Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
e-Letters: Comments and Responses

Response to Comment on Šoupal et al. Glycemic Outcomes in Adults With T1D Are Impacted More by Continuous Glucose Monitoring Than by Insulin Delivery Method: 3 Years of Follow-up From the COMISAIR Study. Diabetes Care 2020;43:37–43

  1. Jan Šoupal1 and
  2. Christopher G. Parkin2⇑
  1. 13rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
  2. 2CGParkin Communications, Inc., Henderson, NV
  1. Corresponding author: Christopher G. Parkin, chris{at}cgparkin.org
Diabetes Care 2020 Apr; 43(4): e54-e55. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci20-0005
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

We thank Telliam and Thivolet (1) for their interest in our study of the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) versus self-monitoring of blood glucose with insulin pumps and multiple daily insulin injection (MDI) therapy. However, we have some questions about their study findings.

First, it is impossible to assess the significance of their findings because they have not provided baseline values for comparison. Was there an increase or decrease in time spent with blood glucose <70 mg/dL?

Second, as shown in their Fig. 1, the time below range (TBR) (<70 mg/dL) was notably lower among participants with higher mean glucose (e.g., >200 mg/dL). This suggests that while these MiniMed 640G users may have experienced less TBR, their percentage of time spent above range remained suboptimal. The recent CGM consensus report recommends a composite metric for assessment, combining reductions in TBR with increases in time in range (2). In our study, both the rtCGM+MDI and sensor-augmented pump study groups achieved significant improvements in both metrics (3). Importantly, 14 patients were treated with a Medtronic Paradigm Veo pump with low glucose suspend; there was no difference between Paradigm Veo and Animas Vibe with Dexcom G4 (n = 12) in hypoglycemia. Because data regarding improvements in time in range were not reported in the letter from Telliam and Thivolet (1), it is difficult to assess the full significance of their study findings.

Third, their letter does not offer relevant data, such as study duration, percentage of time MiniMed 640G was used in the suspend mode, and number of participants who discontinued 640G. In our study, the mean percentage of rtCGM use was high in both the rtCGM+MDI group (85.7%) and the rtCGM+CSII (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion) group (86.7%) under real-world conditions over a 3-year period (3). It is difficult to assess the true value and utility of the 640G system without information about participants’ percentage of use and long-term persistence, particularly within the context of a controlled trial.

Fourth, use of an insulin pump with the FreeStyle Libre CGM system raises serious concern about using this intervention as a comparator. Unlike sensors that automatically alert patients to current or impending hypoglycemia, the FreeStyle Libre requires users to scan their sensor in order to detect current and/or impending acute glycemic events. In essence, their study compared a system that automatically suspends insulin delivery when low glucose is detected with an intervention that relies on participants to scan frequently in order to detect and address current or impending hypoglycemia. This difference between FreeStyle Libre and other CGM systems is particularly relevant if the study included a large number of participants with impaired hypoglycemia awareness. Unfortunately, this information was not reported. Use of a sensor that provides automatic alarms and alerts would have been more appropriate in their comparison.

We agree that the study described by Telliam and Thivolet demonstrates that use of an insulin delivery system that provides preventive low–blood glucose suspend management is an effective therapy for many (but not all) individuals at high risk for severe hypoglycemia. A long-duration, real-world evaluation, using CSII with sensors that provide automatic alarms/alerts, is needed to justify the additional costs associated with 640G therapy. Not all sensors are equivalent.

Article Information

Funding. The authors received no funding for the development of this manuscript. This study was initiated, designed, and performed by the investigators and supported by grant 15-26705A of the Agency for Healthcare Research (AZV) of the Czech Republic and RVO-VFN64165 of the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic. Dexcom, Inc., provided funding for manuscript development.

Duality of Interest. J.Š. has received speaker honoraria and has consulted for Abbott, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Roche. C.G.P. has received consulting fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Dexcom, Diasome, Onduo, Proteus, Novo Nordisk, and Roche Diabetes Care. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

  • © 2020 by the American Diabetes Association.
https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Telliam C,
    2. Thivolet C
    . Comment on Šoupal et al. Glycemic outcomes in adults with T1D are impacted more by continuous glucose monitoring than by insulin delivery method: 3 years of follow-up from the COMISAIR study. Diabetes Care 2020;43:37–43 (Letter). Diabetes Care 2020;43:e52. DOI: 10.2337/dc19-2586
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Battelino T,
    2. Danne T,
    3. Bergenstal RM, et al
    . Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes Care 2019;42:1593–1603
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Šoupal J,
    2. Petruželková L,
    3. Grunberger G, et al
    . Glycemic outcomes in adults with t1d are impacted more by continuous glucose monitoring than by insulin delivery method: 3 years of follow-up from the COMISAIR study. Diabetes Care 2020;43:37–43
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 43 (4)

In this Issue

April 2020, 43(4)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Response to Comment on Šoupal et al. Glycemic Outcomes in Adults With T1D Are Impacted More by Continuous Glucose Monitoring Than by Insulin Delivery Method: 3 Years of Follow-up From the COMISAIR Study. Diabetes Care 2020;43:37–43
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Response to Comment on Šoupal et al. Glycemic Outcomes in Adults With T1D Are Impacted More by Continuous Glucose Monitoring Than by Insulin Delivery Method: 3 Years of Follow-up From the COMISAIR Study. Diabetes Care 2020;43:37–43
Jan Šoupal, Christopher G. Parkin
Diabetes Care Apr 2020, 43 (4) e54-e55; DOI: 10.2337/dci20-0005

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Response to Comment on Šoupal et al. Glycemic Outcomes in Adults With T1D Are Impacted More by Continuous Glucose Monitoring Than by Insulin Delivery Method: 3 Years of Follow-up From the COMISAIR Study. Diabetes Care 2020;43:37–43
Jan Šoupal, Christopher G. Parkin
Diabetes Care Apr 2020, 43 (4) e54-e55; DOI: 10.2337/dci20-0005
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Article Information
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Response to Comment on Hásková et al. Real-time CGM Is Superior to Flash Glucose Monitoring for Glucose Control in Type 1 Diabetes: The CORRIDA Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Care 2020;43:2744–2750
  • Response to Comment on Samara et al. Metformin Use Is Associated With Slowed Cognitive Decline and Reduced Incident Dementia in Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: The Sydney Memory and Ageing Study. Diabetes Care 2020;43:2691–2701
  • Comment on Samara et al. Metformin Use Is Associated With Slowed Cognitive Decline and Reduced Incident Dementia in Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: The Sydney Memory and Ageing Study. Diabetes Care 2020;43:2691–2701
Show more e-Letters: Comments and Responses

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Clinical Therapeutics/New Technology-Glucose Monitoring and Sensing

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.