Effectiveness and Safety of the Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring System FreeStyle Libre 2 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Basal Insulin or Oral Antidiabetic Drugs: An Observational, Retrospective Real-World Study

Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring (isCGM) devices are increasingly being used in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on insulin therapy for their benefits regarding disease management. Evidence of isCGM use in patients with T2DM treated with basal insulin or oral antidiabetic drugs is lacking. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of isCGM in this population. This was an observational, retrospective, real-world study enrolling patients with T2DM who were starting with the use of isCGM. Data from medical records (i.e. demographics, clinical characteristics, laboratory assessments, and isCGM metrics) were collected over three time periods (baseline, 3 and 6 months). The endpoints were glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) changes, and changes in isCGM metrics as defined by the International Consensus from baseline to a 3-month and a 6-month follow-up. Overall, 132 patients were included (69% male; mean age 68.2±11.0 years; mean disease duration 19.0±9.3 years; 80% on basal insulin ± oral drugs at baseline; mean baseline HbA1c 8.1%±1.3%). The estimated mean change in HbA1c from baseline was statistically significant at three (-0.4±1.0%; p=0.003) and at six months (-0.6±1.3%; p<0.0001). No statistical differences were found in the mean change of the isCGM metrics. Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring is effective and safe in improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin or oral antidiabetic drugs.

Keywords:

Subject: Public Health and Healthcare - Primary Health Care

1. Introduction

Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring (isCGM), also known as Flash Glucose Monitoring (FGM), is a well-known valuable tool for managing patients with diabetes undergoing insulin treatment, including those with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM).

Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring devices provide continuous and real-time glucose monitoring, allowing individuals to track their glucose levels throughout the day and night without the need for finger pricking (1). This can offer a more comprehensive view of blood sugar patterns as compared to traditional fingerstick testing, and no calibration is required. Although real time Continuous Glucose Monitoring (rt-CGM) is superior to isCGM in terms of glycaemic control and cost-effectiveness (2), isCGM devices are cheaper and often easier to use and to apply, which makes them a viable alternative to rt-CGM devices in diabetes management. The efficacy of both isCGM and rt-CGM in type 1 diabetes mellitus has been confirmed by a large body of evidence (1, 3).

Data regarding type 2 diabetes mellitus are less complete as compared to those regarding type 1 diabetes mellitus. In adults with type 2 diabetes under multi daily insulin injections (MDI), isCGM has been observed to improve glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) (4), with reductions in hypoglycaemia (5, 6) and increased treatment satisfaction (4, 5). Therefore, the recent American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines have suggested that isCGM should be offered for diabetes management in patients with type 2 diabetes on multiple daily injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion who are capable of using the devices safely (7). However, evidence regarding the use of isCGM in patients under basal insulin or noninsulin therapy is more limited (8-17). Initial evidence, both from randomized controlled clinical trials and real-world studies, showed that isCGM use was mainly associated with glycated haemoglobin improvement (8-16), reduction of acute diabetes-related events (ADEs; i.e. severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis) (10) and reduction of rate of hospitalisation for ADEs (9, 10, 12). However, the data are not homogenous, and the majority of the studies are on national databases (8-12). Therefore, the real efficacy of isCGM in patients under basal insulin or noninsulin therapy has yet to be proven.

In this study, we aimed at assessing efficacy and safety of isCGM Freestyle Libre 2 in a population of patients treated with non-insulin therapy or basal insulin plus non-insulin therapy.

2. Materials and Methods

This was an observational, retrospective, real-world study enrolling patients with T2DM followed by the Niguarda Ca’ Granda Hospital, Milan, Italy and Brescia Hospital, Italy. A consecutive sample of patients with T2DM who were starting with the use of Freestyle Libre 2 was included in the study. Only patients who had received diabetological continuous assistance for at least one year were included in the study. The exclusion criteria were T2DM treated with multiple daily injections, type 1 diabetes, gestational diabetes, and other types of diabetes. All participants, as standard procedure at each visit, were advised to follow lifestyle modifications according to standard care. Clinical data at baseline and after three and six months were recorded. Specifically, information regarding the following parameters were collected: age, gender, diabetes duration, height, weight, smoking habits, glycated haemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose, blood pressure, lipid profile (total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides), pharmacologic treatments, and diabetes-related complications, such as retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy, and macroangiopathy. In particular, macroangiopathy was defined as a history of a cardiovascular event and/or ischemic electrocardiogram abnormalities at rest or during a stress test, the presence of plaques detected by ultrasonographic examination of the carotid arteries or the peripheral arterial vessels, or as the presence of an intima media of thickness >1.5 mm. Neuropathy was diagnosed using the vibration perception test, the monofilament pressure sensation test, or electromyography. Nephropathy was defined as a reduced glomerular filtration rate (< 60 ml/min) or an increased urinary albumin excretion (albuminuria) diagnosed if urinary albumin concentration was >30 mg/l, or if urinary albumin excretion rate was >20 μg/min, or if the urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio was >2.5 mg/mmol in men and 3.5 mg/mmol in women. Retinopathy was detected using high-quality fundus photographs.

The study endpoints were to evaluate changes in HbA1c levels and changes in CGM metrics as defined by the International Consensus on Time in Range (18) from baseline to a 3- and a 6-month follow-up. In particular, % time in range (%TIR) (70-180 mg/dL), % time above range 1 (%TAR1) (180-250 mg/dL), %TAR2 (>250 mg/dl), % time below range 1 (%TBR1) (55-70 mg/dL) and %TBR2 (<55 mg/dl) were assessed at a 3- and a 6-month follow-up.

The possible occurrence of side effects related to the use of the isCGM system was investigated at each visit. All the clinical data collected in the study were analysed anonymously. The local Ethics Committees approved the protocol, and all participating patients gave written informed consent. The study was carried out according to the Helsinki Declaration.

Statistical Analyses

Data were expressed as means ± standard deviation for the continuous variables and percentages for the categorical variables. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to test the normality of distribution of the continuous variables. Clinical and demographic characteristics were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. As this was a feasibility study, no prior power calculation was carried out. A p value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. The analyses were carried out using SPSS version 21.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL).

3. Results

Overall, 132 patients were enrolled in the study; 79.7% of them were being treated with basal insulin plus non-insulin therapy and only 20.3% with non-insulin therapy. Ninety-one (69.5%) of medical records were for male individuals. The mean age at the start of the device use was 68.2±11.0 years, with a mean disease duration of 19.0±9.4 years and a baseline HbA1c of 8.1±1.3%. The most frequent comorbidity was hypertension (65.9%), and more than one third of the population presented with a history of ischemic heart disease at baseline (35.5%). Baseline characteristics of the patients and their comorbidities are reported in Table 1.

After the introduction of isCGM, the estimated mean change in HbA1c from baseline was statistically significant at three (-0.4±1.0%; p=0.003) and at six months (-0.6±1.3%; p<0.0001). The HbA1c level significantly decreased at the 3- (7.51±0.91%, p=0.003) and at the 6-month follow-ups (7.54 ±0.96%, p<0.001).

Similarly, considering only patients being treated with insulin therapy, after the introduction of isCGM, the HbA1c level significantly decreased at the 3- (7.99±1.99% versus 7.55±0.95%, p=0.015) and the 6-month follow-ups (7.56±0.91%, p<0.001 at 6 months).

In Table 2, the different therapies at baseline and at the 3- and the 6-month follow-ups were reported. They did not show a consistent modification during the follow-up. The significant mean difference in HbA1c levels between the baseline and the follow-up visits was not affected by changes in glucose lowering therapy (p=0.89 at Anova analysis).

No statistical differences were found in the mean change in CGM metrics (TIR, TAR1, TAR2, TBR1, TBR2), although comparisons were feasible only between the 3- and the 6-month follow-ups as the CGM metrics at baseline were lacking inasmuch as, at enrollment, they were not wearing a glycaemic sensor.

No side effects related to the use of isCGM were reported. There were no significant changes in lipid profile, prevalence of comorbidities and chronic diabetes complications, or in the hypoglycaemic rate. No episode of severe hypoglycemia occurred throughout the follow-up period.

4. Discussion

Evidence supporting the use of CGM in T2DM patients is increasing; the overall positive results have led to considering the possible economic implications as a result of the large number of T2DM patients who might benefit from these devices (2). Intermittently scanned-CGM is a feasible alternative to rt-CGM, being more convenient, easier to apply and use, thinner and having reduced dimensions.

However, scientific evidence regarding the use of isCGM in type 2 diabetes mellitus is more limited. Controlling blood glucose levels in patients affected by T2DM using basal insulin therapy and no rapid insulin can be challenging (19). Although many patients with T2DM routinely carry out blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in the morning, postprandial monitoring is often not performed, making postprandial glycemia underestimated. In addition, the assessment of postprandial glycaemia might be delayed and not useful for showing the glycaemic peaks. Furthermore, while basal insulin addresses fasting blood sugar levels, it does not account for the postprandial glucose spikes which occur after eating. Administering too much basal insulin or not adjusting the dose properly can increase the risk of hypoglycaemia without reducing postprandial glucose excursions. Patients with T2DM may require additional oral medications to address these spikes effectively. Alternatively, they can modify the meal composition or reduce the amount of food (20).

The use of isCGM in this set of patients can improve the management of their glycaemic control as it facilitates the basal insulin titration necessary for controlling the fasting glycaemic concentration, it alerts the patients to postprandial glycaemic changes, and it enables them to personalise nutrition therapy based on individual glycaemic patterns in order to reduce glycaemic oscillations. The role of isCGM in motivating eating behaviour modifications has already been described in literature. It has been shown that isCGM, together with the Self-Evaluation Of Unhealthy foods by Looking at postprandial glucose (SEOUL) algorithm was able to improve HbA1c values (15). According to this algorithm, the routine use of isCGM led patients to qualitative and quantitative modifications of their eating behaviour, thus reducing postprandial glycaemic oscillations. Polonsky and colleagues integrated isCGM into diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) programs, and achieved similar improvement in glycaemic control. There was a significant gain in % TIR and a parallel drop in %TAR, together with an overall increase in well-being, and an improvement in healthy eating (21). This conclusion supported a new approach to DSMES, a method which integrates isCGM with a highly interactive and engaging patient-driven "discovery learning" approach to education. A prerequisite for the success of this strategy is a good level of acceptance of the patients toward this device; patients affected by T2DM are among those patients reporting higher "convenient" and "discreteness" scores regarding isCGM (22). Therefore, isCGM appeared to play an important educational role, allowing patients to have a better understanding of their glucose levels throughout the day, helping them to make informed decisions regarding their diet, physical activity, medication adjustments, and lifestyle changes, alerting patients to impending hypoglycaemia and hyperglycemia, and encouraging active participation in diabetes self-management. Thus, patients are more likely to take ownership of their condition, monitor their glucose levels, and adhere to treatment plans.

In the present paper, the Authors showed that the use of isCGM in T2DM patients on basal insulin or only on oral drugs improved overall glycaemic control. The effect was independent of eventual therapy modifications.

Specifically, the reduction in HbA1c after 3 months of isCGM use, in our study, was about 0.4%, in range with several scientific evidence as the works of Eeg-Olofsson et al. and Wada et al. (11, 17). In literature, data from other cohorts show greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin during isCGM use across a similar follow-up period (13, 14). This difference might be explained by the higher mean HbA1c levels of the population at baseline in these studies, being higher baseline values reported to be associated with significantly larger reductions (4). Indeed, the decrease in HbA1c achieved in our population can be defined significant considering the non-severe impairment of glycemic compensation at baseline. According to a systematic review and meta-analysis of isCGM use in type 1 and type 2 diabetes, the use of these devices results in a 0.4% reduction in HbA1c for each 1% increase in baseline levels over 7.2% (22). The results of the present study can be considered in line with this meta-analysis, being the mean glycated haemoglobin around 8.1% in our cohort at baseline. In addition, a large part of patients in the present cohort can be considered fragile (mean age: 68.2±11 years; heart disease at baseline: 35.5%; arteriopathy at baseline: 27.8%; nephropathy at baseline: 24.0%) with a less ambitious HbA1c target according to ADA Standard.

Finally, the efficacy in reducing HbA1c values was accompanied by a good safety profile, evidenced by the absence of episodes of severe hypoglycaemia in the study population throughout the follow-up period and by the absence of differences in TBR1 and TBR2 parameters at 3 and 6 months of observation.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study confirmed that the use of isCGM, for its effectiveness and safety, could be considered a useful tool for improving overall glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes who are being treated with non-insulin or basal insulin therapy.

However, this study has some limitations. The most important is that the study used a single-arm retrospective chart review methodology which, by definition, precluded a SMBG control group as a comparison for the effectiveness of the intervention. The Authors did not evaluate or record lifestyle changes in the patients enrolled, and the research period was only 6 months, making it unclear whether the improvement in glycaemic control using isCGM would last longer. These limitations highlight the need of other studies to further address this topic.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation BP, AG, FB; Methodology MC, GM; Data Curation EM, BP; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, BA, FC.

Data availability statement

The datasets analyzed in the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Gao, Y.; Zhou, M.; Xu, X.; Chen, W.Y. Effects of flash glucose monitoring on glycemic control in participants with diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Diabetes Complications. 2022, 36, 108314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Isitt, J.J.; Roze, S.; Tilden, D.; Arora, N.; Palmer, A.J.; Jones, T.; Rentoul, D.; Lynch, P. Long-term cost-effectiveness of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring system in people with type 1 diabetes in Australia. Diabet Med. 2022, 39, e14831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lu, J.; Ying, Z.; Wang, P.; Fu, M.; Han, C.; Zhang, M. Effects of continuous glucose monitoring on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2023, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Yaron, M.; Roitman, E.; Aharon-Hananel, G.; Landau, Z.; Ganz, T.; Yanuv, I.; Rozenberg, A.; Karp, M.; Ish-Shalom, M.; Singer, J.; et al. Effect of flash glucose monitoring technology on glycemic control and treatment satisfaction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2019, 42, 1178–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Haak, T.; Hanaire, H.; Ajjan, R.; Hermanns, N.; Riveline, J.P.; Rayman, G. Use of flash glucose-sensing technology for 12 months as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Ther 2017, 8, 573–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Haak, T.; Hanaire, H.; Ajjan, R.; Hermanns, N.; Riveline, JP.; Rayman, G. 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. Diabetes Ther. 2017, 8, 55–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
ElSayed, N.A.; Aleppo, G.; Aroda, V.R.; Bannuru, R.R.; Brown, F.M.; Bruemmer, D.; Collins, B.S.; Hilliard, M.E.; Isaacs, D.; Johnson, E.L.; et al. on behalf of the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes, 2023. Diabetes Care 2023, 46, S111–S127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wright, E.E. Jr.; Kerr, M.S.D.; Reyes, I.J.; Nabutovsky, Y.; Miller, E. Use of Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring Is Associated With A1C Reduction in People With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Basal Insulin or Noninsulin Therapy. Diabetes Spectr. 2021, 34, 184–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Guerci, B.; Roussel, R.; Levrat-Guillen, F.; Detournay, B.; Vicaut, E.; De Pouvourville, G.; Emery, C.; Riveline, J.P. Important Decrease in Hospitalizations for Acute Diabetes Events Following FreeStyle Libre System Initiation in People with Type 2 Diabetes on Basal Insulin Therapy in France. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2023, 25, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Miller, E.; Kerr, M.S.D.; Roberts, G.J.; Nabutovsky, Y.; Wright, E. Flash CGM associated with event reduction in nonintensive diabetes therapy. Am J Manag Care 2021, 27, e372–e377. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Eeg-Olofsson, K.; Svensson, A.M.; Franzén, S; Ismail, A; Törnblom, H.M.; Levrat-Guillen, F. Real-world study of flash glucose monitoring among adults with type 2 diabetes within the Swedish National Diabetes Register. Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2023, 20, 14791641211067418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Roussel, R.; Riveline, J.P.; Vicaut, E.; de Pouvourville, G.; Detournay, B.; Emery, C.; Levrat-Guillen, F.; Guerci, B. Important Drop in Rate of Acute Diabetes Complications in People With Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes After Initiation of Flash Glucose Monitoring in France: The RELIEF Study. Diabetes Care. 2021, 44, 1368–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Carlson, AL.; Daniel, T.D.; DeSantis, A.; Jabbour, S.; Karslioglu French, E.; Kruger, D.; Miller, E.; Ozer, K.; Elliott, T. Flash glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin in the USA: a retrospective real-world chart review study and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2022, 10, e002590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Elliott, T.; Beca, S.; Beharry, R.; Tsoukas, M.A.; Zarruk, A.; Abitbol, A. The impact of flash glucose monitoring on glycated hemoglobin in type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin in Canada: A retrospective real-world chart review study. Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2021, 18, 14791641211021374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Choe, H.J.; Rhee, E.J.; Chul Won, J.; Soo Park, K.; Lee, W.Y.; Min Cho, J. Effects of Patient-Driven Lifestyle Modification Using Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Results From the Randomized Open-label PDF Study. Diabetes Care. 2022, 45, 2224–2230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Chen, M.; Li, H.; Shen, Y.; Liu, B.; Yan, R.; Sun, X.; Ye, L.; Lee, K.O.; Ma, J.; Su, X. Flash Glucose Monitoring Improves Glucose Control in People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Receiving Anti-diabetic Drug Medication. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2021, 129, 857–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wada, E.; Onoue, T.; Kobayashi, T.; Handa, T.; Ayase, A.; Ito, M.; Furukawa, M.; Okuji, T.; Okada, N.; Iwama, S; et al. 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. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 2020, 8, e001115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Battelino, T.; Danne, T.; Bergenstal, R.M.; Amiel, S.A.; Beck, R.; Biester, T.; Bosi, E.; Buckingham, B.A.; Cefalu, W.T.; Close, K.L.; et al. Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range. Diabetes Care. 2019, 42, 1593–1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
van Avendonk, M.J.; Rutten, G.E. Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: what is the evidence? Diabetes Obes Metab. 2009, 11, 415–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Monro, J.A.; Shaw, M. Glycemic impact, glycemic glucose equivalents, glycemic index, and glycemic load: Definitions, distinctions and implications. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008, 87, 237S–243S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Polonsky, W.H.; Fortmann, A.L.; Soriano, E.C.; Guzman, S.J.; Funnell, M.M. The AH-HA! Project: Transforming Group Diabetes Self-Management Education Through the Addition of Flash Glucose Monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2023, 25, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dragamestianou, A.; Kontoteza, I.V.; Siskou, O.; Galanis, P.; Papazafiropoulou, A.; Konstantakopoulou, O; Gallos, P.; Karagkouni, I.; Kaitelidou, D. Investigating Diabetes Mellitus Patients' Experiences with Self Monitoring Blood Glucose Methods. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2022, 295, 474–477. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

Table 1. Patients’ baseline characteristics (a) and comorbidities (b).

a. Patients’ characteristics	Mean±SD
Age	68.2±11.0
Duration of diabetes (yrs)	19.0±9.4
Weight (kg)	79.5±19.5
Height (cm)	168.7±8.5
Sistolic blood pressure (mmHg)	136±18
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)	75±9
Albuminuria (mg/l)	140.4±456.2
Glycated haemoglobin (%)	8.1±1.3
Fasting plasma glucose (mg/dl)	154.8±44.4
Total cholesterol (mg/dl)	153.6±42.0
LDL (mg/dl)	81.4±38.0
HDL (mg/dl)	46.9±14.8
Triglycerides (mg/dl)	139.2±74.4
b. Patients’ comorbidities	%
Ischemic cardiopathy	35.5
Hypertension	65.9
Arteriopathy	27.8
Nephropathy	24.0
Retinopathy	16.8
Neuropathy	11.2
Severe hypoglycaemia	4.9

Table 2. Patient therapy during follow-up.

	Baseline (%)	3 months (%)	6 months (%)
Basal insulin	79.7	86.3	78.8
Metformin	62.4	52.8	61.0
Pioglitazone	4.9	6.0	5.1
Sulfonylureas	17.9	9.8	16.3
Acarbose	4.1	2.0	10.1
DPP4 inhibitors	17.9	23.5	18.8
SGLT2 inhibitors	33.3	41.2	40.0
GLP-1 analogues	50.8	57.7	54.3

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.

MDPI Initiatives

Important Links

Choose an area of interest and we will send you notifications of new preprints at your preferred frequency.

Disclaimer