Kevin Cowart1,2. 1. Department of Pharmacotherapeutics and Clinical Research, Taneja College of Pharmacy, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) has been shown to improve glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin, rates of adoption have been low. A novel approach, with the use of a long-term implantable continuous glucose monitoring (LTI CGM) has the potential to overcome barriers to rtCGM. The purpose of this review is to provide a background on the first LTI CGM technology to be approved, along with a review of contraindications, interference, safety, accuracy, and efficacy. Considerations for patient selection are discussed based on the available evidence. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for keywords and subject headings to identify studies assessing LTI CGM. RESULTS: Seven studies were identified which assessed LTI CGM. Mean absolute relative difference is similar to available CGM devices. Rates of adverse events were low. Change in hemoglobin A1c with LTI CGM may be comparable to rtCGM. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, LTI CGM appears to be safe and accurate. Additional clinical trial investigation is warranted to evaluate the glycemic efficacy of LTI CGM.
BACKGROUND: Although real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) has been shown to improve glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin, rates of adoption have been low. A novel approach, with the use of a long-term implantable continuous glucose monitoring (LTI CGM) has the potential to overcome barriers to rtCGM. The purpose of this review is to provide a background on the first LTI CGM technology to be approved, along with a review of contraindications, interference, safety, accuracy, and efficacy. Considerations for patient selection are discussed based on the available evidence. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for keywords and subject headings to identify studies assessing LTI CGM. RESULTS: Seven studies were identified which assessed LTI CGM. Mean absolute relative difference is similar to available CGM devices. Rates of adverse events were low. Change in hemoglobin A1c with LTI CGM may be comparable to rtCGM. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, LTI CGM appears to be safe and accurate. Additional clinical trial investigation is warranted to evaluate the glycemic efficacy of LTI CGM.
Authors: Rabab Z Jafri; Courtney A Balliro; Firas El-Khatib; Michele M Maheno; Mallory A Hillard; Alexander O'Donovan; Rajendranath Selagamsetty; Hui Zheng; Edward R Damiano; Steven J Russell Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 6.118