Amit R Majithia1,2, Alexander B Wiltschko3, Hui Zheng2, Geoffrey A Walford2, David M Nathan2. 1. 1 Program in Medical & Population Genetics, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA. 2. 2 Diabetes Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. 3 Google Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with type 1 diabetes routinely utilize a single premeal fingerstick glucose to determine premeal insulin doses. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides much richer glycemic trend information, including glycemic slope (GS). How to incorporate this information into dosing decisions remains an open question. METHODS: We examined the relationship between premeal GS and postmeal glycemic excursions in 240 individuals with type 1 diabetes receiving CGM augmented insulin pump therapy. Over 23.5 million CGM values were synchronized with 264 500 meals. CGM values were integrated 2 hours premeal to compute GS and 2 hours postmeal to compute glycemic excursion outcomes. Postmeal hyperglycemia (integrated CGM glucose >180 mg/dL*hr) and postmeal hypoglycemic events (any CGM glucose < 70 mg/dL) were tabulated according to positive/negative premeal GS and according to GS bins commonly displayed as rate-of-change arrows on CGM devices. RESULTS: Positive versus negative premeal GS was associated with a 2.28-fold (95% CI 2.25-2.32) risk of postmeal hyperglycemia. Negative versus positive premeal GS was associated with a 2.36-fold (95% CI 2.25-2.43) increase in one or more postprandial hypoglycemic events. Premeal GS in the bin currently displayed as "no change" on existing CGM devices (-1 to 1 mg/dL/min), conferred a 1.82-fold (95% CI 1.79-1.86) risk of postprandial hyperglycemia when positive and a 2.06-fold (95% CI 1.99-2.15) increased risk of postprandial hypoglycemia when negative. CONCLUSION: Premeal GS predicts postmeal glycemic excursions and may help inform insulin dosing decisions. Rate-of-change arrows on existing devices obscure clinically actionable glycemic trend information from CGM users.
BACKGROUND:Patients with type 1 diabetes routinely utilize a single premeal fingerstick glucose to determine premeal insulin doses. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides much richer glycemic trend information, including glycemic slope (GS). How to incorporate this information into dosing decisions remains an open question. METHODS: We examined the relationship between premeal GS and postmeal glycemic excursions in 240 individuals with type 1 diabetes receiving CGM augmented insulin pump therapy. Over 23.5 million CGM values were synchronized with 264 500 meals. CGM values were integrated 2 hours premeal to compute GS and 2 hours postmeal to compute glycemic excursion outcomes. Postmeal hyperglycemia (integrated CGMglucose >180 mg/dL*hr) and postmeal hypoglycemic events (any CGMglucose < 70 mg/dL) were tabulated according to positive/negative premeal GS and according to GS bins commonly displayed as rate-of-change arrows on CGM devices. RESULTS: Positive versus negative premeal GS was associated with a 2.28-fold (95% CI 2.25-2.32) risk of postmeal hyperglycemia. Negative versus positive premeal GS was associated with a 2.36-fold (95% CI 2.25-2.43) increase in one or more postprandial hypoglycemic events. Premeal GS in the bin currently displayed as "no change" on existing CGM devices (-1 to 1 mg/dL/min), conferred a 1.82-fold (95% CI 1.79-1.86) risk of postprandial hyperglycemia when positive and a 2.06-fold (95% CI 1.99-2.15) increased risk of postprandial hypoglycemia when negative. CONCLUSION: Premeal GS predicts postmeal glycemic excursions and may help inform insulin dosing decisions. Rate-of-change arrows on existing devices obscure clinically actionable glycemic trend information from CGM users.
Authors: Richard M Bergenstal; William V Tamborlane; Andrew Ahmann; John B Buse; George Dailey; Stephen N Davis; Carol Joyce; Tim Peoples; Bruce A Perkins; John B Welsh; Steven M Willi; Michael A Wood Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marcus Lind; William Polonsky; Irl B Hirsch; Tim Heise; Jan Bolinder; Sofia Dahlqvist; Erik Schwarz; Arndís Finna Ólafsdóttir; Anders Frid; Hans Wedel; Elsa Ahlén; Thomas Nyström; Jarl Hellman Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Roy W Beck; Tonya Riddlesworth; Katrina Ruedy; Andrew Ahmann; Richard Bergenstal; Stacie Haller; Craig Kollman; Davida Kruger; Janet B McGill; William Polonsky; Elena Toschi; Howard Wolpert; David Price Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Richard M Bergenstal; William V Tamborlane; Andrew Ahmann; John B Buse; George Dailey; Stephen N Davis; Carol Joyce; Bruce A Perkins; John B Welsh; Steven M Willi; Michael A Wood Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-09-20 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Nancy Elbarbary; Othmar Moser; Saif Al Yaarubi; Hussain Alsaffar; Adnan Al Shaikh; Ramzi A Ajjan; Asma Deeb Journal: Diab Vasc Dis Res Date: 2021 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.291