Discussion
This small real-life study demonstrates the potential benefit of using CGM for exercise. We showed that there was a significant improvement in the time that interstitial glucose was in the target range (3.9–10 mmol/L) of 16% during exercise. This occurred over just 2 weeks, and we feel this improvement translates into a clinically significant benefit for these patients. They were involved in a variety of types of exercise, cycling, running, soccer and weightlifting and all had improvements in their glycaemic control during exercise between week 1 and week 2 of the study. Although there was no significant change in the time in the hypoglycaemia range from week 1 to week 2, there was a trend in this direction, and the time spent in the hypoglycaemia range was small. This difference did not reach significance as it was not powered to do so due to the small number of subjects. The same reason can explain the lack of difference in the time in target range overall from week 1 to week 2 (including time exercising and not), where time in the hypoglycaemia reduced from 5.6%±3.1% to 3.4%±1.2%, p=0.15, and hyperglycaemia time reduced from 29%±16% to 25%±15%, p=0.11. Similar results were found for the time from 1 hour before and exercise session started to 4 hours afterward. This is a period that carries a high risk for wide glycaemic excursions; we expect a larger study would show significant reductions in time in the hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia ranges during this period. Our study showed a high proportion of time in hypoglycaemia during this time (8.9%±14.9% in week 1, 4.1%±3.8% in week 2).
The subjects used the CGM system for a run-in week, and there were no overall significant improvements demonstrated between that week and subsequent weeks, suggesting that these patients needed some time to get used to the device and how to adjust their insulin according to the CGM glucose data available. The only input from the diabetes research team was at the beginning of the study —when subjects were given basic instructions on insulin adjustment for exercise (table 1) and shown how to use the study devices. There was a further contact after the run-in week, in person or by phone, to troubleshoot any problems, but we did not review their data or provide individualised advice until the end of the study. Each subject had access to Carelink Personal and reviewed their data both in real time and retrospectively to help to inform insulin dose adjustment. All of the patients were already insulin pump users, so the benefits they gained demonstrate the role of CGM in addition to insulin pump therapy in the setting of exercise. HbA1cs varied from on target to significantly elevated indicating a wide range of glycaemic control at baseline.
The HFSII and PAID questionnaires show there was a moderate level of fear of hypoglycaemia and anxiety around management of their diabetes in general. The DTQ showed the most consistent responses at the end of the study were of a slight or great reduction in the stress around participating in sport and avoiding hypoglycaemia. All four found the CGM device user-friendly, for the two patients that did not pass the run-in phase CGM compliance was not the issue; it was due to inability to exercise and difficulty with the HR monitor and exercise watch.
Potential benefits
Technology for the management of diabetes continues to advance, and healthcare professionals involved in diabetes management are challenged with the question of which patients are likely to benefit from the use of CGM. As it stands CGM in the UK and Ireland is funded in cases where there is a specific need such as hypoglycaemia unawareness or recurrent hypoglycaemia. More research is needed to determine what other patients are likely to benefit not just in terms of HbA1c, but also in terms of reduction of glycaemic excursions and improvement in QOL measures. There is some evidence to suggest the amplitude of glycaemic excursions and not just HbA1c is correlated and positively associated with development of diabetes complications, but more longitudinal CGM-based studies are needed.20 CGM use has the potential to reduce these excursions, thereby possibly reducing the risk of development or progression of these complications. There is some evidence to demonstrate the benefits to be gained in terms of QOL for patients who access CGM after previously relying on finger-stick tests for self-monitoring of blood glucose.21 Not all patients report reduced anxiety, but the continuous glucose data along with trend arrows, predictive alarms and low-glucose suspend features in some cases provide great reassurance and in cases of hypoglycaemia unawareness have the potential to avoid life-threatening hypoglycaemia. The average duration of diabetes in the group was considerable (21±9 years), which may be associated with lower scores related to anxiety about their diabetes, and people with closer to the diagnosis of diabetes may show greater improvement in anxiety scores with the use of CGM. There are tools that help predict whether individual children with T1D will benefit from the use of CGM particularly in terms of consistent use.22 Further study is needed to determine how to predict the type of adults with T1D that will benefit.
Limitations
To date cost-effectiveness analyses have not shown clear indications for the use of these devices.23 The cost involved is not just that of the sensor enabled pump and sensors, but also the cost of the diabetes educator hours involved in training patients on how to use of these devices effectively. Here we have shown that a variety of insulin pump users can achieve benefits from the additional use of CGM with minimal input form the diabetes team. All of these patients had previously attended a structured education course so had a good baseline knowledge of how to adjust their insulin doses themselves. There also may be an element of selection bias and the individuals who agreed to participate may represent more a cohort with a high level of motivation. It is also possible that there was a bias towards improvement in the QOL scores as the study was unblinded. However, we feel this study demonstrates that a short trial of CGM use can quickly determine whether patients already using insulin pump therapy are likely to be compliant with CGM use. Those patients participating in regular moderate-intensity to high-intensity exercise are a cohort who can quickly benefit from the addition of CGM to improve their glucose time in the target range, and also improve their QOL.
Future developments
T1D has a major impact on an individual’s lifestyle, including their ability to partake in exercise safely and enjoyably. Progress in technology for the treatment of diabetes makes this more attainable. CGM whether as an integrated sensor augmented pump system or stand-alone device is available for selected patients, but many more stand to benefit from it especially those involved in regular moderate-intensity to high-intensity exercise. New developments hold even more promise to improve the lives of these individuals. One study in the real-life setting to investigate the use of CGM along with an accelerometer and algorithm that incorporated the exercise intensity showed reduction in hypoglycaemia.24 The future incorporation of HR and other data into a closed loop device should further facilitate avoidance of glycaemic excursions around exercise. In the meantime, as we have shown in this small pilot study, sensor-enabled insulin pumps have the potential to allow these patients to exercise while reducing their glycaemic excursions and anxiety about hypoglycaemia.