Elizabeth Selvin1, Dan Wang1, Olive Tang1,2, Melissa Minotti1, Justin B Echouffo-Tcheugui3, Josef Coresh1. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
Context: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides nuanced information on glucose patterns, but data in very old adults are scarce. Objective: To evaluate CGM patterns in very old adults. Design: Pilot study. Setting: Participants recruited from one center during visit 7 (2019) of the community-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. Participants: We enrolled 27 adults (8 with type 2 diabetes and 19 without diabetes) who wore a CGM sensor (Abbott Libre Pro) for up to 14 days. Clinical and laboratory measures, including hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), were obtained. Main Outcomes: Mean CGM glucose, standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), time-in-range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL, and hypoglycemia. Results: Mean age was 81 (range 77-91 years) and mean CGM wear time was 13.2 days. In persons without diabetes, there was a wide range of CGM parameters: range of mean glucose, 83.7-124.5 mg/dL, SD 12.2-27.3 mg/dL, CV 14.0%-26.7%, and TIR 71.1%-99.5%. In persons with diabetes, the range of mean CGM glucose was 105.5-223.0 mg/dL, SD, 22.3-86.6 mg/dL, CV 18.2%-38.8%, TIR 38.7%-98.3%. The Pearson's correlation of mean glucose with HbA1c was high overall (0.90); but, for some participants with similar HbA1c, glucose patterns differed substantially. There was a high prevalence of hypoglycemia (glucose <70 or <54 mg/dL) in both persons with and without diabetes. Conclusions: There was high feasibility and acceptability of CGM in very old adults. Low readings on CGM are common, even in nondiabetic older adults; the clinical relevance of these low values is unclear. CGM may provide complementary information to HbA1c in some older adults.
Context: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides nuanced information on glucose patterns, but data in very old adults are scarce. Objective: To evaluate CGM patterns in very old adults. Design: Pilot study. Setting: Participants recruited from one center during visit 7 (2019) of the community-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. Participants: We enrolled 27 adults (8 with type 2 diabetes and 19 without diabetes) who wore a CGM sensor (Abbott Libre Pro) for up to 14 days. Clinical and laboratory measures, including hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), were obtained. Main Outcomes: Mean CGM glucose, standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), time-in-range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL, and hypoglycemia. Results: Mean age was 81 (range 77-91 years) and mean CGM wear time was 13.2 days. In persons without diabetes, there was a wide range of CGM parameters: range of mean glucose, 83.7-124.5 mg/dL, SD 12.2-27.3 mg/dL, CV 14.0%-26.7%, and TIR 71.1%-99.5%. In persons with diabetes, the range of mean CGM glucose was 105.5-223.0 mg/dL, SD, 22.3-86.6 mg/dL, CV 18.2%-38.8%, TIR 38.7%-98.3%. The Pearson's correlation of mean glucose with HbA1c was high overall (0.90); but, for some participants with similar HbA1c, glucose patterns differed substantially. There was a high prevalence of hypoglycemia (glucose <70 or <54 mg/dL) in both persons with and without diabetes. Conclusions: There was high feasibility and acceptability of CGM in very old adults. Low readings on CGM are common, even in nondiabetic older adults; the clinical relevance of these low values is unclear. CGM may provide complementary information to HbA1c in some older adults.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomarkers; Continuous glucose monitoring; Elderly; Glycemic variability; HbA1c; The ARIC study; Very old adults
Authors: Renata A Rawlings; Hang Shi; Lo-Hua Yuan; William Brehm; Rodica Pop-Busui; Patrick W Nelson Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2011-09-20 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Viral N Shah; Stephanie N DuBose; Zoey Li; Roy W Beck; Anne L Peters; Ruth S Weinstock; Davida Kruger; Michael Tansey; David Sparling; Stephanie Woerner; Francesco Vendrame; Richard Bergenstal; William V Tamborlane; Sara E Watson; Jennifer Sherr Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Roy W Beck; Richard M Bergenstal; Peiyao Cheng; Craig Kollman; Anders L Carlson; Mary L Johnson; David Rodbard Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2019-01-13
Authors: Thomas Danne; Revital Nimri; Tadej Battelino; Richard M Bergenstal; Kelly L Close; J Hans DeVries; Satish Garg; Lutz Heinemann; Irl Hirsch; Stephanie A Amiel; Roy Beck; Emanuele Bosi; Bruce Buckingham; Claudio Cobelli; Eyal Dassau; Francis J Doyle; Simon Heller; Roman Hovorka; Weiping Jia; Tim Jones; Olga Kordonouri; Boris Kovatchev; Aaron Kowalski; Lori Laffel; David Maahs; Helen R Murphy; Kirsten Nørgaard; Christopher G Parkin; Eric Renard; Banshi Saboo; Mauro Scharf; William V Tamborlane; Stuart A Weinzimer; Moshe Phillip Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Othmar Moser; Marlene Pandis; Felix Aberer; Harald Kojzar; Daniel Hochfellner; Hesham Elsayed; Melanie Motschnig; Thomas Augustin; Philipp Kreuzer; Thomas R Pieber; Harald Sourij; Julia K Mader Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2018-12-25 Impact factor: 6.577