Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring Values for Bolus Size Calculation in Smart Multiple Daily Injection Systems: No Negative Impact on Post-bolus Glycemic Outcomes Found in Real-World Data.

Background: Recent evidence shows that it may be safe to estimate bolus sizes based on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) rather than blood glucose (BG) values using glycemic trend-adjusted bolus calculators. Users may already be doing this in the real world, though it is unclear whether this is safe or effective for calculators not employing trend adjustment.

Methods: We assessed real-world data from a smart multiple daily injections (MDIs) device users with a CGM system, hypothesizing that four-hour post-bolus outcomes using CGM values are not inferior to those using BG values. Our data set included 184 users and spanned 18 months with 79 000 bolus observations. We tested differences using logistic regression predicting CGM or BG value usage based on outcomes and confirmed initial results using a mixed model regression accounting for within-subject correlations.

Results: Comparing four-hour outcomes for bolus events using CGM and BG values revealed no differences using our initial approach ( > .183). This finding was confirmed by our mixed model regression approach in all cases ( > .199), except for times below range outcomes. Higher times below range were predictive of lower odds of CGM-based bolus calculations (OR = 0.987, < .0001 and OR = 0.987, = .0276, for time below 70 and 54 mg/dL, respectively).

Conclusions: We found no differences in four-hour post-bolus glycemic outcomes when using CGM or BG except for time below range, which showed evidence of being lower for CGM. Though preliminary, our results confirm prior findings showing non-inferiority of using CGM values for bolus calculation compared with BG usage in the real world.