AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This study was designed to investigate the use and impact of a continuous glucose monitoring system (the FreeStyle Navigator) under home-use conditions in the self-management of type 1 diabetes. METHODS: A 20 day masked phase, when real-time data and alarms were not available, was compared with a subsequent 40 day unmasked phase for a number of specified measures of glycaemic variability. HbA(1c) (measured by DCA 2000) and a hypoglycaemia fear survey were recorded at the start and end of the study. RESULTS: The study included 48 patients with type 1 diabetes (mean age 35.7 +/- 10.9, range 18-61 years; diabetes duration 17.0 +/- 9.5 years). Two patients did not complete the study for personal reasons. Comparing masked (all 20 days) and unmasked (last 20 days) phases, the following reductions were seen: time outside euglycaemia from 11.0 to 9.5 h/day (p = 0.002); glucose SD from 3.5 to 3.2 mmol/l (p < 0.001); hyperglycaemic time (>10.0 mmol/l) from 10.3 to 8.9 h/day (p = 0.0035); mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions (peak to nadir) down by 10% (p < 0.001); high blood glucose index down by 18% (p = 0.0014); and glycaemic risk assessment diabetes equation score down by 12% (p = 0.0013). Hypoglycaemic time (<3.9 mmol/l) decreased from 0.70 to 0.64 h/day without statistical significance (p > 0.05). Mean HbA(1c) fell from 7.6 +/- 1.1% at baseline to 7.1 +/- 1.1% (p < 0.001). In the hypoglycaemia fear survey, the patients tended to take less snacks at night-time after wearing the sensor. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Home use of a continuous glucose monitoring system has a positive effect on the self-management of diabetes. Thus, continuous glucose monitoring may be a useful tool to decrease glycaemic variability.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This study was designed to investigate the use and impact of a continuous glucose monitoring system (the FreeStyle Navigator) under home-use conditions in the self-management of type 1 diabetes. METHODS: A 20 day masked phase, when real-time data and alarms were not available, was compared with a subsequent 40 day unmasked phase for a number of specified measures of glycaemic variability. HbA(1c) (measured by DCA 2000) and a hypoglycaemia fear survey were recorded at the start and end of the study. RESULTS: The study included 48 patients with type 1 diabetes (mean age 35.7 +/- 10.9, range 18-61 years; diabetes duration 17.0 +/- 9.5 years). Two patients did not complete the study for personal reasons. Comparing masked (all 20 days) and unmasked (last 20 days) phases, the following reductions were seen: time outside euglycaemia from 11.0 to 9.5 h/day (p = 0.002); glucose SD from 3.5 to 3.2 mmol/l (p < 0.001); hyperglycaemic time (>10.0 mmol/l) from 10.3 to 8.9 h/day (p = 0.0035); mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions (peak to nadir) down by 10% (p < 0.001); high blood glucose index down by 18% (p = 0.0014); and glycaemic risk assessment diabetes equation score down by 12% (p = 0.0013). Hypoglycaemic time (<3.9 mmol/l) decreased from 0.70 to 0.64 h/day without statistical significance (p > 0.05). Mean HbA(1c) fell from 7.6 +/- 1.1% at baseline to 7.1 +/- 1.1% (p < 0.001). In the hypoglycaemia fear survey, the patients tended to take less snacks at night-time after wearing the sensor. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Home use of a continuous glucose monitoring system has a positive effect on the self-management of diabetes. Thus, continuous glucose monitoring may be a useful tool to decrease glycaemic variability.
Authors: Boris P Kovatchev; William L Clarke; Marc Breton; Kenneth Brayman; Anthony McCall Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Darrell Wilson; H Peter Chase; Craig Kollman; Dongyuan Xing; Kimberly Caswell; Michael Tansey; Larry Fox; Stuart Weinzimer; Roy Beck; Katrina Ruedy; William Tamborlane Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2008-07-28 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: William V Tamborlane; Roy W Beck; Bruce W Bode; Bruce Buckingham; H Peter Chase; Robert Clemons; Rosanna Fiallo-Scharer; Larry A Fox; Lisa K Gilliam; Irl B Hirsch; Elbert S Huang; Craig Kollman; Aaron J Kowalski; Lori Laffel; Jean M Lawrence; Joyce Lee; Nelly Mauras; Michael O'Grady; Katrina J Ruedy; Michael Tansey; Eva Tsalikian; Stuart Weinzimer; Darrell M Wilson; Howard Wolpert; Tim Wysocki; Dongyuan Xing Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: O Kordonouri; E Pankowska; B Rami; T Kapellen; R Coutant; R Hartmann; K Lange; M Knip; T Danne Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2010-08-14 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Andreas Liebl; Helmut R Henrichs; Lutz Heinemann; Guido Freckmann; Eberhard Biermann; Andreas Thomas Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2013-03-01
Authors: Cornelis A J van Beers; Susanne J Kleijer; Erik H Serné; Petronella H Geelhoed-Duijvestijn; Frank J Snoek; Mark H H Kramer; Michaela Diamant Journal: BMC Endocr Disord Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 2.763