Dataset Information

Use of continuous glucose monitoring as an outcome measure in clinical trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Although developed to be a management tool for individuals with diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) also has potential value for the assessment of outcomes in clinical studies. We evaluated using CGM as such an outcome measure.

Research design and methods

Data were analyzed from six previously completed inpatient studies in which both CGM (Freestyle Navigator™ [Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA] or Guardian(®) [Medtronic, Northridge, CA]) and reference glucose measurements were available. The analyses included 97 days of data from 93 participants with type 1 diabetes (age range, 5-57 years; mean, 18 ± 12 years).

Results

Mean glucose levels per day were similar for the CGM and reference measurements (median, 148 mg/dL vs. 143 mg/dL, respectively; P = 0.92), and the correlation of the two was high (r = 0.89). Similarly, most glycemia metrics showed no significant differences comparing CGM and reference values, except that the nadir glucose tended to be slightly lower and peak glucose slightly higher with reference measurements than CGM measurements (respective median, 59 mg/dL vs. 66 mg/dL [P = 0.05] and 262 mg/dL vs. 257 mg/dL [P = 0.003]) and glucose variability as measured with the coefficient of variation was slightly lower with CGM than reference measurements (respective median, 31% vs. 35%; P<0.001).

Conclusions

A reasonably high degree of concordance exists when comparing outcomes based on CGM measurements with outcomes based on reference blood glucose measurements. CGM inaccuracy and underestimation of the extremes of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia can be accounted for in a clinical trial's study design. Thus, in appropriate settings, CGM can be a very meaningful and feasible outcome measure for clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Beck RW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3459006 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of continuous glucose monitoring as an outcome measure in clinical trials.

Beck Roy W RW Calhoun Peter P Kollman Craig C

Diabetes technology & therapeutics 20121001 10

<h4>Objective</h4>Although developed to be a management tool for individuals with diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) also has potential value for the assessment of outcomes in clinical studies. We evaluated using CGM as such an outcome measure.<h4>Research design and methods</h4>Data were analyzed from six previously completed inpatient studies in which both CGM (Freestyle Navigator™ [Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA] or Guardian(®) [Medtronic, Northridge, CA]) and reference glucose ...[more]

PMID: 23013201

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between glucose parameters obtained by continuous glucose monitoring and clinical outcomes in acute stroke patients. METHODS AND RESULTS:Consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage within 24 hours after onset were included. A continuous glucose monitoring device (iPro2) was attached for the initial 72 hours after emergent admission. Eight glucose parameters were obtained from continuous glucose monitoring: maximum, minimum, mean, and SD of blood glucose levels, as well as area under the curve more than 8 mmol/L of blood glucose, distribution time more than 8 mmol/L of blood glucose, coefficient of variation (%CV), and presence of time less than 4 mmol/L over 72 hours. The primary outcome measure was death or dependency at 3 months (modified Rankin Scale score ?3). One hundred patients with acute ischemic stroke (n=58) or intracerebral hemorrhage (n=42) were included. Blood glucose levels varied between 5.2±1.4 and 11.4±3.2 mmol/L over 72 hours, with area under the curve more than 8 mmol/L of blood glucose of 0.7±1.4 min×mmol/L, distribution time more than 8 mmol/L of blood glucose of 31.7±32.7%, coefficient of variation of 15.5±5.4%, and presence of hypoglycemia in 20% of overall patients. Mean glucose level (adjusted odds ratio, 1.60, 95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.28/1 mmol/L), area under the curve more than 8 mmol/L of blood glucose (2.13, 1.12-4.02/1 min×mmol/L), and distribution time more than 8 mmol/L of blood glucose (1.25, 1.05-1.50/10%) were related to death or dependency for overall patients, as well as for acute ischemic stroke patients (2.05, 1.15-3.65; 2.38, 1.04-5.44; 1.85, 1.10-3.10, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:High mean glucose levels, distribution time more than 8 mmol/L of blood glucose, and areas under the curve more than 8 mmol/L of blood glucose during the initial 72 hours of acute stroke were associated with death or dependency at 3 months.

Project description:BackgroundWearable biometric monitoring devices (BMDs) have the potential to transform the conduct of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by shifting the collection of outcome data from single measurements at predefined time points to dense continuous measurements.MethodsMethodological systematic review to understand how recent RCTs used BMDs to measure outcomes and to describe the reporting of these RCTs. Electronic search was performed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE and completed a page-by-page hand search in five leading medical journals between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018. Three reviewers independently extracted all primary and secondary outcomes collected using BMDs, and assessed (1) the definitions used to summarize BMD outcome data; (2) whether the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of sensors was reported; (3) the discrepancy with outcomes prespecified in public clinical trial registries; and (4) the methods used to manage missing and incomplete BMD outcome data.ResultsOf the 4562 records screened, 75 RCTs were eligible. Among them, 24% tested a pharmacological intervention and 57% used an inertial measurement sensor to measure physical activity. Included trials involved 464 outcomes (average of 6 [SD = 8] outcomes per trial). In total, 35 trials used a BMD to measure a primary outcome. Several issues affected the value and transparency of trials using BMDs to measure outcomes. First, the definition of outcomes used in the trials was highly heterogeneous (e.g., 21 diabetes trials had 266 outcomes and 153 had different unique definitions to measure diabetes control), which limited the combination and comparison of results. Second, information on the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of sensors used was lacking in 74% of trials. Third, half (53%) of the outcomes measured with BMDs had not been prespecified, with a high risk of outcome reporting bias. Finally, reporting on the management of incomplete outcome data (e.g., due to suboptimal compliance with the BMD) was absent in 68% of RCTs.ConclusionsUse of BMDs to measure outcomes is becoming the norm rather than the exception in many fields. Yet, trialists need to account for several methodological issues when specifying and conducting RCTs using these novel tools.

Dataset Information

Use of continuous glucose monitoring as an outcome measure in clinical trials.

Objective

Research design and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Use of continuous glucose monitoring as an outcome measure in clinical trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets