Skip to main content

12-23-2017 | Flash glucose monitoring | Article

Impact of flash glucose monitoring on hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes managed with multiple daily injection therapy: a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the IMPACT randomised controlled trial

Journal: Diabetologia

Authors: Per Oskarsson, Ramiro Antuna, Petronella Geelhoed-Duijvestijn, Jens Krӧger, Raimund Weitgasser, Jan Bolinder

Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg



Evidence for the effectiveness of interstitial glucose monitoring in individuals with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy is limited. In this pre-specified subgroup analysis of the Novel Glucose-Sensing Technology and Hypoglycemia in Type 1 Diabetes: a Multicentre, Non-masked, Randomised Controlled Trial’ (IMPACT), we assessed the impact of flash glucose technology on hypoglycaemia compared with capillary glucose monitoring.


This multicentre, prospective, non-masked, RCT enrolled adults from 23 European diabetes centres. Individuals were eligible to participate if they had well-controlled type 1 diabetes (diagnosed for ≥5 years), HbA1c ≤ 58 mmol/mol [7.5%], were using MDI therapy and on their current insulin regimen for ≥3 months, reported self-monitoring of blood glucose on a regular basis (equivalent to ≥3 times/day) for ≥2 months and were deemed technically capable of using flash glucose technology. Individuals were excluded if they were diagnosed with hypoglycaemia unawareness, had diabetic ketoacidosis or myocardial infarction in the preceding 6 months, had a known allergy to medical-grade adhesives, used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) within the previous 4 months or were currently using CGM or sensor-augmented pump therapy, were pregnant or planning pregnancy or were receiving steroid therapy for any disorders. Following 2 weeks of blinded (to participants and investigator) sensor wear by all participants, participants with sensor data for more than 50% of the blinded wear period (or ≥650 individual sensor results) were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio by a central interactive web response system (IWRS) using the biased-coin minimisation method, to flash sensor-based glucose monitoring (intervention group) or self-monitoring of capillary blood glucose (control group). The control group had two further 14 day blinded sensor-wear periods at the 3 and 6 month time points. Participants, investigators and staff were not masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was the change in time in hypoglycaemia (<3.9 mmol/l) between baseline and 6 months in the full analysis set.


Between 4 September 2014 and 12 February 2015, 167 participants using MDI were enrolled. After screening and the baseline phase, participants were randomised to intervention (n = 82) and control groups (n = 81). One woman from each group was excluded owing to pregnancy; the full analysis set included 161 randomised participants. At 6 months, mean time in hypoglycaemia was reduced by 46.0%, from 3.44 h/day to 1.86 h/day in the intervention group (baseline adjusted mean change, −1.65 h/day), and from 3.73 h/day to 3.66 h/day in the control group (baseline adjusted mean change, 0.00 h/day), with a between-group difference of −1.65 (95% CI −2.21, −1.09; p < 0.0001). For participants in the intervention group, the mean ± SD daily sensor scanning frequency was 14.7 ± 10.7 (median 12.3) and the mean number of self-monitored blood glucose tests performed per day reduced from 5.5 ± 2.0 (median 5.4) at baseline to 0.5 ± 1.0 (median 0.1). The baseline frequency of self-monitored blood glucose tests by control participants was maintained (from 5.6 ± 1.9 [median 5.2] to 5.5 ± 2.6 [median 5.1] per day). Treatment satisfaction and perception of hypo/hyperglycaemia were improved compared with control. No device-related hypoglycaemia or safety-related issues were reported. Nine serious adverse events were reported for eight participants (four in each group), none related to the device. Eight adverse events for six of the participants in the intervention group were also reported, which were related to sensor insertion/wear; four of these participants withdrew because of the adverse event.


Use of flash glucose technology in type 1 diabetes controlled with MDI therapy significantly reduced time in hypoglycaemia without deterioration of HbA1c, and improved treatment satisfaction.

Trial registration:


Abbott Diabetes Care, Witney, UK
DCCT Research Group (1991) Epidemiology of severe hypoglycemia in the diabetes control and complications trial. Am J Med 90:450–459 CrossRef
Nathan DM, Cleary PA, Backlund JY et al (2005) Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Study Research Group. Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 353:2643–2653 CrossRefPubMed
Khunti K, Alsifri S, Aronson R, the HAT Investigator Group et al (2016) Rates and predictors of hypoglycemia in 27585 people from 24 countries with insulin-treated type 1 and type 2 diabetes: the global HAT study. Diabetes Obes Metab 18:907–915 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Cryer PE (2004) Diverse cause of hypoglycaemia-associated autonomic failure in diabetes. N Engl J Med 350:2272–2279 CrossRefPubMed
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group (2009) The effect of continuous glucose monitoring in well-controlled type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 32:1378–1383 CrossRefPubMedCentral
Battelino T, Phillip M, Bratina N, Nimri R, Oskarsson P, Bolinder J (2011) Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 34:795–800 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Deiss D, Bolinder J, Riveline JP et al (2006) Improved glycemic control in poorly controlled patients with type 1 diabetes using real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care 29:2730–2732 CrossRefPubMed
The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group (2008) Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 359:1464–1476 CrossRef
Šoupal J, Petruželková L, Flekač M et al (2016) Comparison of different treatment modalities for type 1 diabetes, including sensor-augmented insulin regimens, in 52 weeks of follow-up: a COMISAIR study. Diabetes Technol Ther 18:532–538 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Battelino T, Conget I, Olsen B et al (2012) The use and efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy: a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia 55:3155–3162 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Lind M, Polonsky W, Hirsch IB et al (2017) Continuous glucose monitoring vs conventional therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections. The GOLD Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 317:379–387 CrossRefPubMed
Beck RW, Riddlesworth T, Ruedy K et al (2017) Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections the DIAMOND Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 317:371–378 CrossRefPubMed
Bolinder J, Antuna R, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P, Kröger J, Weitgasser R (2016) Novel glucose-sensing technology and hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 388:2254–2263 CrossRefPubMed
Bailey T, Bode BW, Christiansen MP et al (2015) The performance and usability of a factory-calibrated flash glucose monitoring system. Diabetes Technol Ther 17:787–794 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Abbott Diabetes Care FreeStyle Libre Software. Available from www.​FreeStyleLibre.​co.​uk. Accessed 23 Nov 2017
Kovatchev BP, Clarke WL, Breton M, Brayman K, McCall A (2005) Quantifying temporal glucose variability in diabetes via continuous glucose monitoring: mathematical methods and clinical application. Diabetes Technol Ther 7:849–862 CrossRefPubMed
Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Earles J et al (2005) Assessing psychosocial distress in diabetes: development of the Diabetes Distress Scale. Diabetes Care 28:626–631 CrossRefPubMed
The DCCT Research Group (1988) Reliability and validity of a diabetes quality-of-life measure for the diabetes control and complications trial (DCCT). Diabetes Care 11:725–732 CrossRef
Bradley C (1994) Diabetes treatment satisfaction questionnaire. In: Bradley C (ed) Handbook of psychology and diabetes. Harwood Academic Publishers, pp 111–132
Gonder-Frederick LA, Schmidt KM, Vajda KA et al (2011) Psychometric properties of the hypoglycemia fear survey-II for adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 34:801–806 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Workgroup on Hypoglycaemia, American Diabetes Association (2005) Defining and reporting hypoglycaemia in diabetes: a report from the American Diabetes Association Workgroup on Hypoglycaemia. Diabetes Care 28:1245–1249 CrossRef
Pozzilli P, Battelino T, Danne T, Hovorka R, Jarosz-Chobot P, Renard E (2016) Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in diabetes: patient populations, safety, efficacy, and pharmacoeconomics. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 32:21–39 CrossRefPubMed
Kristensen PL, Hansen LS, Jespersen MJ et al (2012) Insulin analogues and severe hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 96:17–23 CrossRefPubMed
Frier BM (2014) Hypoglycaemia in diabetes mellitus: epidemiology and clinical implications. Nat Rev Endocrinol 10:711–722 CrossRefPubMed
McCrimmon RJ, Sherwin RS (2010) Hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 59:2333–2339 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Toschi E, Wolpert H (2016) Utility of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Endocrinol Metab Clin 45:895–904 CrossRef
Seaquist ER, Anderson J, Childs B et al (2013) Hypoglycemia and diabetes: a report of a workgroup of the American Diabetes Association and the Endocrine Society. Diabetes Care 6:1384–1395 CrossRef
The International Hypoglycaemia Study Group (2017) Glucose concentrations of less than 3.0 mmol/l (54 mg/dl) should be reported in clinical trials: a joint position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetologia 60:3–6 CrossRef
Pickup JC, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ (2011) Glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes during real time continuous glucose monitoring compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials using individual patient data. BMJ 343:d3805 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Riddlesworth T, Price D, Cohen N, Beck RW (2017) Hypoglycemic event frequency and the effect of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections. Diabetes Ther 8:947–951 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
van Beers CA, DeVries JH, Kleijer SJ et al (2016) Continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IN CONTROL): a randomised, open-label, crossover trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 4:893–902 CrossRefPubMed
van Beers CA, DeVries JH (2016) Continuous glucose monitoring: impact on hypoglycaemia. J Diabetes Sci Technol 10:1251–1258 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, Normanns H, Rayman G (2017) 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 8:55 CrossRefPubMed
Riveline J-P, Schaepelynck P, Chaillous L, for the EVADIAC Sensor Study Group et al (2012) Assessment of patient led or physician-driven continuous glucose monitoring in patients with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes using basal bolus regimens. A 1-year multicenter study. Diabetes Care 12:965–971 CrossRef
Pettus J, Edelman S (2016) Use of glucose rate of change arrows to adjust insulin therapy among individuals with type 1 diabetes who use continuous glucose monitoring. J Diabetes Sci Technol 10:1087–1093 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral