BACKGROUND: Within pediatric diabetes management, two electronic measures of adherence exist: frequency of daily blood glucose monitoring (BGM) and the BOLUS score, a measure of frequency of mealtime insulin bolusing. Past research has demonstrated that the BOLUS score is superior to daily BGM in predicting youths' glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in a cross-sectional study. We present data comparing the two adherence measures in predicting HbA1c using a prospective, longitudinal design. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Blood glucose meter data and insulin pump records were collected from a clinical database of 175 youths with type 1 diabetes (mean age, 11.7 ± 3.6 years at baseline). Youths' HbA1c levels occurring at the download time and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-downloads were also collected. We calculated youths' mean BGM and BOLUS score using a standardized protocol. RESULTS: Intraclass correlations (ICCs) revealed significant absolute equivalence between youths' predicted HbA1c values using BOLUS and BGM scores and future actual HbA1c values up to 12 months post-download. However, the ICCs of BOLUS scores with future HbA1c values were consistently higher than those of the BGM scores. Also, the predictions of the BOLUS scores were significantly more accurate (P ≤ 0.002) than those of the BGM scores based on the root mean squared error of predictions. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective, longitudinal design, youths' BOLUS scores were superior to youths' daily BGM in predicting future values of HbA1c. Calculating a BOLUS score versus BGM can help researchers and clinicians achieve a better prediction of youths' HbA1c.
BACKGROUND: Within pediatric diabetes management, two electronic measures of adherence exist: frequency of daily blood glucose monitoring (BGM) and the BOLUS score, a measure of frequency of mealtime insulin bolusing. Past research has demonstrated that the BOLUS score is superior to daily BGM in predicting youths' glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in a cross-sectional study. We present data comparing the two adherence measures in predicting HbA1c using a prospective, longitudinal design. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Blood glucose meter data and insulin pump records were collected from a clinical database of 175 youths with type 1 diabetes (mean age, 11.7 ± 3.6 years at baseline). Youths' HbA1c levels occurring at the download time and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-downloads were also collected. We calculated youths' mean BGM and BOLUS score using a standardized protocol. RESULTS: Intraclass correlations (ICCs) revealed significant absolute equivalence between youths' predicted HbA1c values using BOLUS and BGM scores and future actual HbA1c values up to 12 months post-download. However, the ICCs of BOLUS scores with future HbA1c values were consistently higher than those of the BGM scores. Also, the predictions of the BOLUS scores were significantly more accurate (P ≤ 0.002) than those of the BGM scores based on the root mean squared error of predictions. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective, longitudinal design, youths' BOLUS scores were superior to youths' daily BGM in predicting future values of HbA1c. Calculating a BOLUS score versus BGM can help researchers and clinicians achieve a better prediction of youths' HbA1c.
Authors: Lori M B Laffel; William C Hsu; Janet B McGill; Luigi Meneghini; Lisa K Volkening Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Adam B Lewin; Amanda D Heidgerken; Gary R Geffken; Laura B Williams; Eric A Storch; Kenneth M Gelfand; Janet H Silverstein Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2005-03-03
Authors: Brandon W Vanderwel; Laurel H Messer; Lauren A Horton; Bryan McNair; Erin C Cobry; Kim K McFann; H Peter Chase Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-12-23 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Engelina Spaans; Kornelis J J van Hateren; Klaas H Groenier; Henk J G Bilo; Nanne Kleefstra; Paul L P Brand Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Sarah D Corathers; Pamela J Schoettker; Mark A Clements; Betsy A List; Deborah Mullen; Amy Ohmer; Avni Shah; Joyce Lee Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 4.810
Authors: Mark A Clements; Stephen A DeLurgio; David D Williams; Sana Habib; Kelsee Halpin; Susana R Patton Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Shelagh A Mulvaney; Sarah E Vaala; Rachel B Carroll; Laura K Williams; Cindy K Lybarger; Douglas C Schmidt; Mary S Dietrich; Lori M Laffel; Korey K Hood Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 4.497