Literature DB >> 31335199

Acceptability of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Elderly Diabetes Patients Using Multiple Daily Insulin Injections.

Špela Volčanšek1,2, Mojca Lunder1,2, Andrej Janež1,2.   

Abstract

Background: Integrative diabetes care is lifelong and encompasses patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Understanding older adults' perceptions of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) benefits and potential annoyances is important to assist with introducing it in this population. The aim of this study was to investigate PROMs and effectiveness of CGM introduction in elderly multiple daily injection (MDI) users with well-controlled diabetes.
Methods: MDI-treated elderly (n = 25, mean age 67.6 ± 1.2 years, HbA1c = 7.1% ± 0.2%, 56% type 1 diabetes) were instructed to use a CGM device. PROMs were measured by questionnaires. CGM-recorded glycemic control metrics (time in range [TIR], time in hypoglycemia, coefficient of variation [CV]) were compared during blinded CGM and real-time CGM.
Results: Satisfaction with CGM use was high; with perceived advantages as "very common" (4.22 out of 5) and annoyances as "modest" (1.82 out of 5). In total 95% of participants expressed improved sense of security with CGM use, 68% reported of improved sleep quality, and 82% were willing to use a CGM device after finishing the study protocol. CGM introduction did not impose additional diabetes-related distress (measured by the Problem Areas in Diabetes questionnaire). Significant improvements in TIR (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) (66.3% ± 2.6% vs. 76.9% ± 3.0%; P < 0.001), time in hypoglycemia (9.6% ± 2.1% vs. 5.2% ± 1.1%; P = 0.041), as well as reduced glycemic variability (%CV) (37.3 ± 11.1 vs. 32.9 ± 6.3; P < 0.001) were observed.
Conclusion: Introduction of CGM in elderly patients with well-controlled diabetes resulted in high satisfaction without imposing additional diabetes distress. Furthermore, an added benefit in glucose control with stabilizing glycemia in target range was proven.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CGM satisfaction; Diabetes distress; Patient-reported outcome measures; Type 1 diabetes; Type 2 diabetes

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31335199     DOI: 10.1089/dia.2019.0131

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther        ISSN: 1520-9156            Impact factor:   6.118


  4 in total

1.  Help when you need it: Perspectives of adults with T1D on the support and training they would have wanted when starting CGM.

Authors:  Molly L Tanenbaum; Laurel H Messer; Christine A Wu; Marina Basina; Bruce A Buckingham; Danielle Hessler; Shelagh A Mulvaney; David M Maahs; Korey K Hood
Journal:  Diabetes Res Clin Pract       Date:  2021-09-14       Impact factor: 8.180

2.  The Impact of a Recently Approved Automated Insulin Delivery System on Glycemic, Sleep, and Psychosocial Outcomes in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Alessandro Bisio; Linda Gonder-Frederick; Ryan McFadden; Daniel Cherñavvsky; Mary Voelmle; Michael Pajewski; Pearl Yu; Heather Bonner; Sue A Brown
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2021-01-15

Review 3.  Glycemic variability: adverse clinical outcomes and how to improve it?

Authors:  Zheng Zhou; Bao Sun; Shiqiong Huang; Chunsheng Zhu; Meng Bian
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diabetol       Date:  2020-07-04       Impact factor: 9.951

Review 4.  Hypoglycemia unawareness and autonomic dysfunction in diabetes: Lessons learned and roles of diabetes technologies.

Authors:  Yu Kuei Lin; Simon J Fisher; Rodica Pop-Busui
Journal:  J Diabetes Investig       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 4.232

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.