Key result
CGM-guided glycemic control did not significantly reduce total atheroma volume compared to HbA1c-guided control (difference -3.4 mm3; 95% CI -8.9 to 2.0; p=0.22).
Why the study?
Whether continuous glucose monitoring-guided glycemic control favorably modulates coronary atherosclerosis in patients with type 2 diabetes remains unknown.
Does continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-guided glycemic control reduce progression of coronary atherosclerosis in type 2 diabetic patients with coronary artery disease?
RCT (n=94)
randomized
No
Does continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-guided glycemic control reduce progression of coronary atherosclerosis in type 2 diabetic patients with coronary artery disease?
Mean Difference: -3.4 (95% CI -8.9–2)
Absolute Event Rate: -3.29% vs 0.11%
p-value: p=0.22
CGM-guided glycemic control for 48 weeks did not significantly slow coronary atherosclerosis progression compared to HbA1c-guided control in T2DM patients with CAD.
Does not support CGM over HbA1c guidance to slow coronary atherosclerosis in T2DM-CAD; challenges assumptions on intensive monitoring benefits.
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves glycemic fluctuation and reduces hypoglycemic risk. Whether CGM-guided glycemic control favorably modulates coronary atherosclerosis in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) remains unknown. The OPTIMAL trial was a prospective, randomized, single-center trial in which 94 T2DM patients with CAD were randomized to CGM- or HbA1c-guided glycemic control for 48 weeks (jRCT1052180152). The primary endpoint was the nominal change in total atheroma volume (TAV) measured by serial IVUS. The secondary efficacy measure was the nominal change in maxLCBI4mm on near-infrared spectroscopy imaging. Among the 94 randomized patients, 82 had evaluable images at 48 weeks. Compared to HbA1c-guided glycemic control, CGM-guided control achieved a greater reduction in %coefficient of variation [−0.1 % (−1.8 to 1.6) vs. −3.3 % (−5.1 to −1.5), p = 0.01] and a greater increase in the duration with glucose between 70 and 180 mg/dL [−1.5 % (−6.0 to 2.9) vs. 6.7 % (1.9 to 11.5), p = 0.02]. TAV increased by 0.11 ± 1.9 mm3 in the HbA1c-guided group and decreased by −3.29 ± 2.00 mm3 in the CGM-guided group [difference = −3.4 mm3 (95%CI: −8.9 to 2.0 mm3), p = 0.22]. MaxLCBI4mm, increased by 90.1 ± 25.6 in the HbA1c-guided group and by 50.6 ± 25.6 in the CGM-guided group (difference = −45.6 (95%CI: −118.1 to 26.7) p = 0.21]. A post-hoc exploratory analysis showed a greater regression of maxLCBI4mm in the CGM-guided group [difference = 20.4 % (95%CI:1.3 to 39.5 %), p = 0.03]. CGM-guided control for 48 weeks did not slow disease progression in T2DM patients with CAD. A greater regression of lipidic plaque under CGM-guided glycemic control in the post-hoc analysis requires further investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kataoka et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Type 2 diabetes with coronary artery disease (n=94). Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-guided glycemic control vs. HbA1c-guided glycemic control was evaluated on Nominal change in total atheroma volume (TAV) measured by serial IVUS (MD -3.4, 95% CI -8.9 to 2.0, p=0.22). CGM-guided glycemic control did not significantly reduce total atheroma volume compared to HbA1c-guided control (difference -3.4 mm3; 95% CI -8.9 to 2.0; p=0.22).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: