At the 2017 10th annual International Conference on Advanced Technologies and Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) in Paris, France, four speakers presented their perspectives on the roles of continuous ...glucose monitoring (CGM) and of blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in patient management within one symposium. These presentations included discussions of the differences in the accuracy of CGM and BGM, a clinical perspective on the physiological reasons behind differences in CGM and BGM values, and an overview of the impact of variations in device accuracy on patients with diabetes. Subsequently a short summary of these presentations is given, highlighting the value of good accuracy of BGM or CGM systems and the ongoing need for standardization. The important role of both BGM and CGM in patient management was a theme across all presentations.
Inhalation of insulin appears to have become an alternative for the subcutaneous injection of insulin for the time being. However, the recent withdrawal of one product that had already reached the ...marketplace or others that were close to approval raised severe concerns about the future of the pulmonary route for insulin administration. In view of the progress made with respect to the size of the inhaler and the many other options that would improve the pharmacodynamic properties of inhaled insulin, patient acceptance of this innovative approach, and (hopefully) a reduction in cost, we should begin with an open discussion about the future of inhaled insulin in order to avoid its premature death. This commentary discusses many of the advantages and disadvantages of inhaled insulin from the view of the patients, diabetologists, scientists, pharmaceutical industry, health care payers, and politicians. It is hoped that this unusual approach allows keeping an open mind about this interesting route of drug administration.
Without finger pricking, no self-measurement of blood glucose (SMBG) is possible. However, the number of scientific studies dealing with this topic, which is highly relevant for patients, is ...surprisingly small. This is in sharp contrast to the number of papers about blood glucose meters and SMBG in general. This article highlights a number of aspects that are relevant when it comes to finger pricking and pain. There is a clear improvement in the technology employed in the many different lancing devices that are on the market nowadays; however, no good head-to-head comparison study has been performed to date. The invention of novel devices for finger pricking will most likely bring more attention to this topic.
While A1C is well established as an important risk marker for diabetes complications, with the increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to help facilitate safe and effective diabetes ...management, it is important to understand how CGM metrics, such as mean glucose, and A1C correlate. Estimated A1C (eA1C) is a measure converting the mean glucose from CGM or self-monitored blood glucose readings, using a formula derived from glucose readings from a population of individuals, into an estimate of a simultaneously measured laboratory A1C. Many patients and clinicians find the eA1C to be a helpful educational tool, but others are often confused or even frustrated if the eA1C and laboratory-measured A1C do not agree. In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration determined that the nomenclature of eA1C needed to change. This led the authors to work toward a multipart solution to facilitate the retention of such a metric, which includes renaming the eA1C the glucose management indicator (GMI) and generating a new formula for converting CGM-derived mean glucose to GMI based on recent clinical trials using the most accurate CGM systems available. The final aspect of ensuring a smooth transition from the old eA1C to the new GMI is providing new CGM analyses and explanations to further understand how to interpret GMI and use it most effectively in clinical practice. This Perspective will address why a new name for eA1C was needed, why GMI was selected as the new name, how GMI is calculated, and how to understand and explain GMI if one chooses to use GMI as a tool in diabetes education or management.
Subcutaneous (s.c.) injections of identical insulin doses may lead to considerable intra- and inter-individual differences in the current metabolic control of patients with diabetes mellitus. This ...well-known variability of the metabolic effect of insulin hampers practical insulin therapy considerably. The aim of this review is to summarize the knowledge about this topic, with a special focus on the variability of insulin action after pulmonary administration of insulin. A number of studies have been published describing the variability of insulin absorption from the s.c. depot. Only in a few published studies has the variability of insulin action after s.c. administration been quantified. Under controlled experimental conditions s.c. injections of regular insulins result in an intra-individual coefficient of variation (CV) of 15-25% of certain pharmacodynamic summary measures--which characterize the metabolic effect of the applied insulin--in healthy subjects. The inter-individual variability was approximately 10% higher than the intra-individual variability. Subcutaneously injected intermediate- and long-acting insulin preparations were described to have an even greater variability (> 50%) than subcutaneously injected regular insulin. However, in a glucose clamp study s.c. application of NPH insulin led to an intra-individual CV in the range of 12-45% in healthy subjects. The reason for this discrepancy might be that the NPH insulin suspension was sufficiently shaken prior to drawing up the dose. Compared with conventional insulin formulations, rapid- and long-acting insulin analogues appear to have a similar variability, which means that, unfortunately, no considerable advantages in terms of variability were achieved by the invention of these novel insulin preparations. There are no appropriate studies available investigating the variability of the metabolic effect after s.c. insulin administration in patients with diabetes. The inhalation of insulin is a novel form of insulin administration that is currently under clinical development. The variability of the metabolic effect induced by the inhalation of insulin has up to now only been investigated in a small number of (published) studies. In a glucose-clamp study with healthy subjects the inhalation of an identical insulin dose on three study days led to an intra-individual variability that was comparable to that after s.c. injection of regular insulin. In a dose-response study with patients with type 1 diabetes the intra-individual CV was 34% for the area under the curve of the glucose infusion rate for 0-10 h. Studies with patients with type 2 diabetes have shown that the intra-individual CVs were within the range seen after s.c. insulin administration or even lower. In summary, the intra-individual variability of the metabolic effect observed after insulin application, be it subcutaneously injected or be it inhaled, is considerable and, therefore, hampers practical diabetes therapy. To date no means have been found that could lead to a clinically relevant reduction in the variable metabolic effect.
The experienced clinical diabetologist first checks the skin at the area where the patient usually injects his insulin when he sees widely fluctuating blood glucose levels in the diary of the ...patient. He knows that insulin absorption from skin with lipodystrophic changes is irregular. However, our scientific knowledge about why this is the case is very limited. Most probably, the number of blood vessels near the insulin depot in the subcutaneous tissue varies depending on the nature of the lipodystrophic changes, or the structural changes in this tissue hamper the diffusion of insulin. Not only is our knowledge about the number of patients who exhibit such changes very limited, but also our understanding why such changes show up in certain patients and not in others is minimal. More practically important, we also have few quantitative studies investigating the impact of this diabetes-related complication on insulin absorption/insulin action; however, it is not difficult to run such studies in practice. Nevertheless, it is impressive to see how often metabolic control improves considerably once the patients apply the insulin into other skin areas.
OBJECTIVE:--The purpose of this study was to compare the numerical and clinical accuracy of four continuous glucose monitors (CGMs): Guardian, DexCom, Navigator, and Glucoday. RESEARCH DESIGN AND ...METHODS--Accuracy data for the four CGMs were collected in two studies: Study 1 enrolled 14 adults with type 1 diabetes at the University of Virginia (UVA), Charlottesville, Virginia; study 2 enrolled 20 adults with type 1 diabetes at the Profil Institute for Metabolic Research, Neuss, Germany. All participants underwent hyperinsulinemic clamps including 1.5-2 h of maintained euglycemia at 5.6 mmol/l followed by descent into hypoglycemia, sustained hypoglycemia at 2.5 mmol/l for 30 min, and recovery. Reference blood glucose sampling was performed every 5 min. The UVA study tested Guardian, DexCom, and Navigator simultaneously; the Profil study tested Glucoday. RESULTS:--Regarding numerical accuracy, during euglycemia, the mean absolute relative differences (MARDs) of Guardian, DexCom, Navigator, and Glucoday were 15.2, 21.2, 15.3, and 15.6%, respectively. During hypoglycemia, the MARDs were 16.1, 21.5, 10.3, and 17.5%, respectively. Regarding clinical accuracy, continuous glucose-error grid analysis (CG-EGA) revealed 98.9, 98.3, 98.6, and 95.5% zones A + B hits in euglycemia. During hypoglycemia, zones A + B hits were 84.4, 97.0, and 96.2% for Guardian, Navigator, and Glucoday, respectively. Because of frequent loss of sensitivity, there were insufficient hypoglycemic DexCom data to perform CG-EGA. CONCLUSIONS:--The numerical accuracy of Guardian, Navigator, and Glucoday was comparable, with an advantage to the Navigator in hypoglycemia; the numerical errors of the DexCom were ~30% larger. The clinical accuracy of the four sensors was similar in euglycemia and was higher for the Navigator and Glucoday in hypoglycemia.
Background:
For decades, the major source of information used to make therapeutic decisions by patients with diabetes has been glucose measurements using capillary blood samples. Knowledge gained ...from clinical studies, for example, on the impact of metabolic control on diabetes-related complications, is based on such measurements. Different to traditional blood glucose measurement systems, systems for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) measure glucose in interstitial fluid (ISF). The assumption is that glucose levels in blood and ISF are practically the same and that the information provided can be used interchangeably. Thus, therapeutic decisions, that is, the selection of insulin doses, are based on CGM system results interpreted as though they were blood glucose values.
Methods:
We performed a more detailed analysis and interpretation of glucose profiles obtained with CGM in situations with high glucose dynamics to evaluate this potentially misleading assumption.
Results:
Considering physical activity, hypoglycemic episodes, and meal-related differences between glucose levels in blood and ISF uncover clinically relevant differences that can make it risky from a therapeutic point of view to use blood glucose for therapeutic decisions.
Conclusions:
Further systematic and structured evaluation as to whether the use of ISF glucose is more safe and efficient when it comes to acute therapeutic decisions is necessary. These data might also have a higher prognostic relevance when it comes to long-term metabolic consequences of diabetes. In the long run, it may be reasonable to abandon blood glucose measurements as the basis for diabetes management and switch to using ISF glucose as the appropriate therapeutic target.
PDF
