Objective: There have been few studies of CGM benefits in the Latinx population with DM2, an ethnic group disproportionately affected. We hypothesized that in this population, the use of CGM results in a greater % decrease of A1c than in those without; and that in CGM users, mean glucose, time in range (TIR), below range (TBR) and coefficient of variation (CV) also improves in a 1-year period.
Methods: Review of electronic records included Spanish speaking Latinx DM2 patients, age 31-78, baseline A1c ≥8.0 ≤13.0%, on insulin. We included age, gender, BMI, baseline insulin regimen: basal, bolus or both, and A1c at the time CGM was offered ±4 months and post 12-months±4 months. Linear regression was used to calculate % change in A1c. CGM metrics were recorded at the same timepoints and analyzed using T-tests.
Results: CGM users: n=30, age 54.3±13.2, 67% female, BMI 34.4±7.9, 20% were on basal (29% at 12 months), 3% on bolus insulin (0% at 12 months) and 77% on both (67% at 12 months) and 4% on no insulin at 12 months, baseline A1c was 8.8% ±1.6 and 8.1±1.3 at 12 months, p=0.02. Mean % decrease in A1c in 1 year 5.1%±12.8. Baseline mean glucose was 202mg/dl±58 and 173±35 at 12 months, p= 0.001. TIR went from 47 to 60%, p= 0.003, TBR and CV did not change. Non-CGM users: n=27, age 52.9±12.1, 56% male, BMI 35.2 ±9.4, 30% were on basal (19% at 12 months), 4% on bolus insulin (0% at 12 months) and 67% on both (81% at 12 months), baseline A1c was 9.0%±1.6 and 8.5± 1.6 at 12 months, p=0.06. Mean % decrease in A1c in 1 year 4.7±13.1. There was no difference in % change in A1c between CGM vs non-CGM groups, p=.34.
Discussion: Both groups had improvements in A1c from baseline, but significant only in CGM users. The data support that adoption of CGM in Spanish speaking Latinx patients with DM2 on insulin results in better glycemic control, based on improved mean glucose and TIR, without an increase in hypoglycemia: TBR and CV; furthermore, this technology was well received by patients.
A.Thatte: None. L.A.Wright: None.
