OBJECTIVE: We evaluated blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) profiles in a subset of adults with type 1 diabetes from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) study to characterize the frequency of glycemic excursions and contributing factors. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: CGM-derived metrics were compared for daytime and nighttime periods using blinded CGM for a minimum of 6.5 days (average 11.9 days) and correlated with HbA1c levels, routine use of diabetes devices, and other characteristics in 765 participants. RESULTS: Participants were 58.9 ± 6.5 years of age with diabetes duration 36.8 ± 4.9 years and HbA1c 7.8 ± 1.2%; 58% used insulin pumps, and 27% used personal, unblinded CGM. Compared with daytime, nighttime mean sensor glucose was lower, percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) was similar, and hypoglycemia was more common. Over the entire recording period, only 9% of the 765 participants achieved >70% TIR and only 28% achieved <1% of observations of <54 mg/dL. Indeed, participants with the highest percentage of hypoglycemia had the lowest HbA1c levels. However, use of insulin pumps and CGM decreased the percent time at <54 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes, short-term blinded CGM profiles revealed frequent clinically significant hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) during the night and more time in hyperglycemia during the day. The small subset of participants using routine CGM and insulin pumps had fewer hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic excursions and lower HbA1c levels. Thus, strategies to lower meal-stimulated hyperglycemia during the day and prevent hypoglycemia at night are relevant clinical goals in older patients with type 1 diabetes.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) profiles in a subset of adults with type 1 diabetes from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) study to characterize the frequency of glycemic excursions and contributing factors. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: CGM-derived metrics were compared for daytime and nighttime periods using blinded CGM for a minimum of 6.5 days (average 11.9 days) and correlated with HbA1c levels, routine use of diabetes devices, and other characteristics in 765 participants. RESULTS: Participants were 58.9 ± 6.5 years of age with diabetes duration 36.8 ± 4.9 years and HbA1c 7.8 ± 1.2%; 58% used insulin pumps, and 27% used personal, unblinded CGM. Compared with daytime, nighttime mean sensor glucose was lower, percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) was similar, and hypoglycemia was more common. Over the entire recording period, only 9% of the 765 participants achieved >70% TIR and only 28% achieved <1% of observations of <54 mg/dL. Indeed, participants with the highest percentage of hypoglycemia had the lowest HbA1c levels. However, use of insulin pumps and CGM decreased the percent time at <54 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes, short-term blinded CGM profiles revealed frequent clinically significant hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) during the night and more time in hyperglycemia during the day. The small subset of participants using routine CGM and insulin pumps had fewer hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic excursions and lower HbA1c levels. Thus, strategies to lower meal-stimulated hyperglycemia during the day and prevent hypoglycemia at night are relevant clinical goals in older patients with type 1 diabetes.
Authors: David M Maahs; H Peter Chase; Emily Westfall; Robert Slover; Suiying Huang; John J Shin; Francine R Kaufman; Laura Pyle; Janet K Snell-Bergeon Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Tonya D Riddlesworth; Roy W Beck; Robin L Gal; Crystal G Connor; Richard M Bergenstal; Sooji Lee; Steven M Willi Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 6.118
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
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: 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: Peter Novodvorsky; Alan Bernjak; Elaine Chow; Ahmed Iqbal; Lianne Sellors; Scott Williams; Robert A Fawdry; Bhavin Parekh; Richard M Jacques; Jefferson L B Marques; Paul J Sheridan; Simon R Heller Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-02-17 Impact factor: 19.112