Peters, Anne L.

Background: A composite metric for the quality of glycemia from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) tracings could be useful for assisting with basic clinical interpretation of CGM data. Methods: We assembled a data set of 14-day CGM tracings from 225 insulin-treated adults with diabetes. Using a balanced incomplete block design, 330 clinicians who were highly experienced with CGM analysis and interpretation ranked the CGM tracings from best to worst quality of glycemia. We used principal component analysis and multiple regressions to develop a model to predict the clinician ranking based on seven standard metrics in an Ambulatory Glucose Profile: very low–glucose and low-glucose hypoglycemia; very high–glucose and high-glucose hyperglycemia; time in range; mean glucose; and coefficient of variation. Results: The analysis showed that clinician rankings depend on two components, one related to hypoglycemia that gives more weight to very low-glucose than to low-glucose and the other related to hyperglycemia that likewise gives greater weight to very high-glucose than to high-glucose. These two components should be calculated and displayed separately, but they can also be combined into a single Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia (r = 0.95). The GRI can be displayed graphically on a GRI Grid with the hypoglycemia component on the horizontal axis and the hyperglycemia component on the vertical axis. Diagonal lines divide the graph into five zones (quintiles) corresponding to the best (0th to 20th percentile) to worst (81st to 100th percentile) overall quality of glycemia. The GRI Grid enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals. Conclusion: The GRI is a single-number summary of the quality of glycemia. Its hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia components provide actionable scores and a graphical display (the GRI Grid) that can be used by clinicians and researchers to determine the glycemic effects of prescribed and investigational treatments.

Objective: To evaluate glycemic outcomes in the Wireless Innovation for Seniors with Diabetes Mellitus (WISDM) randomized clinical trial (RCT) participants during an observational extension phase. Research Design and Methods: WISDM RCT was a 26-week RCT comparing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in 203 adults aged ≥60 years with type 1 diabetes. Of the 198 participants who completed the RCT, 100 (98%) CGM group participants continued CGM (CGM-CGM cohort) and 94 (98%) BGM group participants initiated CGM (BGM-CGM cohort) for an additional 26 weeks. Results: CGM was used a median of >90% of the time at 52 weeks in both cohorts. In the CGM-CGM cohort, median time <70 mg/dL decreased from 5.0% at baseline to 2.6% at 26 weeks and remained stable with a median of 2.8% at 52 weeks ( P < 0.001 baseline to 52 weeks). Participants spent more time in range 70–180 mg/dL (TIR) (mean 56% vs. 64%; P < 0.001) and had lower hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (mean 7.6% [59 mmol/mol] vs. 7.4% [57 mmol/mol]; P = 0.01) from baseline to 52 weeks. In BGM-CGM, from 26 to 52 weeks median time <70 mg/dL decreased from 3.9% to 1.9% ( P < 0.001), TIR increased from 56% to 60% ( P = 0.006) and HbA1c decreased from 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) to 7.3% (57 mmol/mol) ( P = 0.025). In BGM-CGM, a severe hypoglycemic event was reported for nine participants while using BGM during the RCT and for two participants during the extension phase with CGM ( P = 0.02). Conclusions: CGM use reduced hypoglycemia without increasing hyperglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes. These data provide further evidence for fully integrating CGM into clinical practice. Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03240432)

Background: Knowledge regarding the burden and predictors of hypoglycemia among older adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is limited. Methods: We analyzed baseline data from the Wireless Innovations for Seniors with Diabetes Mellitus (WISDM) study, which enrolled participants at 22 sites in the United States. Eligibility included clinical diagnosis of T1D, age ≥60 years, no real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use in prior three months, and HbA1c <10.0%. Blinded CGM data from 203 participants with at least 240 hours were included in the analyses. Results: Median age of the cohort was 68 years (52% female, 93% non-Hispanic white, and 53% used insulin pumps). Mean HbA1c was 7.5%. Median time spent in the glucose range <70 mg/dL was 5.0% (72 min/day) and <54 mg/dL was 1.6% (24 min/day). Among all factors analyzed, only reduced hypoglycemia awareness was associated with greater time spent <54 mg/dL (median time of 2.7% vs 1.3% [39 vs 19 minutes per day] for reduced awareness vs aware/uncertain, respectively, P = .03). Participants spent a mean 56% of total time in target glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL and 37% of time above 180 mg/dL. Conclusions: Over half of older T1D participants spent at least an hour a day with glucose levels <70 mg/dL. Those with reduced hypoglycemia awareness spent over twice as much time than those without in a serious hypoglycemia range (glucose levels <54 mg/dL). Interventions to reduce exposure to clinically significant hypoglycemia and increase time in range are urgently needed in this age group.