbA1c and hypoglycaemia awareness in people living with type 1 diabetes mellitus using FreeStyleLibre: insights from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) Nationwide Audit. Br J Diabetes. 2021;21(2):192-197.
Deshmukh H, Adeleke KA, Ssemmondo E, et al. Ethnic disparities in people accessing FreeStyle libre in the United Kingdom: insights from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists audit. Diabet Med. 2023;40(8):e15095.
Deshmukh H, Wilmot EG, Gregory R, et al. Effect of flash glucose monitoring on glycemic control, hypoglycemia, diabetes-related distress, and resource utilization in the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) nationwide audit. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(9):2153-2160.
Deshmukh H, Wilmot E, Pieri B, et al. Time in range following flash glucose monitoring: relationship with glycaemic control, diabetes-related distress and resource utilisation in the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists national audit. Diabet Med. 2022;39(11):e14942.
Jeyam A, Gibb FW, McKnight JA, et al. Flash monitor initiation is associated with improvements in HbA1c levels and DKA rates among people with type 1 diabetes in Scotland: a retrospective nationwide observational study. Diabetologia. 2022;65(1):159-172.
Visser MM, Charleer S, Fieuws S, et al. Comparing real-time and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes (ALERTT1): a 6-month, prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2021;397(10291):2275-2283.
Visser MM, Charleer S, Fieuws S, et al. The impact of baseline user characteristics on the benefits of real-time versus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes: moderator analyses of the ALERTT1 trial. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2022;193229682211283. doi:10.1177/19322968221128315

Auteurs

Lalantha Leelarathna (L)

Manchester Diabetes Centre, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Gastroenterology, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Christopher J Sutton (CJ)

Centre for Biostatistics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Population Health, Health Service Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Mark L Evans (ML)

Wellcome Trust-MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge University Hospitals and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Sankalpa Neupane (S)

Elsie Bertram Diabetes Centre, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK.

Gerry Rayman (G)

The Diabetes and Endocrine Centre, Ipswich Hospital, East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust, Ipswich, UK.

Sarah Lumley (S)

The Adam Practice, Dorset, UK.

Iain Cranston (I)

Academic Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Cosham, Portsmouth, UK.

Parth Narendran (P)

Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.

Ashma Krishan (A)

Centre for Biostatistics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Vicky P Taxiarchi (VP)

Centre for Women's Mental Health, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Katharine Barnard-Kelly (K)

Barnard Health, BHR Limited, Hampshire, UK.

Rachel A Elliott (RA)

Manchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Service Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Matthew Burns (M)

Manchester Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Population Health, Health Service Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Maisie Camm (M)

Manchester Diabetes Centre, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.

Hood Thabit (H)

Manchester Diabetes Centre, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Gastroenterology, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Emma G Wilmot (EG)

University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, UK.

Classifications MeSH