scholarly journals Beliefs Around Hypoglycemia and Their Impacts on Hypoglycemia Outcomes in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes and High Risks for Hypoglycemia Despite Using Advanced Diabetes Technologies

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Kuei Lin ◽  
Caroline R. Richardson ◽  
Iulia Dobrin ◽  
Melissa J. DeJonckheere ◽  
Kara Mizokami-Stout ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Severe Hypoglycemia ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Hypoglycemic Episode ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Level 2

<i>Objective:</i> This study aims to: (1) identify the frequency of severe and level 2 hypoglycemia presenting in people with type 1 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMs), including those with concomitant closed-loop insulin pumps, in a clinical practice setting; (2) evaluate the impact of beliefs around hypoglycemia in the development of severe and level 2 hypoglycemia in this population. <p><i>Research Design and Methods:</i> A cross-sectional survey study in adults with type 1 diabetes using CGMs >6 months was conducted at a large tertiary academic center. Participant demographics, 6-month severe hypoglycemia history, hypoglycemia beliefs (with the Attitude to Awareness of Hypoglycemia questionnaire) and 4-week CGM glucose data were collected. Statistical analysis was performed to assess the presentation of severe and level 2 hypoglycemia and identify associated risk factors. </p> <p><i>Results: </i>A total of 289 participants were recruited (including 257 participants with CGM data within the last 3 months). Of these, 25.6% experienced at least one severe hypoglycemic episode in the last 6 months, and 13.6% presented with ≥1% of time in level 2 hypoglycemia on CGMs. Reporting beliefs about prioritizing hyperglycemia avoidance was associated with severe hypoglycemia development (<i>P</i><0.001), while having beliefs of minimal concerns for hypoglycemia was associated with spending ≥1% of time in level 2 hypoglycemia (<i>P</i>=0.038).</p> <p><i>Conclusions:</i> Despite the use of advanced diabetes technologies, severe and level 2 hypoglycemia continues to occur in people with type 1 diabetes and high hypoglycemia risks. Human factors, including beliefs around hypoglycemia, may remain to impact the effectiveness of glucose self-management.</p>

scholarly journals Beliefs Around Hypoglycemia and Their Impacts on Hypoglycemia Outcomes in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes and High Risks for Hypoglycemia Despite Using Advanced Diabetes Technologies

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Kuei Lin ◽  
Caroline R. Richardson ◽  
Iulia Dobrin ◽  
Melissa J. DeJonckheere ◽  
Kara Mizokami-Stout ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Severe Hypoglycemia ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Hypoglycemic Episode ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Level 2

<i>Objective:</i> This study aims to: (1) identify the frequency of severe and level 2 hypoglycemia presenting in people with type 1 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMs), including those with concomitant closed-loop insulin pumps, in a clinical practice setting; (2) evaluate the impact of beliefs around hypoglycemia in the development of severe and level 2 hypoglycemia in this population. <p><i>Research Design and Methods:</i> A cross-sectional survey study in adults with type 1 diabetes using CGMs >6 months was conducted at a large tertiary academic center. Participant demographics, 6-month severe hypoglycemia history, hypoglycemia beliefs (with the Attitude to Awareness of Hypoglycemia questionnaire) and 4-week CGM glucose data were collected. Statistical analysis was performed to assess the presentation of severe and level 2 hypoglycemia and identify associated risk factors. </p> <p><i>Results: </i>A total of 289 participants were recruited (including 257 participants with CGM data within the last 3 months). Of these, 25.6% experienced at least one severe hypoglycemic episode in the last 6 months, and 13.6% presented with ≥1% of time in level 2 hypoglycemia on CGMs. Reporting beliefs about prioritizing hyperglycemia avoidance was associated with severe hypoglycemia development (<i>P</i><0.001), while having beliefs of minimal concerns for hypoglycemia was associated with spending ≥1% of time in level 2 hypoglycemia (<i>P</i>=0.038).</p> <p><i>Conclusions:</i> Despite the use of advanced diabetes technologies, severe and level 2 hypoglycemia continues to occur in people with type 1 diabetes and high hypoglycemia risks. Human factors, including beliefs around hypoglycemia, may remain to impact the effectiveness of glucose self-management.</p>

scholarly journals Beliefs Around Hypoglycemia and Their Impacts on Hypoglycemia Outcomes in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes and High Risks for Hypoglycemia Despite Using Advanced Diabetes Technologies

Diabetes Care ◽  
2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Kuei Lin ◽  
Caroline R. Richardson ◽  
Iulia Dobrin ◽  
Melissa J. DeJonckheere ◽  
Kara Mizokami-Stout ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Severe Hypoglycemia ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Hypoglycemic Episode ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Level 2

OBJECTIVE This study aimed to 1) identify the frequency of severe and level 2 hypoglycemia presenting in individuals with type 1 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMs), including those with concomitant closed-loop insulin pumps, in a clinical practice setting, and; 2) evaluate the impact of beliefs around hypoglycemia in the development of severe and level 2 hypoglycemia in this population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A cross-sectional survey study in adults with type 1 diabetes using CGMs &gt;6 months was conducted at a large tertiary academic center. Participant demographics, 6-month severe hypoglycemia history, hypoglycemia beliefs (with the Attitude to Awareness of Hypoglycemia questionnaire), and 4-week CGM glucose data were collected. Statistical analysis was performed to assess the presentation of severe and level 2 hypoglycemia and identify associated risk factors. RESULTS A total of 289 participants were recruited (including 257 participants with CGM data within the last 3 months). Of these, 25.6% experienced at least one severe hypoglycemic episode in the last 6 months, and 13.6% presented with ≥1% of time in level 2 hypoglycemia on CGMs. Reporting beliefs about prioritizing hyperglycemia avoidance was associated with severe hypoglycemia development (P &lt; 0.001), while having beliefs of minimal concerns for hypoglycemia was associated with spending ≥1% of time in level 2 hypoglycemia (P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS Despite the use of advanced diabetes technologies, severe and level 2 hypoglycemia continues to occur in individuals with type 1 diabetes and high hypoglycemia risks. Human factors, including beliefs around hypoglycemia, may continue to impact the effectiveness of glucose self-management.

Diabetes Device Downloading: Benefits and Barriers Among Youth With Type 1 Diabetes

2021 ◽  
pp. 193229682110595
Author(s):  
Benjamin A. Palmer ◽  
Karissa Soltys ◽  
M. Bridget Zimmerman ◽  
Andrew W. Norris ◽  
Eva Tsalikian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Retrospective Review ◽  
Insulin Dose ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Severe Hypoglycemia ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Fear Of Hypoglycemia ◽  
Glycemic Targets

Background: The majority of youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) fail to meet glycemic targets despite increasing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use. We therefore aimed to determine the proportion of caregivers who review recent glycemic trends (“retrospective review”) and make ensuant insulin adjustments based on this data (“retroactive insulin adjustments”). We additionally considered that fear of hypoglycemia and frequency of severe hypoglycemia would be associated with performing retrospective review. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of caregivers of youth with T1D, collecting demographics, diabetes technology usage, patterns of glucose data review/insulin dose self-adjustment, and Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS). Results: Nineteen percent of eligible caregivers (191/1003) responded. Performing retrospective review was associated with younger child age (12.2 versus 15.4, P = .0001) and CGM use (92% versus 73%, P = .004), but was not associated with a significant improvement in child’s HbA1c (7.89 versus 8.04, P = .65). Retrospective reviewers had significantly higher HFS-behavior scores (31.9 versus 27.7, P = .0002), which remained significantly higher when adjusted for child’s age and CGM use ( P = .005). Linear regression identified a significant negative association between HbA1c (%) and number of retroactive insulin adjustments (0.24 percent lower mean HbA1c per additional adjustment made, P = .02). Conclusions: Retrospective glucose data review is associated with improved HbA1c when coupled with data-driven retroactive insulin adjustments. Barriers to data downloading existed even in this cohort of predominantly CGM-using T1D families.

scholarly journals Anxiety, depression, and glycemic control during Covid-19 pandemic in youths with type 1 diabetes

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Cusinato ◽  
Mariangela Martino ◽  
Alex Sartori ◽  
Claudia Gabrielli ◽  
Laura Tassara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Psychological Impact ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Severe Hypoglycemia ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Glucose Variability ◽  
Threshold Score ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objectives Our study aims to assess the impact of lockdown during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on glycemic control and psychological well-being in youths with type 1 diabetes. Methods We compared glycemic metrics during lockdown with the same period of 2019. The psychological impact was evaluated with the Test of Anxiety and Depression. Results We analyzed metrics of 117 adolescents (87% on Multiple Daily Injections and 100% were flash glucose monitoring/continuous glucose monitoring users). During the lockdown, we observed an increase of the percentage of time in range (TIR) (p<0.001), with a significant reduction of time in moderate (p=0.002), and severe hypoglycemia (p=0.001), as well as the percentage of time in hyperglycemia (p<0.001). Glucose variability did not differ (p=0.863). The glucose management indicator was lower (p=0.001). 7% of youths reached the threshold-score (≥115) for anxiety and 16% for depression. A higher score was associated with lower TIR [p=0.028, p=0.012]. Conclusions Glycemic control improved during the first lockdown period with respect to the previous year. Symptoms of depression and anxiety were associated with worse glycemic control; future researches are necessary to establish if this improvement is transient and if psychological difficulties will increase during the prolonged pandemic situation.

scholarly journals Stigma and Its Association With Glycemic Control and Hypoglycemia in Adolescents and Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Cross-Sectional Study (Preprint)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Sophie Brazeau ◽  
Meranda Nakhla ◽  
Michael Wright ◽  
Mélanie Henderson ◽  
Constadina Panagiotopoulos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Diabetes Management ◽  
Severe Hypoglycemia ◽  
Poor Glycemic Control ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Diabetes Diagnosis ◽  
Hypoglycemic Episode ◽  
Cross Sectional

BACKGROUND Qualitative studies in type 1 diabetes indicate that visibility of diabetes supplies, self-care, and hypoglycemia symptoms are associated with stigma and suboptimal management. This may be particularly salient in youth who face concurrent challenges such as establishing autonomy and making vocational choices. OBJECTIVE The aim of the study was to estimate stigma prevalence in youth (aged 14-24 years) with type 1 diabetes and its associations with glycemic control. METHODS Participants, recruited largely through social media, were asked to complete a Web-based survey and to send via mail capillary blood samples for glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) measurement. The primary definition of stigma required endorsement of one or more of 3 stigma-specific items of the Barriers to Diabetes Adherence questionnaire. These addressed avoidance of diabetes management with friends present, difficulty telling others about diabetes diagnosis, and embarrassment in performing diabetes care with others present. Poor glycemic control was defined as HbA1c>9% (ie, >75 mmol/mol; measured value when available, else self-report) and/or ≥1 severe hypoglycemic episode in the previous year (reported requiring assistance from someone else during the episode). Stigma prevalence was computed (95% CI), and associations with glycemic control were evaluated (multivariate logistic regression models). RESULTS Among the 380 respondents, stigma prevalence was 65.5% (95% CI 60.7-70.3). Stigma was associated with a 2-fold higher odds of poor glycemic control overall (odds ratio [OR] 2.25, 95% CI 1.33-3.80; adjusted for age, sex, and type of treatment). There were specific associations with both HbA1c>9% (75 mmol/mol; OR 3.05, 95% CI 1.36-6.86) and severe hypoglycemia in the previous year (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.05-3.31). CONCLUSIONS There is a high prevalence of stigma in youth with type 1 diabetes that is associated with both elevated HbA1c levels and severe hypoglycemia. Targeted strategies to address stigma are needed. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02796248; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02796248 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6yisxeV0B)

scholarly journals Glycemic Variability and Hypoglycemic Excursions With Continuous Glucose Monitoring Compared to Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Highest Risk Type 1 Diabetes

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 567-574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Parizad Avari ◽  
Vanessa Moscardo ◽  
Narvada Jugnee ◽  
Nick Oliver ◽  
Monika Reddy
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Severe Hypoglycemia ◽  
Glycemic Variability ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Freestyle Libre ◽  
The Impact

Background: The I-HART CGM study has shown that real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) has greater beneficial impact on hypoglycemia than intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (iscCGM) in adults with type 1 diabetes at high risk (Gold score ≥4 or recent severe hypoglycemia using insulin injections). In this subanalysis, we present the impact of rtCGM and iscCGM on glycemic variability (GV). Methods: Forty participants were recruited to this parallel group study. Following two weeks of blinded rtCGM (DexcomG4), participants were randomized to rtCGM (Dexcom G5; n = 20) or iscCGM (Freestyle Libre; n = 20) for eight weeks. An open-extension phase enabled participants on rtCGM to continue for a further eight weeks and those on iscCGM to switch to rtCGM over this period. Glycemic variability measures at baseline, 8- and 16-week endpoints were compared between groups. Results: At the eight-week endpoint, between-group differences demonstrated significant reduction in several GV measures with rtCGM compared to iscCGM (GRADE%hypoglycemia, index of glycemic control [IGC], and average daily risk range [ADRR]; P < .05). Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring reduced mean average glucose and glycemic variability percentage and GRADE%hyperglycemia compared with rtCGM ( P < .05). At 16 weeks, the iscCGM group switching to rtCGM showed significant improvement in GRADE%hypoglycemia, personal glycemic status, IGC, and ADRR. Conclusion: Our data suggest most, but not all, GV measures improve with rtCGM compared with iscCGM, particularly those measures associated with the risk of hypoglycemia. Selecting appropriate glucose monitoring technology to address GV in this high-risk cohort is important to minimize the risk of glucose extremes and severe hypoglycemia. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03028220

The impact of real-time continuous glucose monitoring on metabolic control in children with type 1 diabetes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruxandra Calapod Ioana ◽  
Irina Bojoga ◽  
Duta Simona Gabriela ◽  
Ana-Maria Stancu ◽  
Amalia Arhire ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Metabolic Control ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
The Impact
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document