AIMS: The aim of the study was (a) to compare annual glycemic control in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) who used a healthcare-funded continuous glucose monitoring system (RT-CGMS) to that of those who performed self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) only, in a real-life setting, and (b) to define parameters associated with compliance and glycemic control. METHODS: A total of 149 youth with T1DM (52.3 % females), mean age 11.8 ± 3.6 years, and 83 in the CGMS group were followed prospectively for 12 months. Glycemic control parameters and compliance to RT-CGMS were assessed periodically. RESULTS: Glycemic parameters did not differ significantly between the groups during follow-up periods. The time spent with RT-CGMS decreased and only 38 % used it for more than 75 % of the time during the 12 months (consistent users). Mean HbA1c decreased by 0.27 % in consistent users and increased by 0.21 % among intermittent users (used RT-CGMS less than 75 % of time), p = 0.013. Consistent users were younger 10. 6 ± 4.2 vs. 12.5 ± 3.6, p = 0.07, and had higher frequency of SMBG at baseline, 10.6 ± 4.9 vs. 6.3 ± 2.8, p = 0.011. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of RT-CGMS was low, even in a healthcare system that funds its use. Caregivers should consider patient characteristics when recommending RT-CGMS use.
AIMS: The aim of the study was (a) to compare annual glycemic control in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) who used a healthcare-funded continuous glucose monitoring system (RT-CGMS) to that of those who performed self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) only, in a real-life setting, and (b) to define parameters associated with compliance and glycemic control. METHODS: A total of 149 youth with T1DM (52.3 % females), mean age 11.8 ± 3.6 years, and 83 in the CGMS group were followed prospectively for 12 months. Glycemic control parameters and compliance to RT-CGMS were assessed periodically. RESULTS: Glycemic parameters did not differ significantly between the groups during follow-up periods. The time spent with RT-CGMS decreased and only 38 % used it for more than 75 % of the time during the 12 months (consistent users). Mean HbA1c decreased by 0.27 % in consistent users and increased by 0.21 % among intermittent users (used RT-CGMS less than 75 % of time), p = 0.013. Consistent users were younger 10. 6 ± 4.2 vs. 12.5 ± 3.6, p = 0.07, and had higher frequency of SMBG at baseline, 10.6 ± 4.9 vs. 6.3 ± 2.8, p = 0.011. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of RT-CGMS was low, even in a healthcare system that funds its use. Caregivers should consider patient characteristics when recommending RT-CGMS use.
Authors: Martin de Bock; Matthew Cooper; Adam Retterath; Jennifer Nicholas; Trang Ly; Timothy Jones; Elizabeth Davis Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2016-05-03
Authors: Courtney Robertson; Ashleigh Lin; Grant Smith; Anna Yeung; Penelope Strauss; Jennifer Nicholas; Elizabeth Davis; Tim Jones; Lisa Gibson; Juliet Richters; Martin de Bock Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2019-08-23
Authors: A Deeb; H Yousef; N Al Qahtani; I Artan; S Suliman; M Tomy; L Abdulrahman; H Al Suwaidi; S Attia; N Nagelkerke Journal: J Diabetes Metab Disord Date: 2019-05-09
Authors: Sara Boucher; Miranda Blackwell; Barbara Galland; Martin de Bock; Hamish Crocket; Esko Wiltshire; Paul Tomlinson; Jenny Rayns; Benjamin Wheeler Journal: J Diabetes Metab Disord Date: 2019-12-07