Dataset Information

The Relationship Between CGM-Derived Metrics, A1C, and Risk of Hypoglycemia in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is now commonly used in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D). The CGM-derived coefficient of variation (CV) measures glucose variability, and the glucose management indicator (GMI) measures mean glycemia (previously called estimated A1C). However, their relationship with laboratory-measured A1C and the risk of hypoglycemia in older adults with T1D is not well studied.

Research design and methods

In a single-center study, older adults (age ≥65 years) with T1D wore a CGM device for 14 days. The CV (%) and GMI were calculated, and A1C and clinical and demographic information were collected.

Results

We evaluated 130 older adults (age 71 ± 5 years), of whom 55% were women, 97% were White, diabetes duration was 39 ± 17 years, and A1C was 7.3 ± 0.6% (56 ± 15 mmol/mol). Participants were stratified by high CV (>36%; n = 77) and low CV (≤36%; n = 53). Although there was no difference in A1C levels between the groups with high and low CV (7.3% [56 mmol/mol] vs. 7.3% [53 mmol/mol], P = 0.4), the high CV group spent more time in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL and ≤54 mg/dL) compared with the group with low CV (median 31 vs. 84 min/day, P < 0.0001; 8 vs. 46 min/day, P < 0.001, respectively). An absolute difference between A1C and GMI of ≥0.5% was observed in 46% of the cohort. When the A1C was higher than the GMI by ≥0.5%, a higher duration of hypoglycemia was observed (P = 0.02).

Conclusions

In older adults with T1D, the use of CGM-derived CV and GMI can better identify individuals at higher risk for hypoglycemia compared with A1C alone. These measures should be combined with A1C for better diabetes management in older adults with T1D.

SUBMITTER: Toschi E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7510030 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides real-time assessment of glucose levels and may be beneficial in reducing hypoglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes. Objective:To determine whether CGM is effective in reducing hypoglycemia compared with standard blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in older adults with type 1 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants:Randomized clinical trial conducted at 22 endocrinology practices in the United States among 203 adults at least 60 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Interventions:Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to use CGM (n?=?103) or standard BGM (n?=?100). Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was CGM-measured percentage of time that sensor glucose values were less than 70 mg/dL during 6 months of follow-up. There were 31 prespecified secondary outcomes, including additional CGM metrics for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and glucose control; hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c); and cognition and patient-reported outcomes, with adjustment for multiple comparisons to control for false-discovery rate. Results:Of the 203 participants (median age, 68 [interquartile range {IQR}, 65-71] years; median type 1 diabetes duration, 36 [IQR, 25-48] years; 52% female; 53% insulin pump use; mean HbA1c, 7.5% [SD, 0.9%]), 83% used CGM at least 6 days per week during month 6. Median time with glucose levels less than 70 mg/dL was 5.1% (73 minutes per day) at baseline and 2.7% (39 minutes per day) during follow-up in the CGM group vs 4.7% (68 minutes per day) and 4.9% (70 minutes per day), respectively, in the standard BGM group (adjusted treatment difference, -1.9% (-27 minutes per day); 95% CI, -2.8% to -1.1% [-40 to -16 minutes per day]; P?<.001). Of the 31 prespecified secondary end points, there were statistically significant differences for all 9 CGM metrics, 6 of 7 HbA1c outcomes, and none of the 15 cognitive and patient-reported outcomes. Mean HbA1c decreased in the CGM group compared with the standard BGM group (adjusted group difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -0.4% to -0.1%; P?<.001). The most commonly reported adverse events using CGM and standard BGM, respectively, were severe hypoglycemia (1 and 10), fractures (5 and 1), falls (4 and 3), and emergency department visits (6 and 8). Conclusions and Relevance:Among adults aged 60 years or older with type 1 diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring compared with standard blood glucose monitoring resulted in a small but statistically significant improvement in hypoglycemia over 6 months. Further research is needed to understand the long-term clinical benefit. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03240432.

Project description:ImportanceIntensive glucose-lowering treatment among patients with non-insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes may increase the risk of hypoglycemia.ObjectivesTo estimate the prevalence of intensive treatment and the association between intensive treatment, clinical complexity, and incidence of severe hypoglycemia among adults with type 2 diabetes who are not using insulin.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective analysis of administrative, pharmacy, and laboratory data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2013. The study included nonpregnant adults 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes who achieved and maintained a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level less than 7.0% without use of insulin and had no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia in the prior 12 months.Main outcomes and measuresRisk-adjusted probability of intensive treatment and incident severe hypoglycemia, stratified by patient clinical complexity. Intensive treatment was defined as use of more glucose-lowering medications than recommended by practice guidelines at specific index HbA1c levels. Severe hypoglycemia was ascertained by ambulatory, emergency department, and hospital claims for hypoglycemia during the 2 years after the index HbA1c test. Patients were categorized as having high vs low clinical complexity if they were 75 years or older, had dementia or end-stage renal disease, or had 3 or more serious chronic conditions.ResultsOf 31 542 eligible patients (median age, 58 years; interquartile range, 51-65 years; 15 483 women [49.1%]; 18 188 white [57.7%]), 3910 (12.4%) had clinical complexity. The risk-adjusted probability of intensive treatment was 25.7% (95% CI, 25.1%-26.2%) in patients with low clinical complexity and 20.8% (95% CI, 19.4%-22.2%) in patients with high clinical complexity. In patients with low clinical complexity, the risk-adjusted probability of severe hypoglycemia during the subsequent 2 years was 1.02% (95% CI, 0.87%-1.17%) with standard treatment and 1.30% (95% CI, 0.98%-1.62%) with intensive treatment (absolute difference, 0.28%; 95% CI, -0.10% to 0.66%). In patients with high clinical complexity, intensive treatment significantly increased the risk-adjusted probability of severe hypoglycemia from 1.74% (95% CI, 1.28%-2.20%) with standard treatment to 3.04% (95% CI, 1.91%-4.18%) with intensive treatment (absolute difference, 1.30%; 95% CI, 0.10%-2.50%).Conclusions and relevanceMore than 20% of patients with type 2 diabetes received intensive treatment that may be unnecessary. Among patients with high clinical complexity, intensive treatment nearly doubles the risk of severe hypoglycemia.

Project description:BackgroundHospital admissions for severe hypoglycemia are associated with significant healthcare costs, decreased quality of life, and increased morbidity and mortality, especially for older adults with diabetes. Understanding the reasons for hypoglycemia hospitalization is essential for the development of effective interventions; yet, the causes and precipitants of hypoglycemia are not well understood.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study of non-nursing home patients aged 65 years or older without cognitive dysfunction admitted to a single tertiary-referral hospital with diabetes-related hypoglycemia. During the hospitalization, we conducted one-on-one, in-depth, semi-structured interviews to explore: (1) experiences with diabetes management among patients hospitalized for severe hypoglycemia; and (2) factors contributing and leading to the hypoglycemic event. Major themes and sub-themes were extracted using the constant comparative method by 3 study authors.ResultsAmong the 17 participants interviewed, the mean age was 78.9 years of age, 76.5% were female, 64.7% African American, 64.7% on insulin, and patients had an average of 13 chronic conditions. Patients reported: (1) surprise at hypoglycemia despite living with diabetes for many years; (2) adequate support, knowledge, and preparedness for hypoglycemia; (3) challenges balancing a diet that minimizes hyperglycemia and prevents hypoglycemia; (4) the belief that hyperglycemia necessitates medical intervention, but hypoglycemia does not; and (5) tension between clinician-prescribed treatment plans and self-management based on patients' experience. Notably, participants did not report the previously cited reasons for hypoglycemia, such as food insecurity, lack of support or knowledge, or treatment errors.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that some hypoglycemic events may not be preventable, but in order to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia in older individuals at risk: (1) healthcare systems need to shift from their general emphasis on the avoidance of hyperglycemia towards the prevention of hypoglycemia; and (2) clinicians and patients need to work together to design treatment regimens that fit within patient capacity and are flexible enough to accommodate life's demands.