Literature DB >> 31121275

Comparison of flash glucose monitoring with real time continuous glucose monitoring in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion.

Guy G Massa1, Inge Gys2, Esmiralda Bevilacqua3, Anne Wijnands4, Renate Zeevaert5.   

Abstract

AIMS: In 2016 intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) became the first reimbursed CGM system in Belgium. Many children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with multiple daily injections as well as with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) switched from self-monitoring of blood glucose to isCGM to monitor their treatment. In 2017 the Enlite® real-time CGM (rtCGM) system was reimbursed enabling its use with the Minimed® 640G insulin pump with integrated SmartGuard technology. In this study we compared the metabolic control during CSII with isCGM with that during rtCGM. Patient's satisfaction and side effects of the rtCGM system were also evaluated.
METHODS: 20 children with T1D, aged 5-16 years, were included. Metabolic control during the last month of isCGM use was compared to that during the 3rd and 6th month of rtCGM.
RESULTS: Three patients stopped early rtCGM mainly due to calibration burden. The HbA1c level and the mean glucose value in the other patients did not change after switching to the rtCGM system. Glucose variability was smaller (46.2% vs 38.4% and 36.4%, p = 0.000). Time in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dl) was lower (7.4% vs 1.6% and 1.5%, p = 0.000). The main patient inconvenience was the sensor calibration.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that during Enlite® rtCGM with the Minimed® 640G pump system glucose variability was smaller and the patients spent less time in hypoglycemia than during isCGM. The need for timely calibrations is considered as the main drawback of the system.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Child; Insulin pump therapy; Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring; Real time continuous glucose monitoring; Type 1 diabetes

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31121275     DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2019.05.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Res Clin Pract        ISSN: 0168-8227            Impact factor:   5.602


  4 in total

1.  Intermittent Scanning Glucose Monitoring or Predicted Low Suspend Pump Treatment: Does It Impact Time in Glucose Target and Treatment Preference? The QUEST Randomized Crossover Study.

Authors:  Ulrike Schierloh; Gloria A Aguayo; Anna Schritz; Muriel Fichelle; Cindy De Melo Dias; Michel T Vaillant; Ohad Cohen; Inge Gies; Carine de Beaufort
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-05-31       Impact factor: 6.055

2.  Effects of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring on blood glucose control and the production of urinary ketone bodies in pregestational diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Shu-Ying Li; Hang Guo; Yi Zhang; Pei Li; Pei Zhou; Li-Rong Sun; Jing Li; Li-Ming Chen
Journal:  Diabetol Metab Syndr       Date:  2021-04-09       Impact factor: 3.320

3.  Comparison Between Continuous Versus Flash Glucose Monitoring in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: An 8-Week Prospective Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Anissa Messaaoui; Sylvie Tenoutasse; Lucia Hajselova; Laurent Crenier
Journal:  Diabetes Ther       Date:  2022-07-23       Impact factor: 3.595

4.  Long-term cost-effectiveness of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring system in people with type 1 diabetes in Australia.

Authors:  J J Isitt; S Roze; D Tilden; N Arora; A J Palmer; T Jones; D Rentoul; P Lynch
Journal:  Diabet Med       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 4.213

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.