Benefits of a Switch from Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring (isCGM) to Real-Time (rt) CGM in Diabetes Type 1 Suboptimal Controlled Patients in Real-Life: A One-Year Prospective Study ^§

• Main Authors: Yannis Préau, Sébastien Galie, Pauline Schaepelynck, Martine Armand, Denis Raccah
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: MDPI AG 2021-09-01
• Series: Sensors
• Subjects: real-time continuous glucose monitoring; intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring; type 1 diabetes; glucose biosensors; hypoglycemia; insulin resistance
• Online Access: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/18/6131

The switch from intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) to real-time (rt) CGM could improve glycemic management in suboptimal controlled type 1 diabetes patients, but long-term study is lacking. We evaluated retrospectively the ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) in such patients after switching from Free Style Libre 1 (FSL1) to Dexcom G4 (DG4) biosensors over 1 year. Patients (<i>n</i> = 21, 43 ± 15 years, BMI 25 ± 5, HbA1c 8.1 ± 1.0%) had severe hypoglycemia and/or HbA1c ≥ 8%. AGP metrics (time-in-range (TIR) 70–180 mg/dL, time-below-range (TBR) <70 mg/dL or <54 mg/dL, glucose coefficient of variation (%CV), time-above-range (TAR) >180 mg/dL or >250 mg/dL, glucose management indicator (GMI), average glucose) were collected the last 3 months of FSL1 use (M0) and of DG4 for 3, 6 (M6) and 12 (M12) months of use. Values were means ± standard deviation or medians [Q1;Q3]. At M12 versus M0, the higher TIR (50 ± 17 vs. 45 ± 16, <i>p</i> = 0.036), and lower TBR < 70 mg/dL (2.5 [1.6;5.5] vs. 7.0 [4.5;12.5], <i>p</i> = 0.0007), TBR < 54 mg/dL (0.7 [0.4;0.8] vs. 2.3 [0.8;7.0], <i>p</i> = 0.007) and %CV (39 ± 5 vs. 45 ± 8, <i>p</i> = 0.0009), evidenced a long-term effectiveness of the switch. Compared to M6, TBR < 70 mg/dL decreased, %CV remained stable, while the improvement on hyperglycemia exposure decreased (higher GMI, TAR and average glucose). This switch was a relevant therapeutic option, though a loss of benefit on hyperglycemia stressed the need for optimized management of threshold alarms. Nevertheless, few patients attained the recommended values for AGP metrics, and the reasons why some patients are “responders” vs. “non-responders” warrant to be investigated.