Comparison of Glycemic Control between Experienced Users of Flash Glucose Monitoring vs. Flash-Naïve Patients
Authors: EHRMANN DOMINIC , SCHIPFER MELANIE , HAAK THOMAS , KULZER BERNHARD , HERMANNS NORBERT 
Published: June 2018

We conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of a newly developed education program for Flash Glucose Monitoring (Flash). Eligible participants were all patients with intensified insulin therapy who either had experience with Flash or no experience. In this observational analysis, we used baseline-date of our study to analyze whether patients who were experienced with Flash (Flash-experienced) achieved better glycemic control than patients who newly received Flash (Flash-naïve). A total of 216 patients were recruited. All patients received Flash at baseline and used it for 2 weeks before being randomized to either receive the education program or using Flash without education. 133 patients who indicated at the beginning of the 2-week period that they have used Flash in the last 6 months were compared to 83 patients who had no prior experience with Flash. HbA1c at the beginning of the 2 weeks was comparable between groups (8.4 ± 1.0 vs. 8.4 ± 0.9; p = .89). At the end of the 2 weeks, Flash-naïve patients achieved lower mean glucose values than Flash-experienced patients (179.6 ± 25.9 vs. 192.3 ± 39.2 mg/dl, p = 0.005). While time spent in hypoglycemia (≤ 70 mg/dl) was not different between the groups (69.3 ± 52.0 vs. 67.9 ± 52.9 min/day, p = .85), Flash-naïve patients had a higher time in range (71-180 mg/dl) (716.5 ± 174.1 vs. 660.2 ± 209.2 min/day, p = .036) and spent less time in hyperglycemia (&gt; 180 mg/dl) (656.0 ± 194.0 vs. 715.0 ± 232.8 min/day, p = .048). Interestingly, Flash-experienced patients had no better HbA1c than patients previously using SMBG. Thus, experienced as well as naïve patients recruited for this study can benefit from the education program. During the 2 weeks, Flash-naïve patients achieved a better glycemic profile than Flash-experienced patients. Bearing in mind the limitations of the observational analysis, this could be due to the introduction of a new technology and a higher motivation in patients newly switched to Flash.

Disclosure
D. Ehrmann: Speaker's Bureau; Self; Berlin-Chemie AG. M. Schipfer: Speaker's Bureau; Self; Medtronic, Lilly Diabetes Germany. T. Haak: Speaker's Bureau; Self; Abbott. Advisory Panel; Self; Roche Diabetes Care Health and Digital Solutions, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca. B. Kulzer: Research Support; Self; Berlin-Chemie AG. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Berlin-Chemie AG, Novo Nordisk Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Roche Diabetes Care Health and Digital Solutions. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Roche Diabetes Care Health and Digital Solutions. Research Support; Self; Abbott. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Abbott, Eli Lilly and Company. Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc., Medtronic, Ascensia Diabetes Care. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Ascensia Diabetes Care. N. Hermanns: Speaker's Bureau; Self; Berlin-Chemie AG. Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott. Research Support; Self; Abbott. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Abbott. Research Support; Self; Berlin-Chemie AG. Advisory Panel; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Advisory Panel; Self; Roche Diabetes Care Health and Digital Solutions. Research Support; Self; Ypsomed AG, Dexcom, Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc..