A continuous blood glucose monitor (CGM) apparently verifies blood glucose levels on a continuous basis. The data from human clinical trials demonstrate that a CGM supposedly demonstrate that the chief determinant of improvements in attaining better diabetes control may be due to regular use of monitors i.e. six days per week or more, rather than the age of patients. These benefits apparently carry on well past the time when people with type 1 diabetes supposedly start using the devices, including that of experiencing lesser low blood sugar emergencies. There were two studies pertaining to the topic.
The first study apparently demonstrated that the usual use of CGM devices may be a major aspect in apparently accomplishing improved diabetes control, rather than the age of people using the monitors, or other demographic, clinical, or psychosocial factors. The second study illustrated that people using CGM to help handle their disease may be able to maintain good diabetes control. That sustained tough control may come while lowering the occurrence of hypoglycemia. Risky low-blood-sugar episodes may arise with tightly controlled type 1 diabetes.
Dr. William V. Tamborlane, of Yale University, a co-chair of the JDRF funded study, commented, “Based on these results and previous JDRF CGM trials published over the past 12 months, we know that these devices can help people get in control of their diabetes, help people already managing their disease maintain good control, and help people stay in control over an extended period of time, while lowering their risk for hypoglycemia.â€
Studies has apparently shown that good blood sugar control may be a major factor in decreasing the possibility of the shocking lasting difficulty of the disease like blindness and kidney disease. However the fear of low blood sugar emergencies may frequently put off many people from realizing tight control, and may remain a continuous apprehension for those who apparently cope with their diabetes well. The landmark Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) supposedly explained that with intensive insulin therapy, excellent blood glucose control may be acquired, but at the cost of a supposed substantial rise in hypoglycemia. It may be seen that with CGM, hypoglycemia may be decreased while preserving excellent blood sugar control over an extensive duration.
Approximately 451 adults and children ranging in age from 8 to 72-years-old at 10 sites were apparently included in the study. The data was collected from various centers, across USA. They were divided into three groups. They were analyzed separately by grouping them in ages 8 to 14 years, 15 to 24 years and 25 years or older.
People with diabetes may attempt to sustain their blood sugar levels between 70 mg/dL and 180 mg/dL. When blood sugar apparently becomes very low, people may get perplexed, sluggish, and even fall into a coma or die. Very high blood sugars could also be risky. And long-term, lack of control increases the risk of developing shocking problems, including eye, kidney, nerve, and heart disease. One measure of control is HbA1c, which may gauge long-term blood sugar management. Standards of good control may be usually below 7% for adults and for children, below 7.5% to 8%, depending on age. Based on the DCCT findings, with respect to deterioration of eye disease, an approximate 10% decrease in HbA1c (7.2% vs. 8%) may be connected with a 40% decline in progression.
In each age group, patients averaging at least six days per week of CGM use apparently had a considerable superior improvement in HbA1c as opposed to those who supposedly used the devices less frequently.
According to an earlier study from JDRF CGM trials conducted by Dr. Roy W Beck, it was observed that improvements in diabetes control for participants in the trial were claimed to be mainly important among those in the 25 and older age group. Children, teenagers and young adults apparently did not see much of a drastic improvement. However, it was pointed out that participants in the trial in all age groups, from children through adults, who claimed to have used CGM devices six days per week or more apparently saw comparable levels of improvement in their diabetes control. Additionally, the study discovered that the usual use of blood glucose testing before starting CGM therapy could be an outstanding analyst of regular CGM use and thus an apparent enhancement in glucose control.
The second study noted that CGM use supposedly had a lasting impact. People who started the trial with HbA1c levels at 7% or above claimed to have seen a drop in HbA1c mostly in the first eight weeks of the study. They apparently remained somewhat stable through the next 44 weeks; and for participants who appear to have started the trials with an HbA1c below 7%, they supposedly remained inside that target range over the entire 12 months of the study.
It was observed that just as vital as the determination of control that CGM devices assisted patients in achieving, may be the surprisingly low rate of severe hypoglycemic events at the time of the second six months of the study. Severe hypoglycemic events were claimed to be suffered by about 10% of the study participants during the first six months of the trial, but only by roughly 4% in the second six months. The speed of severe hypoglycemic events supposedly declined from 21.8 events per 100 person-years during the first six months to about 7.1 events per 100 person-years during the second six months. The rate was apparently not connected with the HbA1c level of the trial participants at the time the study started.
The rate of severe hypoglycemia in people using CGM devices during the second six months of the JDRF trial seemed to be noticeably lower than in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial intensive treatment group. About seven hypoglycemia events were supposedly contrasted with 62 in the DCCT trial. Although the mean HbA1c of JDRF trial participants at an approximate 6.8% was claimed to be lower than the DCCT trial participant’s level of about 7.1%.
JDRF has claimed to have shared the outcome of the CGM trial with health insurance plans, and as a result many of the nation’s leading plans now appparently cover CGM for patients with type 1 diabetes. Additionally, due to the JDRF trial, CGM is now supposedly incorporated in national standards of care for type 1 diabetes.
The findings of these two studies were published online in the journal Diabetes Care.