The Landmark JDRF Continuous Glucose Monitoring Randomized Trials: a Look Back at the Accumulated Evidence

  • Katrina J. Ruedy
  • William V. Tamborlane
  • for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group
Article

Abstract

Despite improvements for management of type 1 diabetes (T1D), patients have difficulty achieving glycated hemoglobin (A1c) levels recommended by the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT). Two multicenter randomized trials were conducted to evaluate benefit of using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) with standard glucose monitoring for T1D management. The primary study evaluated benefits of CGM in 322 patients with A1c >7.0 %. The secondary study evaluated 129 patients with A1c <7.0 %. In the primary study, CGM resulted in improvements in A1c at 6 m in subjects >25 years, but not those <25. However, all subjects using CGM regularly showed benefit. Improved A1c did not come with increased severe hypoglycemia as seen in the DCCT, and benefit was sustained over 1 year. In the secondary study, CGM use helped subjects maintain target A1c levels with reduced exposure to biochemical hypoglycemia. The data collected allowed for other analyses of important factors in T1D management.

Keywords

Type 1 diabetes Continuous glucose monitoring Hypoglycemia Glycated hemoglobin Psychosocial factors 

References

  1. 1.
    The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. (1993). The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The New England Journal of Medicine, 329, 977–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. (1994). Effect of intensive diabetes treatment on the development and progression of long-term complications in adolescents with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Journal of Pediatrics, 125, 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. (1995). Adverse events and their association with treatment regimens in the diabetes control and complications trial. Diabetes Care, 18, 1415–1427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) Study Group. (2005). A randomized multicenter trial comparing the GlucoWatch Biographer with standard glucose monitoring in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 28, 1101–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    JDRF CGM Study Group. (2008). JDRF randomized clinical trial to assess the efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in the management of type 1 diabetes: Research design and methods. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 10, 310–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beck, R. W., Lawrence, J. M., Laffel, L., Wysocki, T., Xing, D., Huang, E. S., Ives, B., Kollman, C., Lee, J., Ruedy, K. J., & Tamborlane, W. V. (2010). Quality-of-life measures in children and adults with type 1 diabetes: Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring randomized trial. Diabetes Care, 33(10), 2175–2177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. (2010). Validation of measures of satisfaction with and impact of continuous and conventional glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 12(9), 679–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. (2008). Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. The New England Journal of Medicine, 359, 1464–1476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    The DCCT Research Group. (1991). Epidemiology of severe hypoglycemia in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. American Journal of Medicine, 90, 450–459.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beck, R. W., Hirsch, I. B., Laffel, L., Tamborlane, W. V., Bode, B. W., Buckingham, B., Chase, P., Clemons, R., Fiallo-Scharer, R., Fox, L. A., Gilliam, L. K., Huang, E. S., Kollman, C., Kowalski, A. J., Lawrence, J. M., Lee, J., Mauras, N., O’Grady, M., Ruedy, K. J., Tansey, M., Tsalikian, E., Weinzimer, S. A., Wilson, D. M., Wolpert, H., Wysocki, T., & Xing, D. (2009). The effect of continuous glucose monitoring in well-controlled type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 32(8), 1378–1383.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. (1997). Hypoglycemia in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Diabetes, 46, 271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    The 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. (2009). Factors predictive of use and of benefit from continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 32, 1947–1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Varni, J. W., Burwinkle, T. M., Jacobs, J. R., Gottschalk, M., Kaufman, F., & Jones, K. L. (2003). The PedsQL™ in type 1 and type 2 diabetes: Reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ Generic Core Scales and Type 1 Diabetes Module. Diabetes Care, 26, 631–637.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Varni, J. W., Seid, M., & Kurtin, P. S. (2001). PedsQL 4.0: Reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory version 4.0 generic core scales in healthy and patient populations. Medical Care, 39(8), 800–812.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. (2009). Sustained benefit of continuous glucose monitoring on HbA1c, glucose profiles, and hypoglycemia in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 32, 2047–2049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. (2010). 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, 33(1), 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tansey, M., Laffel, L., Cheng, J., Beck, R., Coffey, J., Huang, E., Kollman, C., Lawrence, J., Lee, J., Ruedy, K., Tamborlane, W., Wysocki, T., & Xing, D. (2011). Satisfaction with continuous glucose monitoring in adults and youths with type 1 diabetes. Diabetic Medicine, 28(9), 1118–1122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. (2011). Factors predictive of severe hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 34(3), 586–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chase, H. P., Beck, R. W., Xing, D., Tamborlane, W. V., Coffey, J., Fox, L. A., Ives, B., Keady, J., Kollman, C., Laffel, L., & Ruedy, K. J. (2010). Continuous glucose monitoring in youth with type 1 diabetes: 12-month follow-up of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation continuous glucose monitoring randomized trial. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 12(7), 507–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huang, E. S., O’Grady, M., Basu, A., Winn, A., John, P., Lee, J., Meltzer, D., Kollman, C., Laffel, L., Tamborlane, W., Weinzimer, S., & Wysocki, T. (2010). The cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 33(6), 1269–1274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katrina J. Ruedy
    • 1
  • William V. Tamborlane
    • 2
  • for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group
  1. 1.Jaeb Center for Health ResearchTampaUSA
  2. 2.Yale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations