Elisa Giani1,2, Rebecca Snelgrove1, Lisa K Volkening1, Lori M Laffel1. 1. 1 Pediatric, Adolescent and Young Adult Section, Section on Clinical, Behavioral and Outcomes Research, Joslin Diabetes Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 2. 2 Department of Pediatrics, Section on Pediatric Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Biomedical and Clinical Science Department, V. Buzzi Children's Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) remains underutilized in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). There is a need to investigate factors associated with CGM use. METHOD: In 61 T1D youth, CGM use was ascertained by downloads reflecting the 4-week periods preceding 3- and 6-month study visits. Demographic and clinical data were obtained from chart review and interview. Youth and parents completed validated psychosocial surveys at baseline and 6 months. RESULTS: Youth (52% male, 93% Caucasian, 80% pump treated) were 12.7 ± 2.9 years old, with T1D for 6.3 ± 3.8 years; mean A1c was 7.9 ± 0.9%. Mean CGM use was 4.1 ± 2.1 days/week (median = 4.8) at 3 months and 3.4 ± 2.3 days/week (median = 3.9) at 6 months. At 3 and 6 months, 15% and 20% of youth, respectively, had stopped using CGM. At 6 months, youth using CGM 6-7 days/week had more frequent BG monitoring ( P = .05), less insulin omission ( P = .02), and greater probability of A1c < 7.5% ( P = .01) than youth using CGM less often. Youth using CGM 6-7 days/week consistently over the 6 months demonstrated lower A1c at 3 months compared to baseline ( P = .03) and the improvement was sustained at 6 months ( P = .5, 3 vs 6 months); youth using CGM less often had no significant A1c change. Baseline BG monitoring ≥8 times/day or A1c within target (<7.5%) predicted greater CGM use (6-7 days/week) at 6 months (OR = 4.6, P = .02). There was no deterioration of psychosocial functioning with CGM use. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent and durable CGM use in youth with T1D is associated with treatment adherence and improved glycemic control without increasing psychosocial distress.
BACKGROUND:Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) remains underutilized in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). There is a need to investigate factors associated with CGM use. METHOD: In 61 T1D youth, CGM use was ascertained by downloads reflecting the 4-week periods preceding 3- and 6-month study visits. Demographic and clinical data were obtained from chart review and interview. Youth and parents completed validated psychosocial surveys at baseline and 6 months. RESULTS: Youth (52% male, 93% Caucasian, 80% pump treated) were 12.7 ± 2.9 years old, with T1D for 6.3 ± 3.8 years; mean A1c was 7.9 ± 0.9%. Mean CGM use was 4.1 ± 2.1 days/week (median = 4.8) at 3 months and 3.4 ± 2.3 days/week (median = 3.9) at 6 months. At 3 and 6 months, 15% and 20% of youth, respectively, had stopped using CGM. At 6 months, youth using CGM 6-7 days/week had more frequent BG monitoring ( P = .05), less insulin omission ( P = .02), and greater probability of A1c < 7.5% ( P = .01) than youth using CGM less often. Youth using CGM 6-7 days/week consistently over the 6 months demonstrated lower A1c at 3 months compared to baseline ( P = .03) and the improvement was sustained at 6 months ( P = .5, 3 vs 6 months); youth using CGM less often had no significant A1c change. Baseline BG monitoring ≥8 times/day or A1c within target (<7.5%) predicted greater CGM use (6-7 days/week) at 6 months (OR = 4.6, P = .02). There was no deterioration of psychosocial functioning with CGM use. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent and durable CGM use in youth with T1D is associated with treatment adherence and improved glycemic control without increasing psychosocial distress.
Authors: J T Markowitz; L K Volkening; D A Butler; J Antisdel-Lomaglio; B J Anderson; L M B Laffel Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 4.359
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: M Rachmiel; Z Landau; M Boaz; K Mazor Aronovitch; N Loewenthal; M Ben-Ami; Y Levy-Shraga; D Modan-Moses; A Haim; S Abiri; O Pinhas-Hamiel Journal: Acta Diabetol Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 4.280
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: Amy E Noser; Hongying Dai; Arwen M Marker; Jennifer K Raymond; Shideh Majidi; Mark A Clements; Kelly R Stanek; Susana R Patton Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2018-12-20 Impact factor: 4.267
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
Authors: Gregory P Forlenza; Laurel H Messer; Cari Berget; R Paul Wadwa; Kimberly A Driscoll Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 4.810