BACKGROUND: This study explored the safety of using real-time sensor glucose (SG) data for treatment decisions in adolescents with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Ten adolescents with type 1 diabetes, HbA1c ≥9% on insulin pumps were admitted to the clinical research center and a continuous glucose sensor was inserted. Plasma glucose was measured at least hourly using Yellow Springs Instrument's (YSI) glucose analyzer. Starting at dinner, SG rather than YSI was used for treatment decisions unless YSI was <70 mg/dL (<3.9 mmol/L) or specific criteria indicating SG and YSI were very discordant were met. Participants were discharged after lunch the next day. RESULTS: Ten participants (seven males; 15.2-17.8 year old) completed the study. The range of differences between high glucose correction doses using SG vs YSI for calculations was -2 (SG < YSI dose) to +1 (SG > YSI dose); this difference was two units in only 2 of 23 correction doses given (all SG < YSI dose). There were five episodes of mild hypoglycemia in two patients, two of which occurred after using SG for dose calculations. There was no severe hypoglycemia and no YSI glucose >350 mg/dL (19.4 mmol/L). Mean (±SE) pre- and postmeal YSI glucose were 163 ± 11 and 183 ± 12 mg/dL (9.1 ± 0.6 and 10.2 ± 0.7 mmol/L), respectively. CONCLUSION: Use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring for treatment decisions was safe and did not result in significant over- or undertreatment. Use of SG for treatment decisions under supervised inpatient conditions is a suitable alternative to repeated fingerstick glucose monitoring. Outpatient studies using SG in real-time are needed.
BACKGROUND: This study explored the safety of using real-time sensor glucose (SG) data for treatment decisions in adolescents with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Ten adolescents with type 1 diabetes, HbA1c ≥9% on insulin pumps were admitted to the clinical research center and a continuous glucose sensor was inserted. Plasma glucose was measured at least hourly using Yellow Springs Instrument's (YSI) glucose analyzer. Starting at dinner, SG rather than YSI was used for treatment decisions unless YSI was <70 mg/dL (<3.9 mmol/L) or specific criteria indicating SG and YSI were very discordant were met. Participants were discharged after lunch the next day. RESULTS: Ten participants (seven males; 15.2-17.8 year old) completed the study. The range of differences between high glucose correction doses using SG vs YSI for calculations was -2 (SG < YSI dose) to +1 (SG > YSI dose); this difference was two units in only 2 of 23 correction doses given (all SG < YSI dose). There were five episodes of mild hypoglycemia in two patients, two of which occurred after using SG for dose calculations. There was no severe hypoglycemia and no YSI glucose >350 mg/dL (19.4 mmol/L). Mean (±SE) pre- and postmeal YSI glucose were 163 ± 11 and 183 ± 12 mg/dL (9.1 ± 0.6 and 10.2 ± 0.7 mmol/L), respectively. CONCLUSION: Use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring for treatment decisions was safe and did not result in significant over- or undertreatment. Use of SG for treatment decisions under supervised inpatient conditions is a suitable alternative to repeated fingerstick glucose monitoring. Outpatient studies using SG in real-time are needed.
Authors: Trang T Ly; Anirban Roy; Benyamin Grosman; John Shin; Alex Campbell; Salman Monirabbasi; Bradley Liang; Rie von Eyben; Satya Shanmugham; Paula Clinton; Bruce A Buckingham Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-06-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Kellee M Miller; Nicole C Foster; Roy W Beck; Richard M Bergenstal; Stephanie N DuBose; Linda A DiMeglio; David M Maahs; William V Tamborlane Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Stuart A Weinzimer; Roy W Beck; H Peter Chase; Larry A Fox; Bruce A Buckingham; William V Tamborlane; Craig Kollman; Julie Coffey; Dongyuan Xing; Katrina J Ruedy Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Sarah E Siegelaar; Temo Barwari; Jeroen Hermanides; Peter H J van der Voort; Joost B L Hoekstra; J Hans DeVries Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2013-07-21 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Christophe E M De Block; Jens Gios; Nina Verheyen; Begoña Manuel-y-Keenoy; Peter Rogiers; Philippe G Jorens; Cosimo Scuffi; Luc F Van Gaal Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2015-08-25 Impact factor: 6.118
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: Abimbola A Akintola; Raymond Noordam; Steffy W Jansen; Anton J de Craen; Bart E Ballieux; Christa M Cobbaert; Simon P Mooijaart; Hanno Pijl; Rudi G Westendorp; Diana van Heemst Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-07 Impact factor: 3.240