Jenise C Wong1, Nicole C Foster2, David M Maahs3, Dan Raghinaru2, Richard M Bergenstal4, Andrew J Ahmann5, Anne L Peters6, Bruce W Bode7, Grazia Aleppo8, Irl B Hirsch9, Lora Kleis10, H Peter Chase3, Stephanie N DuBose2, Kellee M Miller11, Roy W Beck2, Saleh Adi1. 1. Madison Clinic for Pediatric Diabetes and University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 2. Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, FL. 3. Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes, Aurora, CO. 4. International Diabetes Center Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, MN. 5. Harold Schnitzer Diabetes Health Center at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. 6. Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. 7. Atlanta Diabetes Associates, Atlanta, GA. 8. Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. 9. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 10. Helen DeVos Children's Hospital, Grand Rapids, MI. 11. Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, FL t1dstats@jaeb.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device use, factors associated with its use, and the relationship of CGM with diabetes outcomes (HbA1c, severe hypoglycemia [SH], and diabetic ketoacidosis [DKA]). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Survey questions related to CGM device use 1 year after enrollment in the T1D Exchange clinic registry were completed by 17,317 participants. Participants were defined as CGM users if they indicated using real-time CGM during the prior 30 days. RESULTS: Nine percent of participants used CGM (6% of children <13 years old, 4% of adolescents 13 to <18 years, 6% of young adults 18 to <26 years, and 21% of adults ≥26 years). CGM use was more likely with higher education, higher household income, private health insurance, longer duration of diabetes, and use of insulin pump (P < 0.01 all factors). CGM use was associated with lower HbA1c in children (8.3% vs. 8.6%, P < 0.001) and adults (7.7% vs. 7.9%, P < 0.001). In adults, more frequent use of CGM (≥6 days/week) was associated with lower mean HbA1c. Only 27% of users downloaded data from their device at least once per month, and ≤15% of users reported downloading their device at least weekly. Among participants who used CGM at baseline, 41% had discontinued within 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: CGM use is uncommon but associated with lower HbA1c in some age-groups, especially when used more frequently. Factors associated with discontinuation and infrequent use of retrospective analysis of CGM data should be considered in developing next-generation devices and education on CGM use.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device use, factors associated with its use, and the relationship of CGM with diabetes outcomes (HbA1c, severe hypoglycemia [SH], and diabetic ketoacidosis [DKA]). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Survey questions related to CGM device use 1 year after enrollment in the T1D Exchange clinic registry were completed by 17,317 participants. Participants were defined as CGM users if they indicated using real-time CGM during the prior 30 days. RESULTS: Nine percent of participants used CGM (6% of children <13 years old, 4% of adolescents 13 to <18 years, 6% of young adults 18 to <26 years, and 21% of adults ≥26 years). CGM use was more likely with higher education, higher household income, private health insurance, longer duration of diabetes, and use of insulin pump (P < 0.01 all factors). CGM use was associated with lower HbA1c in children (8.3% vs. 8.6%, P < 0.001) and adults (7.7% vs. 7.9%, P < 0.001). In adults, more frequent use of CGM (≥6 days/week) was associated with lower mean HbA1c. Only 27% of users downloaded data from their device at least once per month, and ≤15% of users reported downloading their device at least weekly. Among participants who used CGM at baseline, 41% had discontinued within 1 year. CONCLUSIONS:CGM use is uncommon but associated with lower HbA1c in some age-groups, especially when used more frequently. Factors associated with discontinuation and infrequent use of retrospective analysis of CGM data should be considered in developing next-generation devices and education on CGM use.
Authors: David C Klonoff; Bruce Buckingham; Jens S Christiansen; Victor M Montori; William V Tamborlane; Robert A Vigersky; Howard Wolpert Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Roy W Beck; Jean M Lawrence; Lori Laffel; Tim Wysocki; Dongyuan Xing; Elbert S Huang; Brett Ives; Craig Kollman; Joyce Lee; Katrina J Ruedy; William V Tamborlane Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-08-09 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Miranda Langendam; Yoeri M Luijf; Lotty Hooft; J Hans Devries; Aart H Mudde; Rob J P M Scholten Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-01-18
Authors: Nelly Mauras; Roy Beck; Dongyuan Xing; Katrina Ruedy; Bruce Buckingham; Michael Tansey; Neil H White; Stuart A Weinzimer; William Tamborlane; Craig Kollman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-12-30 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Roy W Beck; Irl B Hirsch; Lori Laffel; William V Tamborlane; Bruce W Bode; Bruce Buckingham; Peter Chase; Robert Clemons; Rosanna Fiallo-Scharer; Larry A Fox; Lisa K Gilliam; Elbert S Huang; Craig Kollman; Aaron J Kowalski; Jean M Lawrence; Joyce Lee; Nelly Mauras; Michael O'Grady; Katrina J Ruedy; Michael Tansey; Eva Tsalikian; Stuart A Weinzimer; Darrell M Wilson; Howard Wolpert; Tim Wysocki; Dongyuan Xing Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-05-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Roy W Beck; Bruce Buckingham; Kellee Miller; Howard Wolpert; Dongyuan Xing; Jennifer M Block; H Peter Chase; Irl Hirsch; Craig Kollman; Lori Laffel; Jean M Lawrence; Kerry Milaszewski; Katrina J Ruedy; William V Tamborlane Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-08-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Stamatina Zavitsanou; Jennifer Massa; Sunil Deshpande; Jordan E Pinsker; Mei Mei Church; Camille Andre; Francis J Doyle Iii; Alicia Michelson; Jamie Creason; Eyal Dassau; David M Eisenberg Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Dayna E McGill; Lisa K Volkening; Deborah A Butler; Kara R Harrington; Michelle L Katz; Lori M Laffel Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 6.118