scholarly journals Predictive Factors of the Adherence to Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensors: A Prospective Observational Study (PARCS STUDY)

2020 ◽  
pp. 193229682093920
Author(s):  
Takashi Murata ◽  
Akio Kuroda ◽  
Munehide Matsuhisa ◽  
Masao Toyoda ◽  
Moritsugu Kimura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Continuous Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Prospective Observational Study ◽  
Insulin Infusion ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
The Mean ◽  
One Year

Background: Information about factors related to better adherence to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensor adherence is quite limited. Materials and Methods: Forty-six participants with type 1 diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) without CGM were recruited. The participants’ characteristics and diabetes-related quality of life (QOL) were evaluated at baseline and one year after starting to use CGM. Participants wearing the sensor for ≥60% of the time were considered as adherent. Results: The mean age of the 46 participants was 44.1 ± 15.0 years old and the mean glycohemoglobin (HbA1c) was 7.7 ± 1.0%; 60.9% of the participants were classified as adherent. The duration of using CSII was longer in the adherent group, and the degree of diabetic retinopathy was significantly different. There were no significant differences in age, frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose, or Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS-B for behavior, HFS-W for worry) score at baseline between the adherent and nonadherent groups. The Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) score at baseline was significantly higher and the total CSII-QOL score at baseline was significantly lower in the adherent group. The usage of dual-wave bolus was significantly increased in the adherent group (34.6%-61.5%, P = .016), but not in the nonadherent group (33.3%-33.3%, P > .999). The HbA1c level showed a significant improvement in the adherent group (7.8%-7.3%, P < .001), but not in the nonadherent group (7.5%-7.2%, P = .102). Conclusions: Higher adherence to CGM sensors may be associated with a heavier emotional burden of diabetes and a worse QOL in relation to CSII at baseline.

scholarly journals Evaluation of FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System on Glycemic Control, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Fear of Hypoglycemia in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 117955141774695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayman A Al Hayek ◽  
Asirvatham A Robert ◽  
Mohamed A Al Dawish
Keyword(s):  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Flash Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Fear Of Hypoglycemia ◽  
Self Testing ◽  
Freestyle Libre ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related ◽  
The Mean

Background/objectives: In the current era of modern technology and the development of smart devices such as the flash glucose monitoring (FGM) systems, patients can easily monitor their glucose levels more frequently without any inconvenience. In this study, we evaluate the effect of FreeStyle Libre FGM system on glycemic control, hypoglycemia, health-related quality of life (QoL), and the fear of hypoglycemia (FOH) among children and young people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Design and methods: A prospective study was conducted at the Diabetes Treatment Center, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between January 2017 and May 2017 on 47 (aged 13-19 years) registered patients with T1D who used conventional finger-pricking method for self-testing the glucose. At baseline visit, the FGM sensors were placed on each participant by a trained diabetes educator. The data collected from the sensors were computed to generate the respective ambulatory glucose profiles so as to determine the total number of scans conducted during the study period. At the baseline and at 3 months of the experiment, a trained interviewer administered the questionnaire Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-Child Version (HFS-C) and PedsQL 3.0 (QoL questionnaire) to each patient. The age, sex, weight, height, adjusted body mass index, duration of diabetes, treatment modality, and glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels of each patient were recorded. Results: As compared with the baseline, a significant improvement was noted in the behavior of FOH ( P = .0001), worry ( P = .0001), QoL ( P = .002), HbA1c level ( P = .008), and hypoglycemia ( P = .023) at 3 months. Significant improvement was noted in the behavior ( P = .0001), worry ( P = .0001), QoL ( P = .003), HbA1c level ( P = .014), and hypoglycemia ( P = .001) among the multiple-dose insulin injection–treated patients as compared with baseline. Significant improvement was noted in the behavior ( P = .0001), worry ( P = .0001), and hypoglycemia ( P = .001) among the insulin pump–treated patients as compared with baseline. A positive correlation was recorded in the behavior ( r = .47; P < .001), QoL ( r = .70; P < .001), and the mean number of FGM scans. A negative correlation was recorded in the worry ( r = −.43; P = .002), HbA1c level ( r = −.58; P < .001), hypoglycemia ( r = −.65; P < .001), and the mean number of FGM scans. Conclusions: The frequent use of FGM scanning reduced the frequency of hypoglycemia, HbA1c level, and worry and increased the behavior and QoL. As compared with self-testing by the conventional finger-pricking method, the use of FGM increased the frequency of self-testing and thus diabetes control.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document