scholarly journals MON-097 Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes; Parental Anxiety and Parent Defined Outcomes: Results of Follow up Surveys

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lina Alkhaled ◽  
MaryAnn O’Riordan ◽  
Sarah A MacLeish ◽  
Rebecca Hazen ◽  
Jamie Wood
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Insurance Coverage ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Demographic Variables ◽  
Potential Barriers ◽  
Fear Of Hypoglycemia ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitors ◽  
Insurance Approval

Abstract Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) can be helpful in management of type 1 diabetes (T1D). Our objectives were to explore parental reason for adding CGM to their child’s T1D management and to describe potential barriers to starting CGM. Prior to CGM initiation, the primary caregiver of a child with T1D completed validated questionnaires including Fear of Hypoglycemia Scale (FOH), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID), and an investigator developed questionnaire assessing primary reason for starting CGM. Surveys were repeated 3-8 months after adding CGM. The results of the initial surveys reported elsewhere suggest that the most common reason for starting CGM is to improve glycemic control. Out of 32 participants who completed initial surveys and intended to start CGM on their child, only 43% (N=14) started using CGM during the 3-8 month follow up period. Reasons for not starting CGM included: not having the chance to start the process of having it approved by insurance in 64% (N=9), and difficulties getting insurance to approve CGM in 28% (N=4). One participant reported that despite insurance coverage, out of pocket expense was too much. Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests were used to compare demographic variables between those that started and those that did not start CGM. Medians were used to report the results. There were no statistically significant differences between children who did and did not start CGM in terms of age (9.3 vs. 11.4 yrs, P=0.3), baseline HbA1c (8.1% vs. 9.4%, P=0.1), and diabetes duration (3.0 vs. 4.3 yrs, P=0.6). In summary, despite parental interest in CGM initiation for their children with type 1 diabetes, there remains a significant barrier to implementation from delays in getting insurance approval. Revision of policies related to CGM coverage in youth need to be revised and systems in place to expedite approval.

scholarly journals Teleassistance for Patients With Type 1 Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of a Pilot Study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Parise ◽  
Linda Tartaglione ◽  
Antonio Cutruzzolà ◽  
Maria Ida Maiorino ◽  
Katherine Esposito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Disease Management ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Glycemic Variability ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Virtual Visits

BACKGROUND Telemedicine use in chronic disease management has markedly increased during health emergencies due to COVID-19. Diabetes and technologies supporting diabetes care, including glucose monitoring devices, software analyzing glucose data, and insulin delivering systems, would facilitate remote and structured disease management. Indeed, most of the currently available technologies to store and transfer web-based data to be shared with health care providers. OBJECTIVE During the COVID-19 pandemic, we provided our patients the opportunity to manage their diabetes remotely by implementing technology. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of 2 virtual visits on glycemic control parameters among patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) during the lockdown period. METHODS This prospective observational study included T1D patients who completed 2 virtual visits during the lockdown period. The glucose outcomes that reflected the benefits of the virtual consultation were time in range (TIR), time above range, time below range, mean daily glucose, glucose management indicator (GMI), and glycemic variability. This metric was generated using specific computer programs that automatically upload data from the devices used to monitor blood or interstitial glucose levels. If needed, we changed the ongoing treatment at the first virtual visit. RESULTS Among 209 eligible patients with T1D, 166 completed 2 virtual visits, 35 failed to download glucose data, and 8 declined the visit. Among the patients not included in the study, we observed a significantly lower proportion of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) users (n=7/43, 16% vs n=155/166, 93.4% and n=9/43, 21% vs n=128/166, 77.1%, respectively; <i>P</i>&lt;.001) compared to patients who completed the study. TIR significantly increased from the first (62%, SD 18%) to the second (65%, SD 16%) virtual visit (<i>P</i>=.02); this increase was more marked among patients using the traditional meter (n=11; baseline TIR=55%, SD 17% and follow-up TIR=66%, SD 13%; <i>P</i>=.01) than among those using CGM, and in those with a baseline GMI of ≥7.5% (n=46; baseline TIR=45%, SD 15% and follow-up TIR=53%, SD 18%; <i>P</i>&lt;.001) than in those with a GMI of &lt;7.5% (n=120; baseline TIR=68%, SD 15% and follow-up TIR=69%, SD 15%; <i>P</i>=.98). The only variable independently associated with TIR was the change of ongoing therapy. The unstandardized beta coefficient (B) and 95% CI were 5 (95% CI 0.7-8.0) (<i>P</i>=.02). The type of glucose monitoring device and insulin delivery systems did not influence glucometric parameters. CONCLUSIONS These findings indicate that the structured virtual visits help maintain and improve glycemic control in situations where in-person visits are not feasible.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Real-World Data from the German/Austrian Prospective Diabetes Follow-Up Registry

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (8) ◽  
pp. 602-612
Author(s):  
Dirk Sandig ◽  
Julia Grimsmann ◽  
Christina Reinauer ◽  
Andreas Melmer ◽  
Stefan Zimny ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Real World ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
World Data

scholarly journals Glycemic Variability in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Saudis Using Ambulatory Glucose Profile

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 117955142110137
Author(s):  
Bader Alzahrani ◽  
Saad Alzahrani ◽  
Mussa H Almalki ◽  
Souha S Elabd ◽  
Shawana Abdulhamid Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Glycemic Variability ◽  
Mean Amplitude ◽  
Glucose Variability ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Medical City ◽  
Interstitial Glucose

Background: Glucose variability (GV) is a common and challenging clinical entity in the management of people with type 1 diabetes (T1DM). The magnitude of GV in Saudi people with T1DM was not addressed before. Therefore, we aimed to study GV in a consecutive cohort of Saudis with T1DM. Methods: We prospectively assessed interstitial glucose using FreeStyle® Libre flash glucose monitoring in people with TIDM who attended follow-up in the diabetes clinics at King Fahad Medical City between March and June 2017. Glycemia profile, standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), mean of daily differences (MODD), and mean amplitude of glucose excursion (MAGE) were measured using the standard equations over a period of 2 weeks. Results: Fifty T1DM subjects (20 males) with mean age 20.2 ± 6.1 years and mean fortnight glucose 192 ± 42.3 mg/dl were included. The mean SD of 2-week glucose readings was 100.4 ± 36.3 mg/dl and CV was 52.1% ± 13%. Higher levels of glucose excursions were also observed. MODD and MAGE were recorded as 104.5 ± 51.7 and 189 ± 54.9 mg/dl, respectively which is 2 to 4 times higher than the international standards. Higher MODD and MAGE were observed on weekends compared to weekdays (111.3 ± 62.1 vs 98.6 ± 56.2 mg/dl and 196.4 ± 64.6 vs 181.7 ± 52.4 mg/dl, respectively; P ⩽ .001). Conclusion: Higher degree of glycemic variability was observed in this cohort of TIDM Saudis. Weekends were associated with higher glucose swings than weekdays. More studies are needed to explore these findings further.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document