Evaluation of Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) in Patients With End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) on Intermittent Hemodialysis (iHD).

Not Applicable

Completed

Conditions: Diabetes
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2

Interventions: Device: Continuous Glucose Monitor

Registration Number: NCT04094064

Lead Sponsor: University of Virginia

Brief Summary: Recent advances in continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and availability of commercial CGM products to patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes has made the use of CGM more widespread. CGMs work by placing a probe underneath the skin of a patient, into the interstitial space. Patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) who are on intermittent hemodialysis (iHD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD) undergo fluid shifts between the interstitial fluid and intravascular space during dialysis treatments.These fluid shifts, uremia, acidosis, and volume overload (increase in interstitial fluid volume due to ESRD) have the potential to impact the performance of the most advanced and commercially available CGMs; however, use of CGM in these patients has not yet been studied.Use of CGM, and potentially hybrid closed loop insulin delivery systems that are dependent on accurate continuous glucose monitoring, has the potential to improve glucose control and quality of life in these patients (7). This study team feels that this study will be valuable in collecting preliminary data needed with the goal of validating the use of CGM in this patient population. The specific aim is to conduct a pilot study to evaluate the accuracy of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) in End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) patients on intermittent hemodialysis (iHD).

Detailed Description: Recent advances in continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and availability of commercial CGM products to patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes has made the use of CGM more widespread (1). CGMs work by placing a probe underneath the skin of a patient, into the interstitial space. The probe is an electroenzymatic sensor which uses glucose oxidase to break down glucose to create hydrogen peroxidase and other elements. Hydrogen peroxidase then interacts with a base metal layer of the sensor and is oxidized, which results in release of electrons which creates a current. The current is proportional to the glucose concentration. The current is measured by the probe and transmits a calculated glucose concentration to a receiving device (2). Substances that are widely distributed in body water, and thereby present in the interstitial space, potentially affect this technology. Acetaminophen and aspirin are substances that are have been known to affect the accuracy of these devices (3); however, more recently developed CGMs such as the Dexcom G6, were able to demonstrate no interference by acetaminophen (4). Patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) who are on intermittent hemodialysis (iHD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD) undergo fluid shifts between the interstitial fluid and intravascular space during dialysis treatments. They are also often uremic and have metabolic acidosis (5). These fluid shifts, uremia, acidosis, and volume overload (increase in interstitial fluid volume due to ESRD) have the potential to impact the performance of the most advanced and commercially available CGMs; however, use of CGM in these patients has not yet been studied (3). Moderate to severe CKD is associated with both increase in insulin resistance and decrease in insulin clearance, which results in often unpredictable and labile glucose concentrations and increased risk of hypoglycemia in these patients (6). Use of CGM, and potentially hybrid closed loop insulin delivery systems that are dependent on accurate continuous glucose monitoring, has the potential to improve glucose control and quality of life in these patients (7). This study team feels that this study will be valuable in collecting preliminary data needed with the goal of validating the use of CGM in this patient population.OBJECTIVE: The specific aim is to conduct a pilot study to evaluate the accuracy of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) in End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) patients on intermittent hemodialysis (iHD). Accuracy will be assessed by calculating the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) between CGM values and concurrent finger stick or capillary blood glucose (CBG) in these patients during hemodialysis, and on non-dialysis days.

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status: COMPLETED

Sex: All

Target Recruitment: 20

Inclusion Criteria

Ages 18+
Type 1 diabetes mellitus on intermittent HD thrice weekly OR Type 2 diabetes mellitus on intermittent HD thrice weekly
Willingness and ability to comply with scheduled visits and study procedures

Exclusion Criteria

Inability to comply with finger stick blood glucoses at least four times daily
Noncompliant with HD therapies
Pregnant women

Study & Design

Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL

Study Design: SINGLE_GROUP

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
CGM Use while on Hemodialysis Therapy	Continuous Glucose Monitor	All subjects will use a CGM for 10 days. Subjects will continue their standard of care hemodialysis treatments during the study period.

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Mean Absolute Relative Difference Between CGM Value and Capillary Blood Glucose (Self-monitoring Blood Glucose [SMBG])	From CGM placement to CGM removal (10 days)	Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD) between CGM value and capillary blood glucose (SMBG) performed at home 4 to 7 times per day by the participant for 684 matched pairs.
Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD) Between Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) Value and Venous Blood Glucose (vBGM)	From CGM placement to CGM removal (10 days)	Venous blood glucose samples were collected approximately 12 blood samples from the existing hemodialysis (HD) intravenous (IV) line during each (three) HD session the CGM sensor was worn. These blood samples were immediately processed using the i-STAT System. While the goal was to have the subject participate in three hemodialysis sessions, two sessions were acceptable. 624 matched data pairs were analyzed.

Secondary Outcome Measures