Shichun Bao1, Ryan Bailey2, Peter Calhoun2, Roy W Beck2. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolism, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 2. JAEB Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in adults 65 years old and older with type 2 diabetes (T2D) using basal without bolus insulin. Research Design and Methods: Using data from the MOBILE randomized trial comparing CGM versus blood glucose meter (BGM) monitoring for T2D treated with basal insulin, the treatment effect in participants ≥65 years (range: 65-79 years, N = 42) was compared with the treatment effect in participants <65 years (range: 33-64 years, N = 133). Results: For participants ≥65 years old, mean change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was -1.08% in the CGM group and -0.38% in the BGM group (adjusted mean difference = -0.65% [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.49 to 0.19]). In contrast, the adjusted mean difference in HbA1c between treatment groups was -0.35% [95% CI -0.77 to 0.07] in the <65 years age group. For time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR), mean adjusted treatment group difference was 19% (95% CI 4 to 35, P = 0.01) in ≥65 years old participants and 12% (95% CI 4 to 19, P = 0.003) in those <65 years old. Comparable treatment group differences favoring the CGM group were observed in both the ≥65 and <65 years age groups for mean glucose and less time >180, 250, and 300 mg/dL. Hypoglycemia was low in both groups with little difference between treatment groups in both age groups. Conclusions: In this study of adults with T2D treated with basal insulin without bolus insulin, participants ≥65 years old using CGM had a greater increase in TIR and a reduction in hyperglycemia than those using BGM and the benefit appeared to be at least as great as that observed in younger adults.
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in adults 65 years old and older with type 2 diabetes (T2D) using basal without bolus insulin. Research Design and Methods: Using data from the MOBILE randomized trial comparing CGM versus blood glucose meter (BGM) monitoring for T2D treated with basal insulin, the treatment effect in participants ≥65 years (range: 65-79 years, N = 42) was compared with the treatment effect in participants <65 years (range: 33-64 years, N = 133). Results: For participants ≥65 years old, mean change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was -1.08% in the CGM group and -0.38% in the BGM group (adjusted mean difference = -0.65% [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.49 to 0.19]). In contrast, the adjusted mean difference in HbA1c between treatment groups was -0.35% [95% CI -0.77 to 0.07] in the <65 years age group. For time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR), mean adjusted treatment group difference was 19% (95% CI 4 to 35, P = 0.01) in ≥65 years old participants and 12% (95% CI 4 to 19, P = 0.003) in those <65 years old. Comparable treatment group differences favoring the CGM group were observed in both the ≥65 and <65 years age groups for mean glucose and less time >180, 250, and 300 mg/dL. Hypoglycemia was low in both groups with little difference between treatment groups in both age groups. Conclusions: In this study of adults with T2D treated with basal insulin without bolus insulin, participants ≥65 years old using CGM had a greater increase in TIR and a reduction in hyperglycemia than those using BGM and the benefit appeared to be at least as great as that observed in younger adults.
Entities:
Keywords:
Continuous glucose monitoring; Older adults; Type 2 diabetes
Authors: Roy W Beck; Tonya D Riddlesworth; Katrina Ruedy; Andrew Ahmann; Stacie Haller; Davida Kruger; Janet B McGill; William Polonsky; David Price; Stephen Aronoff; Ronnie Aronson; Elena Toschi; Craig Kollman; Richard Bergenstal Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Richard E Pratley; Lauren G Kanapka; Michael R Rickels; Andrew Ahmann; Grazia Aleppo; Roy Beck; Anuj Bhargava; Bruce W Bode; Anders Carlson; Naomi S Chaytor; D Steven Fox; Robin Goland; Irl B Hirsch; Davida Kruger; Yogish C Kudva; Carol Levy; Janet B McGill; Anne Peters; Louis Philipson; Athena Philis-Tsimikas; Rodica Pop-Busui; Viral N Shah; Michael Thompson; Francesco Vendrame; Alandra Verdejo; Ruth S Weinstock; Laura Young; Kellee M Miller Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Evangelos Kontopantelis; David A Springate; David Reeves; Darren M Ashcroft; Martin K Rutter; Martin Rutter; Iain Buchan; Tim Doran Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Neda Laiteerapong; Andrew J Karter; Jennifer Y Liu; Howard H Moffet; Rebecca Sudore; Dean Schillinger; Priya M John; Elbert S Huang Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-06-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Kai McKeever Bullard; Catherine C Cowie; Sarah E Lessem; Sharon H Saydah; Andy Menke; Linda S Geiss; Trevor J Orchard; Deborah B Rolka; Giuseppina Imperatore Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Anne Peters; Nathan Cohen; Peter Calhoun; Katrina J Ruedy; Roy W Beck; Thomas W Martens; Shichun Bao; Nelly M Njeru; Stayce E Beck; David A Price Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 6.577