Marcus Lind1, William Polonsky2, Irl B Hirsch3, Tim Heise4, Jan Bolinder5, Sofia Dahlqvist6, Nils-Gunnar Pehrsson7, Peter Moström8. 1. Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden Department of Medicine, NU Hospital Group, Uddevalla, Sweden lind.marcus@telia.com. 2. University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. University of Washington, School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Profil, Neuss, Germany. 5. Department of Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 6. Department of Medicine, NU Hospital Group, Uddevalla, Sweden. 7. Statistiska Konsultgruppen, Gothenburg, Sweden. 8. Department of internal medicine, Alingsås Hospital, Alingsås, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The majority of individuals with type 1 diabetes today have glucose levels exceeding guidelines. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate whether continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), using the Dexcom G4 stand-alone system, improves glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI). METHODS:Individuals with type 1 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control (HbA1c ≥ 7.5% = 58 mmol/mol) treated with MDI were randomized in a cross-over design to the Dexcom G4 versus conventional care for 6 months followed by a 4-month wash-out period. Masked CGM was performed before randomization, during conventional treatment, and during the wash-out period to evaluate effects on hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and glycemic variability. Questionnaires were used to evaluate diabetes treatment satisfaction, fear of hypoglycemia, hypoglycemia confidence, diabetes-related distress, overall well-being, and physical activity during the different phases of the trial. The primary endpoint was the difference in HbA1c at the end of each treatment phase. RESULTS: A total of 205 patients were screened, of whom 161 were randomized between February and December 2014. Study completion is anticipated in April 2016. CONCLUSIONS: It is expected that the results of this study will establish whether using the Dexcom G4 stand-alone system in individuals with type 1 diabetes treated withMDI improves glycemic control, reduces hypoglycemia, and influences quality-of-life indicators and glycemic variability.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The majority of individuals with type 1 diabetes today have glucose levels exceeding guidelines. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate whether continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), using the Dexcom G4 stand-alone system, improves glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI). METHODS: Individuals with type 1 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control (HbA1c ≥ 7.5% = 58 mmol/mol) treated with MDI were randomized in a cross-over design to the Dexcom G4 versus conventional care for 6 months followed by a 4-month wash-out period. Masked CGM was performed before randomization, during conventional treatment, and during the wash-out period to evaluate effects on hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and glycemic variability. Questionnaires were used to evaluate diabetes treatment satisfaction, fear of hypoglycemia, hypoglycemia confidence, diabetes-related distress, overall well-being, and physical activity during the different phases of the trial. The primary endpoint was the difference in HbA1c at the end of each treatment phase. RESULTS: A total of 205 patients were screened, of whom 161 were randomized between February and December 2014. Study completion is anticipated in April 2016. CONCLUSIONS: It is expected that the results of this study will establish whether using the Dexcom G4 stand-alone system in individuals with type 1 diabetes treated with MDI improves glycemic control, reduces hypoglycemia, and influences quality-of-life indicators and glycemic variability.
Authors: W H Polonsky; B J Anderson; P A Lohrer; G Welch; A M Jacobson; J E Aponte; C E Schwartz Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Linda A Gonder-Frederick; Karen M Schmidt; Karen A Vajda; Megan L Greear; Harsimran Singh; Jaclyn A Shepard; Daniel J Cox Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-02-23 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Kellee M Miller; Roy W Beck; Richard M Bergenstal; Robin S Goland; Michael J Haller; Janet B McGill; Henry Rodriguez; Jill H Simmons; Irl B Hirsch Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: John R Petrie; Anne L Peters; Richard M Bergenstal; Reinhard W Holl; G Alexander Fleming; Lutz Heinemann Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2017-10-25 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Shilan Seyed Ahmadi; Klara Westman; Aldina Pivodic; Arndís F Ólafsdóttir; Sofia Dahlqvist; Irl B Hirsch; Jarl Hellman; Magnus Ekelund; Tim Heise; William Polonsky; Magnus Wijkman; Erik Schwarcz; Marcus Lind Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Daniel J DeSalvo; Kellee M Miller; Julia M Hermann; David M Maahs; Sabine E Hofer; Mark A Clements; Eggert Lilienthal; Jennifer L Sherr; Martin Tauschmann; Reinhard W Holl Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: Arndís F Ólafsdóttir; William Polonsky; Jan Bolinder; Irl B Hirsch; Sofia Dahlqvist; Hans Wedel; Thomas Nyström; Magnus Wijkman; Erik Schwarcz; Jarl Hellman; Tim Heise; Marcus Lind Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2018-04-02 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Arndís F Ólafsdóttir; Jan Bolinder; Tim Heise; William Polonsky; Magnus Ekelund; Magnus Wijkman; Aldina Pivodic; Elsa Ahlén; Erik Schwarcz; Thomas Nyström; Jarl Hellman; Irl B Hirsch; Marcus Lind Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 6.577