Fiona M Campbell1, Nuala P Murphy2, Caroline Stewart3, Torben Biester4, Olga Kordonouri4. 1. Children's Diabetes Centre, Leeds Children's Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK. 2. Department of Paediatric Endocrinology, Children's University Hospital, Dublin, Republic of Ireland. 3. Paediatric Diabetes Services, Antrim Hospital, Antrim, UK. 4. Diabetes Center for Children and Adolescents, Children's Hospital Auf der Bult, Hannover, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Outcomes of using flash glucose monitoring have been reported in adults. This trial evaluated use in children and teenagers with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Prospective, single arm, non-inferiority multicenter study to demonstrate equivalence of time in range (TIR [70-180 mg/dL]) by comparing 14-day masked sensor wear (baseline) with self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) testing to the final 14-days of 8-week open-label system use for diabetes self-management including insulin dosing. RESULTS: A total of 76 children and teenagers (46.1% male; age 10.3 ± 4.0 years, type 1 diabetes duration 5.4 ± 3.7 years; mean ± SD) from 10 sites participated. TIR improved significantly by 0.9 ± 2.8 h/d (P = 0.005) vs SMBG baseline. Time in hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dL) reduced by -1.2 ± 3.3 h/d (P = 0.004). HbA1c reduced by -0.4% (-4.4 mmol/mol), from 7.9 ± 1.0% (62.9 ± 11.2 mmol/mol) baseline to 7.5 ± 0.9% (58.5 ± 9.8 mmol/mol) study end (P < 0.0001) with reductions across all age-subgroups (4-6, 7-12 and 13-17 years). Time in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) was unaffected. Throughout the treatment phase system utilization was 91% ± 9; sensor scanning was 12.9 ± 5.7/d with SMBG dropping to 1.6 ± 1.9 from 7.7 ± 2.5/d. Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire "Total Treatment Satisfaction" score improved for parents (P < 0.0001) and teenagers (P < 0.0001). No adverse events (n = 121) were associated with sensor accuracy, 42 participants experienced sensor insertion signs and symptoms. Three participants experienced three mild device-related (sensor wear) symptoms, resolving quickly (without treatment [n = 2], non-prescription antihistamines [n = 1]). CONCLUSIONS: Children with diabetes improved glycemic control safely and effectively with short-term flash glucose monitoring compared to use of SMBG in a single arm study.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Outcomes of using flash glucose monitoring have been reported in adults. This trial evaluated use in children and teenagers with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Prospective, single arm, non-inferiority multicenter study to demonstrate equivalence of time in range (TIR [70-180 mg/dL]) by comparing 14-day masked sensor wear (baseline) with self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) testing to the final 14-days of 8-week open-label system use for diabetes self-management including insulin dosing. RESULTS: A total of 76 children and teenagers (46.1% male; age 10.3 ± 4.0 years, type 1 diabetes duration 5.4 ± 3.7 years; mean ± SD) from 10 sites participated. TIR improved significantly by 0.9 ± 2.8 h/d (P = 0.005) vs SMBG baseline. Time in hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dL) reduced by -1.2 ± 3.3 h/d (P = 0.004). HbA1c reduced by -0.4% (-4.4 mmol/mol), from 7.9 ± 1.0% (62.9 ± 11.2 mmol/mol) baseline to 7.5 ± 0.9% (58.5 ± 9.8 mmol/mol) study end (P < 0.0001) with reductions across all age-subgroups (4-6, 7-12 and 13-17 years). Time in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) was unaffected. Throughout the treatment phase system utilization was 91% ± 9; sensor scanning was 12.9 ± 5.7/d with SMBG dropping to 1.6 ± 1.9 from 7.7 ± 2.5/d. Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire "Total Treatment Satisfaction" score improved for parents (P < 0.0001) and teenagers (P < 0.0001). No adverse events (n = 121) were associated with sensor accuracy, 42 participants experienced sensor insertion signs and symptoms. Three participants experienced three mild device-related (sensor wear) symptoms, resolving quickly (without treatment [n = 2], non-prescription antihistamines [n = 1]). CONCLUSIONS:Children with diabetes improved glycemic control safely and effectively with short-term flash glucose monitoring compared to use of SMBG in a single arm study.
Authors: Brooke L Marsters; Sara E Boucher; Barbara C Galland; Michel de Lange; Esko J Wiltshire; Martin I de Bock; Mona M Elbalshy; Paul A Tomlinson; Jenny Rayns; Karen E MacKenzie; Huan Chan; Benjamin J Wheeler Journal: Acta Diabetol Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 4.280
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
Authors: Marco Castellana; Claudia Parisi; Sergio Di Molfetta; Ludovico Di Gioia; Annalisa Natalicchio; Sebastio Perrini; Angelo Cignarelli; Luigi Laviola; Francesco Giorgino Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2020-06