Julia Vergier1, Martine Samper2, Fabienne Dalla-Vale3, Valérie Ventura4, Franciane Baucher4, Florence Joubert5, Charlotte Pons5, Murielle De Oliveira6, Randa Salet7, Noémie Faure-Galon8, Paola Adiceam9, Elysabeth Baechler-Sadoul10, Sophie Epstein11, Gilbert Simonin6, Rachel Reynaud12. 1. Assistance-Publique des Hôpitaux de Marseille (APHM), Multidisciplinary Pediatric Service - La Timone Children's Hospital, 264 rue Saint Pierre, 13385 Marseille, France. Electronic address: julia.vergier@ap-hm.fr. 2. Pediatric Val Pré Vert Rehabilitation and Recuperative Care Facilities, 929 route de Gardanne, 13105 Mimet, France. 3. Montpellier University Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, Arnaud De Villeneuve Hospital, 371 avenue Doyen Gaston Giraud, 34295 Montpellier, France; Saint-Pierre Institute, Department of Pediatrics, 371 Avenue de l'évêché de Maguelone, 34250 Palavas-les-Flots, France. 4. Saint-Pierre Institute, Department of Pediatrics, 371 Avenue de l'évêché de Maguelone, 34250 Palavas-les-Flots, France. 5. Avignon Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, 305 Rue Raoul Follereau, 84902 Avignon, France. 6. Assistance-Publique des Hôpitaux de Marseille (APHM), Multidisciplinary Pediatric Service - La Timone Children's Hospital, 264 rue Saint Pierre, 13385 Marseille, France. 7. Nîmes University Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, Place du Pr. Robert Debré, 30029 Nîmes, France. 8. Aix-en-Provence Pertuis Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, Avenue des Tamaris, Aix-en Provence, France. 9. Aix-en-Provence Pertuis Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, Avenue des Tamaris, Aix-en Provence, France; Marseille Saint Joseph Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, 26 boulevard de Louvain, 13008 Marseille, France. 10. Nice-Lenval University Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, 57 Avenue de la Californie, Nice, France. 11. Aubagne Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, 179 Av des Sœurs Gastine, 13677 Aubagne, France. 12. Assistance-Publique des Hôpitaux de Marseille (APHM), Multidisciplinary Pediatric Service - La Timone Children's Hospital, 264 rue Saint Pierre, 13385 Marseille, France; Aix Marseille Univ, INSERM, MMG (Marseille Medical Genetics) Marseille, France.
Abstract
AIMS: To understand the opinions of children with type 1 diabetes about their everyday use of flash glucose monitoring. (FGM). METHODS: Children with type 1 diabetes using the FreeStyle Libre® FGM system and/or their parents were surveyed in several French medical centers between December 2016 and June 2017, regardless of their treatment regimen and metabolic control. RESULTS: Of the 347 patients recruited, 79.5% had been using the sensor for more than three months (average usage time: 285 days). The main reported motivations for initiating this type of monitoring were to avoid finger prick pain (for 85.9% of patients) and to allow parents to check nocturnal glucose levels (60.8%). Two-thirds of respondents experienced difficulties, mainly the sensor falling off (47.6%), measurement discrepancies (25.1%) and cutaneous reactions (22.2%); 89.5% changed their habits: 70.6% took more scans, 37.2% corrected their hyperglycemia more promptly, and 37.5% used trends to adjust their insulin dosage. About one-third of the study group (35.1%) experienced lower HbA1c levels, and two thirds (67.1%) were satisfied with the device. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that FGM is a widely accepted option for self-monitoring diabetes, but that specific training is required to improve its use for insulin dosage adjustment and metabolic results.
AIMS: To understand the opinions of children with type 1 diabetes about their everyday use of flash glucose monitoring. (FGM). METHODS:Children with type 1 diabetes using the FreeStyle Libre® FGM system and/or their parents were surveyed in several French medical centers between December 2016 and June 2017, regardless of their treatment regimen and metabolic control. RESULTS: Of the 347 patients recruited, 79.5% had been using the sensor for more than three months (average usage time: 285 days). The main reported motivations for initiating this type of monitoring were to avoid finger prick pain (for 85.9% of patients) and to allow parents to check nocturnal glucose levels (60.8%). Two-thirds of respondents experienced difficulties, mainly the sensor falling off (47.6%), measurement discrepancies (25.1%) and cutaneous reactions (22.2%); 89.5% changed their habits: 70.6% took more scans, 37.2% corrected their hyperglycemia more promptly, and 37.5% used trends to adjust their insulin dosage. About one-third of the study group (35.1%) experienced lower HbA1c levels, and two thirds (67.1%) were satisfied with the device. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that FGM is a widely accepted option for self-monitoring diabetes, but that specific training is required to improve its use for insulin dosage adjustment and metabolic results.
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