Where can you wear your Libre? Using the FreeStyle Libre continuous glucose monitor on alternative sites.

AIM: To investigate the accuracy and acceptability of the FreeStyle Libre Flash continuous glucose monitoring system (FSL-CGM) at alternative sites during free living and under experimental conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with type 1 diabetes were provided with three FSL-CGM sensors applied to the upper arm, the lower back, and the anterior chest. On day 2 or 3, FSL-CGM sensor glucose was compared with venous glucose following a standard meal, during and after an exercise test, and after skin cooling. Participants completed 14-day use of the sensors with concomitant sensor scanning at all sites and capillary glucose tests. The primary outcome was accuracy between sensor sites of 14-day mean glucose. Clarke's error grids, precision absolute relative deviation, and mean absolute relative deviation were calculated. RESULTS: In the 20 participants, compared with the arm sensor, the accuracy of the back sensor and the chest sensor was 97.9% and 98%, respectively. Under experimental conditions, the arm sensor was more accurate than that of the back and chest. All the sensors recorded higher glucose concentration than venous samples during exercise. The arm and chest sites were most preferred, with the greatest sensor failures from the back. CONCLUSIONS: The FSL-CGM is clinically accurate when the sensors are applied to alternate chest or back sites. Greater variability occurs during rapid changes in glucose concentration with all sensor sites compared with venous glucose. Understanding these variabilities allows appropriate use of an economically viable continuous glucose monitor.

Optimizing the management of hypoglycaemia in individuals with type 2 diabetes: A randomized crossover comparison of a weight-based protocol compared with two fixed-dose glucose regimens.

AIMS: To determine whether an individualized body weight-based glucose treatment in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is more likely to resolve hypoglycaemia with a single treatment without excessive rebound hyperglycaemia compared to fixed doses of 12 or 30 g of glucose. METHODS: Adults with T2DM were enrolled in a cross-over study. Each episode of hypoglycaemia (capillary glucose <4.0 mmol/L) was randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment protocols: 0.3 g glucose/kg body-weight or a fixed dose of either 12 or 30 g glucose, independent of weight. All participants received each treatment in random order for up to 15 hypoglycaemic episodes. Glucose was re-tested 10 minutes after treatment, with a repeat dose if still <4 mmol/L. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age of the 30 participants was 68 (8.1) years, mean weight was 91.5 (16.8) kg and mean HbA1c was 58.7 (9.2) mmol/mol. Among a total of 244 episodes of hypoglycaemia, 10 participants had 15 treatment episodes and 18 participants had fewer than 10 treatment episodes. The odds ratio, adjusted for multiple comparisons, for resolution of hypoglycaemia at 10 minutes, comparing weight-based treatment and 12 g treatment was 3.2 (95% CI, 1.1-9.0), P = .009, comparing 30 g treatment and 12 g treatment was 8.9 (95% CI, 2.2-36.6), P < .001, and comparing weight-based treatment and 30 g treatment was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.08-1.67) P = .10. CONCLUSION: In T2DM, both a weight-based 0.3 g/kg treatment and a fixed 30 g glucose treatment result in higher blood glucose than a 12 g treatment, along with increased probability of resolution of hypoglycaemia after 10 minutes. Both treatments result in an excess of mild rebound hyperglycaemia (>8 mmol/L) at 30 minutes.

Effective treatment of hypoglycemia in children with type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the most effective of four oral treatments for hypoglycemia in children with type 1 diabetes using a weight-based protocol during diabetes camp. METHODS: During diabetes camp treatment of hypoglycemia was randomized to one of the four treatments, randomly assigned for each episode using a sealed envelope: glucose tablets, jellybeans, orange juice, and sugar mints (Mentos dragees®). An equivalent carbohydrate dose was calculated for each patient for each treatment (0.3 g carbohydrate/kg) and provided to camp leaders. Glucose was measured at 0, 2, 5, 10, and 15 min and symptoms recorded. RESULTS: A total of 191 episodes of hypoglycemia were recorded in 39 children (1-12 episodes per child), with 2 episodes excluded because of protocol violations. Fifty-two episodes were treated with glucose tablets, 45 with jellybeans, 44 with juice, and 48 with sugar mints. Change in glucose at 10 (p = 0.034) and 15 min (p = 0.005) and glucose at 15 min (p = 0.026) were significantly different between treatment groups - jellybeans produced the lowest and slowest response. Glucose tablets did not differ significantly from juice or Mentos dragees. There was a trend for repeat treatment to be required more often with a single treatment 'dose' of jellybeans (p = 0.058). Symptoms occurred in 112 episodes, with a median time to symptom resolution of 12 min (interquartile range (IQR) 8-15 min). CONCLUSIONS: Jellybeans are less effective treatment for hypoglycemia than the other three treatments. Glucose tablets, Mentos dragees® and orange juice are of similar efficacy. Treatment with 0.3 g/kg of carbohydrate (excluding jellybeans) effectively resolved hypoglycemia in most children, with 15 min often required to normalize blood glucose.

Unrecognised hypoglycaemia in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes using the continuous glucose monitoring system: prevalence and contributors.

AIM: To determine prevalence of hypoglycaemia, and contributing factors, in children with type 1 diabetes, using the Medtronic MiniMed continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS). METHODS: Fifty-one children and adolescents with diabetes were studied with the CGMS. The studies were analysed for frequency and duration of hypoglycaemia (below 3.5 and 2.5 mmol/L). Contributing clinical factors were determined. Occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was related to bedtime and fasting home glucose recording. RESULTS: Hypoglycaemia was common, with 1 (0-4.2) (median (range)) episode per patient per 24 hours, and 0.33 (0-2) episodes per patient per night. Nocturnal episodes were longer than daytime episodes [97.5 (5-720) versus 35 (5-295) minutes for episodes below 3.5 mmol/L, P < 0.001; and 75 (10-640) versus 25 (5-200) minutes for episodes below 2.5 mmol/L, P < 0.001], and less likely to be recognised by the subject (P < 0.001 for episodes below both 3.5 and 2.5 mmol/L). Nocturnal hypoglycaemia was more common with a bedtime glucose recording <6 mmol/L, but also occurred frequently in subjects with glucose recordings >10 mmol/L. No bedtime glucose value reduced the risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia to <10%. CONCLUSION: Hypoglycaemia, assessed using the CGMS, is common in children with type 1 diabetes and can be prolonged (although is predominantly mild). Bedtime home glucose recordings are poorly predictive of hypoglycaemia during the following night. Continuous glucose monitoring has proven very useful in management of individual patients, particularly adolescents experiencing difficulties with adherence to diabetes management.