scholarly journals A Randomized Clinical Trial Assessing Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Use With Standardized Education With or Without a Family Behavioral Intervention Compared With Finger-stick Blood Glucose Monitoring in Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda A. DiMeglio ◽  
Lauren G. Kanapka ◽  
Daniel J. DeSalvo ◽  
Marisa E. Hilliard ◽  
Lori M. Laffel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Young Children ◽  
Behavioral Intervention ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Blood Glucose Monitoring

<b>Objective: </b>This study evaluated the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) combined with family behavioral intervention (CGM+FBI) and CGM alone (Standard-CGM) on glycemic outcomes and parental quality of life compared with blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in children ages 2 to <8 years with type 1 diabetes <p><b>Research Design and Methods: </b>A multicenter (N=14), 6-month, randomized controlled trial including 143 youth 2 to <8 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Primary analysis included treatment group comparisons of percent time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) across follow-up visits.</p> <p><b>Results: </b>About 90% of participants in the CGM groups used CGM ≥ 6 days/week at 6-months. Between-group TIR comparisons showed no significant changes: CGM+FBI vs BGM = 3.2% [95% CI -0.5%, 7.0%], Standard-CGM vs BGM = 0.5% [-2.6% to 3.6%], CGM+FBI vs Standard-CGM = 2.7% [-0.6%, 6.1%]. Mean time <70 mg/dL was reduced from baseline to follow-up in the CGM+FBI (from 5.2% to 2.6%) and Standard-CGM (5.8% to 2.5%) groups , compared with 5.4% to 5.8% with BGM (CGM+FBI vs. BGM, p<0.001, Standard-CGM vs BGM p<0.001). No severe hypoglycemic events occurred in the CGM+FBI group, 1 in the Standard-CGM, and 5 in the BGM. CGM+FBI parents reported greater reductions in diabetes burden and fear of hypoglycemia compared with Standard-CGM (p=0.008 and 0.04) and BGM (p=0.02 and 0.002). </p> <b>Conclusions: </b>CGM used consistently over a 6-month period in young children with type 1 diabetes did not improve TIR but did significantly reduce time in hypoglycemia. The FBI benefited parental well-being.

scholarly journals A Randomized Clinical Trial Assessing Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Use With Standardized Education With or Without a Family Behavioral Intervention Compared With Finger-stick Blood Glucose Monitoring in Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda A. DiMeglio ◽  
Lauren G. Kanapka ◽  
Daniel J. DeSalvo ◽  
Marisa E. Hilliard ◽  
Lori M. Laffel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Young Children ◽  
Behavioral Intervention ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Blood Glucose Monitoring

<b>Objective: </b>This study evaluated the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) combined with family behavioral intervention (CGM+FBI) and CGM alone (Standard-CGM) on glycemic outcomes and parental quality of life compared with blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in children ages 2 to <8 years with type 1 diabetes <p><b>Research Design and Methods: </b>A multicenter (N=14), 6-month, randomized controlled trial including 143 youth 2 to <8 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Primary analysis included treatment group comparisons of percent time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) across follow-up visits.</p> <p><b>Results: </b>About 90% of participants in the CGM groups used CGM ≥ 6 days/week at 6-months. Between-group TIR comparisons showed no significant changes: CGM+FBI vs BGM = 3.2% [95% CI -0.5%, 7.0%], Standard-CGM vs BGM = 0.5% [-2.6% to 3.6%], CGM+FBI vs Standard-CGM = 2.7% [-0.6%, 6.1%]. Mean time <70 mg/dL was reduced from baseline to follow-up in the CGM+FBI (from 5.2% to 2.6%) and Standard-CGM (5.8% to 2.5%) groups , compared with 5.4% to 5.8% with BGM (CGM+FBI vs. BGM, p<0.001, Standard-CGM vs BGM p<0.001). No severe hypoglycemic events occurred in the CGM+FBI group, 1 in the Standard-CGM, and 5 in the BGM. CGM+FBI parents reported greater reductions in diabetes burden and fear of hypoglycemia compared with Standard-CGM (p=0.008 and 0.04) and BGM (p=0.02 and 0.002). </p> <b>Conclusions: </b>CGM used consistently over a 6-month period in young children with type 1 diabetes did not improve TIR but did significantly reduce time in hypoglycemia. The FBI benefited parental well-being.

Healthcare Utilization, Costs, and Adverse Events of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring (rtCGM) versus Traditional Blood Glucose Monitoring (BG) among US Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

2021 ◽  
pp. 193229682110315
Author(s):  
Benjamin Wong ◽  
Yalin Deng ◽  
Karen L. Rascati
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Healthcare Utilization ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Medical Costs ◽  
Blood Glucose Monitoring

Objective: To compare healthcare utilization, costs, and incidence of diabetes-specific adverse events (ie, hyperglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and hypoglycemia) in type 1 diabetes adult patients using real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) versus traditional blood glucose monitoring (BG). Methods: Adult patients (≥18 years old) with type 1 diabetes in a large national administrative claims database between 2013 and 2015 were identified. rtCGM patients with 6-month continuous health plan enrollment and ≥1 pharmacy claim for insulin during pre-index and post-index periods were propensity-score matched with BG patients. Healthcare utilization associated with diabetic adverse events were examined. A difference-in-difference (DID) method was used to compare the change in costs between rtCGM and BG cohorts. Results: Six-month medical costs for rtCGM patients ( N = 153) increased from pre- to post-index period, while they decreased for matched BG patients ( N = 153). DID analysis indicated a $2,807 ( P = .062) higher post-index difference in total medical costs for rtCGM patients. Pharmacy costs for both cohorts increased. DID analysis indicated a $1,775 ( P < .001) higher post-index difference in pharmacy costs for rtCGM patients. The incidence of hyperglycemia for both cohorts increased minimally from pre- to post-index period. The incidence of hypoglycemia for rtCGM patients decreased, while it increased marginally for BG patients. Inpatient hospitalizations for rtCGM and BG patients increased and decreased marginally, respectively. Conclusions: rtCGM users had non-significantly higher pre-post differences in medical costs but significantly higher pre-post differences in pharmacy costs (mostly due to the rtCGM costs themselves) compared to BG users. Changes in adverse events were minimal.

scholarly journals REPLACE-BG: A Randomized Trial Comparing Continuous Glucose Monitoring With and Without Routine Blood Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Well-Controlled Type 1 Diabetes

Diabetes Care ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 538-545 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grazia Aleppo ◽  
Katrina J. Ruedy ◽  
Tonya D. Riddlesworth ◽  
Davida F. Kruger ◽  
Anne L. Peters ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Blood Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Routine Blood

890-P: Durability of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Use in Young Children, Teens, and Young Adults with Type 1 Diabetes (T1D)

Diabetes ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 890-P
Author(s):  
DANIEL DESALVO ◽  
LAUREN KANAPKA ◽  
COLLEEN BAUZA ◽  
CICILYN XIE ◽  
LINDA DIMEGLIO ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Young Adults ◽  
Young Children ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Glucose Monitoring

scholarly journals Contested Daily Routines, Contested Care. Children with Type 1 Diabetes in Covid-19 Times

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melike Şahinol ◽  
Gülşah Başkavak
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Conventional Treatment ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Monitoring Systems ◽  
Solvable Problem ◽  
Daily Routines ◽  
Depth Interviews

AbstractThe conventional treatment of Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) is especially demanding for children, both physically and psychologically (Iversen et al. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being,13(1), 1487758, 2018). Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems (CGM) are an important aid for children and their families in dealing with the disease. In their work, however, Şahinol and Başkavak (2020) point out that CGM carry the risk of viewing T1D as a technologically solvable problem instead of considering the disease as a whole. This is mainly creating confidence in technology due to CGM experiences while neglecting significant dietary measures and exercises needed to be integrated into daily routines. During the current pandemic, this problem seems to take on a whole new level. Based on two periods of in-depth interviews and observations conducted with 8 families with T1D children aged 6 to 14 living in Istanbul and Ankara (Turkey) from May to November 2019 and again from May to June 2020, we compare and focus on the experiences prior to and during the pandemic time. We argue that despite the possibility of technological regulation of the disease, the vulnerability of children is increased and, more than ever, depends on socio-bio-technical entanglements.

136-OR: Nocturnal Hypoglycemia Prevention Strategies Used by People with Type 1 Diabetes According to Their Insulin Delivery and Blood Glucose Monitoring Technology

Diabetes ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 136-OR
Author(s):  
MERYEM K. TALBO ◽  
VIRGINIE MESSIER ◽  
KATHERINE DESJARDINS ◽  
RÉMI RABASA-LHORET ◽  
ANNE-SOPHIE BRAZEAU ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Insulin Delivery ◽  
Blood Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Prevention Strategies ◽  
Monitoring Technology ◽  
Nocturnal Hypoglycemia

scholarly journals Comparison between adherence assessments and blood glucose monitoring measures to predict A1c in type 1 diabetes

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Heiden Teló ◽  
Martina Schaan de Souza ◽  
Thaís Sturmer Andrade ◽  
Beatriz D'Agord Schaan
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Blood Glucose Monitoring
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document