CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITOR (CGM) DERIVED GLYCEMIC OUTCOMES AMONG REAL‐TIME CGM VS. FLASH CGM USERS IN A MULTI‐CENTER EMR DATABASE FOR PEOPLE WITH T1D

N. Noor1, O. Ebekozien1, F. Vendrame2, L. Jacobsen3, R. Weinstock4, M.P. Gallagher5, S. Corathers6, S. Accacha5, P. Prahalad7, R. Rapaport8

Background and Aims: Evidence from clinical trials suggest that use of CGM devices decreases hypoglycemia, but no real‐world studies have demonstrated efficacy of real‐time CGM vs. flash CGM device use in improving CGM derived glycemic outcomes. A flash or intermittently scanning CGM (isCGM) provides glucose levels immediately upon scanning sensor; whereas real‐time CGM (rtCGM) device automatically transmits a continuous stream of glucose data to the user. We examined efficacy of isCGM vs. rtCGM device use using real‐world EMR data from 19 endocrinology clinics participating in the T1DX‐QI Collaborative.

Methods: Main outcomes were a) mean time in range (TIR: 70‐180 mg/dL), b) time above range (TAR: >250 mg/dL) and c) time below range (TBR: <70 mg/dL). Patients >6 years with T1D from 2018 to 2022 were included. Discriptive differences between isCGM and rtCGM groups were assessed using chi‐square and Mann‐Whitney U tests. Bootstrapped point estimates and 95% CIs were reported. Linear mixed models examined association between type of CGM and TIR adjusting for covariates.

Results: This analysis included 6234 people in the rtCGM group and 412 people in the isCGM group. In the overall study population, mean TIR was higher for rtCGM users relative to isCGM users (Mean(95% CI): 50 (49‐51) vs. 40 (38‐43)) [p = 0.0001], mean TBR was lower for rtCGM users relative to isCGM users (Mean (95% CI): 1.9 (1.8‐2.0) vs. 2.6 (2.2‐3.0)) [p = 0.001] and mean TAR was also lower for rtCGM users (Mean(95% CI): 19 (18‐20) vs. 26 (23‐30)) [p < 0.001].

Click here to read the full abstract