The effects of professional continuous glucose monitoring as an adjuvant educational tool for improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes

Abstract Background The study objective was to evaluate the effects of professional continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) as an adjuvant educational tool for improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods We conducted a three-month quasi-experimental study with an intervention (IGr) and control group (CGr) and ex-ante and ex-post evaluations in one family medicine clinic in Mexico City. Participants were T2D patients with HbA1c > 8% attending a comprehensive diabetes care program. In addition to the program, the IGr wore a professional CGM sensor (iPro™2) during the first 7 days of the study. Following this period, IGr participants had a medical consultation for the CGM results and treatment adjustments. Additionally, they received an educational session and personalized diet plan from a dietitian. After 3 months, the IGr again wore the CGM sensor for 1 week. The primary outcome variable was HbA1c level measured at baseline and 3 months after the CGM intervention. We analyzed the effect of the intervention on HbA1c levels by estimating the differences-in-differences treatment effect (Diff-in-Diff). Additionally, baseline and three-month CGM and dietary information were recorded for the IGr and analyzed using the Student’s paired t-test and mixed-effects generalized linear models to control for patients’ baseline characteristics. Results Overall, 302 T2D patients participated in the study (IGr, n = 150; control, n = 152). At the end of the three-month follow-up, we observed 0.439 mean HbA1C difference between groups (p = 0.004), with an additional decrease in HbA1c levels in the IGr compared with the CGr (Diff-in-Diff HbA1c mean of − 0.481% points, p = 0.023). Moreover, compared with the baseline, the three-month CGM patterns showed a significant increase in the percentage of time in glucose range (+ 7.25; p = 0.011); a reduction in the percentage of time above 180 mg/dl (− 6.01; p = 0.045), a decrease in glycemic variability (− 3.94, p = 0.034); and improvements in dietary patterns, shown by a reduction in total caloric intake (− 197.66 Kcal/day; p = 0.0001). Conclusion Professional CGM contributes to reducing HbA1c levels and is an adjuvant educational tool that can improve glycemic control in patients with T2D. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04667728. Registered 16/12/2020

Download Full-text

The Accuracy of Hemoglobin A1c and Fructosamine Evaluated by Long-Term Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Undergoing Hemodialysis

Blood Purification ◽

10.1159/000519050 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-9

Author(s):

Tobias Bomholt ◽

Marianne Rix ◽

Thomas Almdal ◽

Filip K. Knop ◽

Susanne Rosthøj ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Type 2 Diabetes ◽

Glycemic Control ◽

Continuous Glucose Monitoring ◽

Plasma Glucose ◽

Hemoglobin A1c ◽

Glucose Monitoring ◽

Control Group ◽

Glucose Levels ◽

Sensor Glucose

Introduction: The accuracy of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) as a glycemic marker in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) receiving hemodialysis (HD) remains unknown. To assess accuracy, we compared HbA1c and fructosamine levels with interstitial glucose measured by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in patients with T2D receiving HD. Methods: Thirty patients in the HD group and 36 patients in the control group (T2D and an estimated glomerular filtration rate >60 mL/min/1.73 m2) completed the study period of 17 weeks. CGM (Ipro2®, Medtronic) was performed 5 times for periods of up to 7 days (with 4-week intervals) during a 16-week period. HbA1c (mmol/mol), the estimated mean plasma glucose from HbA1c (eMPGA1c [mmol/L]) and fructosamine (μmol/L) was measured at week 17 and compared with mean sensor glucose levels from CGM. Findings: In the HD group, mean sensor glucose was 1.4 mmol/L (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0–1.8) higher than the eMPGA1c, whereas the difference for controls was 0.1 mmol/L (95% CI: −0.1–[0.4]; p < 0.001). Adjusted for mean sensor glucose, HbA1c was lower in the HD group (−7.3 mmol/mol, 95% CI: −10.0–[−4.7]) than in the control group (p < 0.001), with no difference detected for fructosamine (p = 0.64). Discussion: HbA1c evaluated by CGM underestimates plasma glucose levels in patients receiving HD. The underestimation represents a clinical challenge in optimizing glycemic control in the HD population. Fructosamine is unaffected by the factors affecting HbA1c and appears to be more accurate for glycemic monitoring. CGM or fructosamine could thus complement HbA1c in obtaining more accurate glycemic control in this patient group.

Download Full-text