Abstract:IntroductionGlycemic control in participants with insulin-treated diabetes remains challenging. We assessed safety and efficacy of new flash glucose-sensing technology to replace self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG).MethodsThis open-label randomized controlled study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02082184) enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes on intensive insulin therapy from 26 European diabetes centers. Following 2 weeks of blinded sensor wear, 2:1 (intervention/control) randomization (centrally, using biased-coin minimization dependant on study center and insulin administration) was to control (SMBG) or intervention (glucose-sensing technology). Participants and investigators were not masked to group allocation. Primary outcome was difference in HbA1c at 6 months in the full analysis set. Prespecified secondary outcomes included time in hypoglycemia, effect of age, and patient satisfaction.ResultsParticipants (n = 224) were randomized (149 intervention, 75 controls). At 6 months, there was no difference in the change in HbA1c between intervention and controls: −3.1 ± 0.75 mmol/mol, [−0.29 ± 0.07% (mean ± SE)] and −3.4 ± 1.04 mmol/mol (−0.31 ± 0.09%) respectively; p = 0.8222. A difference was detected in participants aged <65 years [−5.7 ± 0.96 mmol/mol (−0.53 ± 0.09%) and −2.2 ± 1.31 mmol/mol (−0.20 ± 0.12%), respectively; p = 0.0301]. Time in hypoglycemia <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) reduced by 0.47 ± 0.13 h/day [mean ± SE (p = 0.0006)], and <3.1 mmol/L (55 mg/dL) reduced by 0.22 ± 0.07 h/day (p = 0.0014) for intervention participants compared with controls; reductions of 43% and 53%, respectively. SMBG frequency, similar at baseline, decreased in intervention participants from 3.8 ± 1.4 tests/day (mean ± SD) to 0.3 ± 0.7, remaining unchanged in controls. Treatment satisfaction was higher in intervention compared with controls (DTSQ 13.1 ± 0.50 (mean ± SE) and 9.0 ± 0.72, respectively; p < 0.0001). No serious adverse events or severe hypoglycemic events were reported related to sensor data use. Forty-two serious events [16 (10.7%) intervention participants, 12 (16.0%) controls] were not device-related. Six intervention participants reported nine adverse events for sensor-wear reactions (two severe, six moderate, one mild).ConclusionFlash glucose-sensing technology use in type 2 diabetes with intensive insulin therapy results in no difference in HbA1c change and reduced hypoglycemia, thus offering a safe, effective replacement for SMBG.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02082184.FundingAbbott Diabetes Care.

Real-Time Flash Glucose Monitoring Had Better Effects on Daily Glycemic Control Compared With Retrospective Flash Glucose Monitoring in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes on Premix Insulin Therapy

Flash glucose monitoring helps achieve better glycemic control than conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose in non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial

Effects of Flash Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Participants with Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Effects of Novel Flash Glucose Monitoring System on Glycaemic Control in Adult Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: Protocol of a Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial.

Control of Blood Glucose Fluctuation by Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Type 2 Diabetes

Flash glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin in the USA: a retrospective real-world chart review study and meta-analysis

Breaking through diabetes management barriers: Assessing the accuracy of Freestyle Libre Pro flash continuous glucose monitoring in diabetes patients with myocardial infarction

Effects of Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adult Type 1 Diabetes Patients with Suboptimal Glycaemic Control: A Multi-Centre Randomized Controlled Trial

884-P: Discrepancies in Key Metrics of Glycemic Control Between Retrospective Continuous Glucose Monitoring System and Flash Glucose Monitoring in Adult Patients with Type 1 Diabetes

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring-guided glucose management in inpatients with diabetes receiving short-term continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion: a randomized clinical trial

Comparing the glycaemic outcomes between real‐time continuous glucose monitoring (rt‐CGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) among adults and children with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Flash Glucose-Sensing Technology as a Replacement for Blood Glucose Monitoring for the Management of Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: a Multicenter, Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial

Relationship Between Estimated Glycosylated Hemoglobin Using Flash Glucose Monitoring and Actual Measured Glycosylated Hemoglobin in a Chinese Population

Impact Of Flash Glucose Monitoring On The Fear Of Hypoglycemia Phenomenon In Adults With Type 1 Diabetes

[The Effects of Early Intensive Therapy on Islet Beta Cell Function and Long-Term Glycemia Control in Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetic Patients with Different Fasting Plasma Glucose Levels.].

FGM-based remote intervention for adults with type 1 diabetes: The FRIEND randomized clinical trial

Real time continuous glucose monitoring in high‐risk people with insulin‐requiring type 2 diabetes: A randomised controlled trial

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring immediately after severe hypoglycaemia requiring emergency medical services: A randomised controlled trial

Accuracy of a novel real-time continuous glucose monitoring system: a prospective self-controlled study in thirty hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes

Utility of Real-Time and Retrospective Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Professional flash continuous glucose monitoring as a supplement to A1C in primary care