Reduced Rate of Acute Diabetes Events with Flash Glucose Monitoring Is Sustained for 2 Years After Initiation: Extended Outcomes from the RELIEF Study
Publication: Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
Volume 24, Issue Number 9
Abstract
Background: The RELIEF study has previously shown a fall in the rate of acute diabetes events (ADEs) in people living with type 1 diabetes (PwDT1) or people living with type 2 diabetes (PwDT2) in the 12 months after initiation of flash glucose monitoring (FLASH) in France. The 2-year follow-up has provided new insights on the frequency of ADEs, including severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), during use of FLASH.
Methods: The RELIEF study included 31,446 PwDT1 and 41,027 PwDT2 with a first delivery of FreeStyle Libre (FSL) between August 1 and December 31, 2017. Hospitalizations for DKA, severe hypoglycemia, diabetes-related coma, and hyperglycemia were recorded for the 12 months before and 24 months after FSL initiation. Persistence of the FSL system use was estimated through a Kaplan–Meier survival curve. Change in usual blood glucose monitoring was estimated through acquisition of blood glucose test strips.
Results: In the 2 years after FSL initiation, hospitalizations for ADEs were reduced by 49% and by 48% in PwDT1 or PwDT2, respectively, driven by reductions in DKA. After 2 years, 88% of patients persisted with the system and estimated mean consumption of blood glucose test strips had fallen after 2 years by −82% and by −84% in type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus, respectively.
Conclusion: Use of FSL consistently reduces the rates of hospitalization for ADEs, mainly DKA, 2 years after initiation, confirming this is not a transitory effect. Use of FSL also results in a clear and progressive drop in use of blood glucose test strips over the 2-year period.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1. Bolinder J, Antuna R, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P, et al.: Novel glucose-sensing technology and hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016;388:2254–2263.
2. Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, et al.: 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.
3. Rose L, Klausmann G, Seibold A: Improving HbA1c control in type 1 or type 2 diabetes using flash glucose monitoring: a retrospective observational analysis in Two German Centres. Diabetes Ther 2021;12:363–372.
4. Alva S, Bailey T, Brazg R, et al.: Accuracy of a 14-day factory-calibrated continuous glucose monitoring system with advanced algorithm in pediatric and adult population with diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2022;16:70–77.
5. Evans M, Welsh Z, Ells S, Seibold A: The impact of flash glucose monitoring on glycaemic control as measured by HbA1c: a meta-analysis of clinical trials and real-world observational studies. Diabetes Ther 2019;11:83–95.
6. Dicembrini I, Cosentino C, Monami M, et al.: Effects of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Acta Diabetol 2021;58:401–410.
7. Riddlesworth T, Price D, Cohen N, Beck RW: Hypoglycemic event frequency and the effect of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily insulin injections. Diabetes Ther 2017;8:947–951.
8. Campbell FM, Murphy NP, Stewart C, et al.: Outcomes of using flash glucose monitoring technology by children and young people with type 1 diabetes in a single arm study. Pediatr Diabetes 2018;19:1294–1301.
9. Beck RW, Hirsch IB, Laffel L, et al.: The effect of continuous glucose monitoring in well-controlled type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009;32:1378–1383.
10. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group: Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in a clinical care environment: evidence from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation continuous glucose monitoring (JDRF-CGM) trial. Diabetes Care 2010;33:17–22.
11. Beck RW, Riddlesworth TD, Ruedy K, et al.: Continuous glucose monitoring versus usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving multiple daily insulin injections: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2017;167:365–374.
12. Karter AJ, Parker MM, Moffet HH, et al.: Association of real-time continuous glucose monitoring with glycemic control and acute metabolic events among patients with insulin-treated diabetes. JAMA 2021;325:2273–2284.
13. Yaron M, Roitman E, Aharon-Hananel G, 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.
14. Kröger J, Fasching P, Hanaire H: Three European retrospective real-world chart review studies to determine the effectiveness of flash glucose monitoring on HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Ther 2020;11:279–291.
15. Wright EE, Kerr MSD, Reyes IJ, et al.: 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.
16. Carlson AL, Daniel TD, DeSantis A, et al.: 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.
17. Martens T, Beck RW, Bailey R, et al.: Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2021;325:2262–2272.
18. Aleppo G, Beck RW, Bailey R, et al.: The effect of discontinuing continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin. Diabetes Care 2021;44:2729–2737.
19. Grace T, Salyer J: Use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring improves glycemic control and other clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes patients treated with less intensive therapy. Diabetes Technol Ther 2022;24:26–31.
20. Gavin JR, Bailey CJ: Real-world studies support use of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 and type 2 diabetes independently of treatment regimen. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021;23(S3):S19–S27.
21. Roussel R, Riveline J-P, Vicaut E, et al.: Important drop 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.
22. Bezin J, Duong M, Lassalle R, et al.: The national healthcare system claims databases in France, SNIIRAM and EGB: powerful tools for pharmacoepidemiology. Pharmacoepidem Drug Saf 2017;26:954–962.
23. Charbonnel B, Simon D, Dallongeville J, et al.: Direct medical costs of type 2 diabetes in France: an insurance claims database analysis. Pharmacoecon Open 2018;2:209–219.
24. Dunn TC, Xu Y, Hayter G, Ajjan RA: Real-world flash glucose monitoring patterns and associations between self-monitoring frequency and glycaemic measures: a European analysis of over 60 million glucose tests. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2018;137:37–46.
25. Pfützner A, Weissmann J, Mougiakakou S, et al.: Glycemic variability is associated with frequency of blood glucose testing and bolus: post hoc analysis results from the ProAct Study. Diabetes Technol Ther 2015;17:392–397.
26. Ziegler R, Heidtmann B, Hilgard D, et al.: Frequency of SMBG correlates with HbA1c and acute complications in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes 2011;12:11–17.
27. Charleer S, Block CD, Huffel LV, et al.: Quality of life and glucose control after 1 year of Nationwide Reimbursement of Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults Living With Type 1 Diabetes (FUTURE): a prospective observational real-world cohort study. Diabetes Care 2020;43:389–397.
28. Fokkert M, Dijk P van, Edens M, et al.: Improved well-being and decreased disease burden after 1-year use of flash glucose monitoring (FLARE-NL4). BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 2019;7:e000809.
29. Tsur A, Cahn A, Israel M, et al.: Impact of flash glucose monitoring on glucose control and hospitalization in type 1 diabetes: a nationwide cohort study. Diabetes Metabolism Res Rev 2021;37:e3355.
30. Deshmukh H, Wilmot EG, Gregory R, et al.: Effect of flash glucose monitoring on glycemic control, hypoglycemia, diabetes-related distress, and resource utilization in the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) Nationwide Audit. Diabetes Care 2020;43:2153–2160.
31. Bergenstal RM, Kerr MSD, Roberts GJ, et al.: Flash CGM is associated with reduced diabetes events and hospitalizations in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. J Endocr Soc 2021;5:bvab013.
32. Detournay B, Halimi S, Torreton E, Levy P: Cost of hospitalizations for hypoglycaemia in France among type 2 diabetic patients: study based on the PMSI and the CNAMTS EGB database [Coût des hospitalisations pour hypoglycémie en France chez les patients diabétiques de type 2: étude fondée sur le PMSI et la base EGB de la CNAMTS. Médecine Des Maladies Métaboliques] 2017;11:S16–S19.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
Volume 24 • Issue Number 9 • September 2022
Pages: 611 - 618
PubMed: 35604792
Copyright
Copyright 2022, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers.
History
Published in print: September 2022
Published online: 24 August 2022
Published ahead of print: 11 July 2022
Published ahead of production: 23 May 2022
Authors
Authors' Contributions
J-P.R. is the guarantor of this study and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. R.R., E.V., G.d.P., F.L.G., and B.G. contributed to methodology, analyses, and article writing. B.D. and C.E. contributed to methodology, conducted statistical analyses, and contributed to article writing. Editorial assistance in the preparation of this article was provided by Dr Robert Brines of Bite Medical Consulting.
Author Disclosure Statement
J-P.R. is an advisory panel member for Sanofi, MSD, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Abbott, Dexcom, Alphadiab, and Medtronic, and has received research funding and provided research support to Abbott, Air liquide, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk. R.R. is an advisory panel member for Abbott, Astra-Zeneca, Sanofi, MSD, Eli Lilly, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk, and has received research funding and provided research support to Diabnext, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk; all honoraria were donated to the Foundation APHP for research. G.d.P. is health economist and an advisory board member for the following companies: Abbott, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boerhinger-Ingelheim, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche, and Sanofi. He has received research funding from Amgen, BMS, Boerhinger-Ingelheim, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. He has received honoraria for his participation to the RELIEF study advisory board. E.V. is consultant specializing in the methodology and statistical analysis of clinical trials for Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Edwards, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi. He has received honoraria for his participation. B.D. and C.E. are employees of CEMKA, a French Heathcare CRO. B.D has also received advisory board and lecture fees from Sanofi, MSD, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Janssen. F.L-G. is employed by Abbott Diabetes Care. B.G. is an advisory board member for Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, GSK, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Abbott, Medtronic, and Roche Diagnostics. He is a clinical investigator for Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, GSK, BMS, AstraZeneca, Medtronic, Abbott, Roche Diagnostics, MSD, Novartis, Janssen, and Boehringer Ingelheim. He receives research support from Medtronic, Vitalaire, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk.
Funding Information
The authors acknowledge funding support from Abbott Diabetes Care. The funding did not affect the collection, analysis, or presentation of the data.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citation
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
View Options
Get Access
Access content
To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.⚠ Society Access
If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.