Lori M Laffel1, Lauren G Kanapka2, Roy W Beck2, Katherine Bergamo3, Mark A Clements4, Amy Criego5, Daniel J DeSalvo6, Robin Goland7, Korey Hood8, David Liljenquist9, Laurel H Messer, Roshanak Monzavi10, Thomas J Mouse2, Priya Prahalad8, Jennifer Sherr11, Jill H Simmons12, R Paul Wadwa13, Ruth S Weinstock14, Steven M Willi15, Kellee M Miller2. 1. Joslin Diabetes Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida. 3. University of North Carolina Diabetes Care Center, Chapel Hill. 4. Children's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri. 5. Health Partners Institute, International Diabetes Center, St Louis Park, Minnesota. 6. Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 7. Naomi Berrie Diabetes Center, Columbia University, New York, New York. 8. Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. 9. Rocky Mountain Diabetes & Osteoporosis Center, Idaho Falls, Idaho. 10. Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 11. Yale Children's Diabetes Program, New Haven, Connecticut. 12. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 13. Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes, Aurora, Colorado. 14. SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York. 15. Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
Importance: Adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes exhibit the worst glycemic control among individuals with type 1 diabetes across the lifespan. Although continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to improve glycemic control in adults, its benefit in adolescents and young adults has not been demonstrated. Objective: To determine the effect of CGM on glycemic control in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted between January 2018 and May 2019 at 14 endocrinology practices in the US including 153 individuals aged 14 to 24 years with type 1 diabetes and screening hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7.5% to 10.9%. Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1 to undergo CGM (CGM group; n = 74) or usual care using a blood glucose meter for glucose monitoring (blood glucose monitoring [BGM] group; n = 79). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline to 26 weeks. There were 20 secondary outcomes, including additional HbA1c outcomes, CGM glucose metrics, and patient-reported outcomes with adjustment for multiple comparisons to control for the false discovery rate. Results: Among the 153 participants (mean [SD] age, 17 [3] years; 76 [50%] were female; mean [SD] diabetes duration, 9 [5] years), 142 (93%) completed the study. In the CGM group, 68% of participants used CGM at least 5 days per week in month 6. Mean HbA1c was 8.9% at baseline and 8.5% at 26 weeks in the CGM group and 8.9% at both baseline and 26 weeks in the BGM group (adjusted between-group difference, -0.37% [95% CI, -0.66% to -0.08%]; P = .01). Of 20 prespecified secondary outcomes, there were statistically significant differences in 3 of 7 binary HbA1c outcomes, 8 of 9 CGM metrics, and 1 of 4 patient-reported outcomes. The most commonly reported adverse events in the CGM and BGM groups were severe hypoglycemia (3 participants with an event in the CGM group and 2 in the BGM group), hyperglycemia/ketosis (1 participant with an event in CGM group and 4 in the BGM group), and diabetic ketoacidosis (3 participants with an event in the CGM group and 1 in the BGM group). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring compared with standard blood glucose monitoring resulted in a small but statistically significant improvement in glycemic control over 26 weeks. Further research is needed to understand the clinical importance of the findings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03263494.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes exhibit the worst glycemic control among individuals with type 1 diabetes across the lifespan. Although continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to improve glycemic control in adults, its benefit in adolescents and young adults has not been demonstrated. Objective: To determine the effect of CGM on glycemic control in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted between January 2018 and May 2019 at 14 endocrinology practices in the US including 153 individuals aged 14 to 24 years with type 1 diabetes and screening hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7.5% to 10.9%. Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1 to undergo CGM (CGM group; n = 74) or usual care using a blood glucose meter for glucose monitoring (blood glucose monitoring [BGM] group; n = 79). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline to 26 weeks. There were 20 secondary outcomes, including additional HbA1c outcomes, CGMglucose metrics, and patient-reported outcomes with adjustment for multiple comparisons to control for the false discovery rate. Results: Among the 153 participants (mean [SD] age, 17 [3] years; 76 [50%] were female; mean [SD] diabetes duration, 9 [5] years), 142 (93%) completed the study. In the CGM group, 68% of participants used CGM at least 5 days per week in month 6. Mean HbA1c was 8.9% at baseline and 8.5% at 26 weeks in the CGM group and 8.9% at both baseline and 26 weeks in the BGM group (adjusted between-group difference, -0.37% [95% CI, -0.66% to -0.08%]; P = .01). Of 20 prespecified secondary outcomes, there were statistically significant differences in 3 of 7 binary HbA1c outcomes, 8 of 9 CGM metrics, and 1 of 4 patient-reported outcomes. The most commonly reported adverse events in the CGM and BGM groups were severe hypoglycemia (3 participants with an event in the CGM group and 2 in the BGM group), hyperglycemia/ketosis (1 participant with an event in CGM group and 4 in the BGM group), and diabetic ketoacidosis (3 participants with an event in the CGM group and 1 in the BGM group). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring compared with standard blood glucose monitoring resulted in a small but statistically significant improvement in glycemic control over 26 weeks. Further research is needed to understand the clinical importance of the findings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03263494.
Authors: Nicole C Foster; Roy W Beck; Kellee M Miller; Mark A Clements; Michael R Rickels; Linda A DiMeglio; David M Maahs; William V Tamborlane; Richard Bergenstal; Elizabeth Smith; Beth A Olson; Satish K Garg Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Tadej Battelino; Thomas Danne; Richard M Bergenstal; Stephanie A Amiel; Roy Beck; Torben Biester; Emanuele Bosi; Bruce A Buckingham; William T Cefalu; Kelly L Close; Claudio Cobelli; Eyal Dassau; J Hans DeVries; Kim C Donaghue; Klemen Dovc; Francis J Doyle; Satish Garg; George Grunberger; Simon Heller; Lutz Heinemann; Irl B Hirsch; Roman Hovorka; Weiping Jia; Olga Kordonouri; Boris Kovatchev; Aaron Kowalski; Lori Laffel; Brian Levine; Alexander Mayorov; Chantal Mathieu; Helen R Murphy; Revital Nimri; Kirsten Nørgaard; Christopher G Parkin; Eric Renard; David Rodbard; Banshi Saboo; Desmond Schatz; Keaton Stoner; Tatsuiko Urakami; Stuart A Weinzimer; Moshe Phillip Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2019-06-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Faisal S Malik; Katherine A Sauder; Scott Isom; Beth A Reboussin; Dana Dabelea; Jean M Lawrence; Alissa Roberts; Elizabeth J Mayer-Davis; Santica Marcovina; Lawrence Dolan; Daria Igudesman; Catherine Pihoker; Jean M Lawrence; Peggy Hung; Corinna Koebnick; Xia Li; Eva Lustigova; Kristi Reynolds; David J Pettitt; Elizabeth J Mayer-Davis; Amy Mottl; Joan Thomas; Malaka Jackson; Lisa Knight; Angela D Liese; Christine Turley; Deborah Bowlby; James Amrhein; Elaine Apperson; Bryce Nelson; Dana Dabelea; Anna Bellatorre; Tessa Crume; Richard F Hamman; Katherine A Sauder; Allison Shapiro; Lisa Testaverde; Georgeanna J Klingensmith; David Maahs; Marian J Rewers; Paul Wadwa; Stephen Daniels; Michael G Kahn; Greta Wilkening; Clifford A Bloch; Jeffrey Powell; Kathy Love-Osborne; Diana C Hu; Lawrence M Dolan; Amy S Shah; Debra A Standiford; Elaine M Urbina; Catherine Pihoker; Irl Hirsch; Grace Kim; Faisal A Malik; Lina Merjaneh; Alissa Roberts; Craig Taplin; Joyce Yi-Frazier; Natalie Beauregard; Cordelia Franklin; Carlo Gangan; Sue Kearns; Mary Klingsheim; Beth Loots; Michael Pascual; Carla Greenbaum; Giuseppina Imperatore; Sharon H Saydah; Barbara Linder; Santica M Marcovina; Alan Chait; Noemie Clouet-Foraison; Jessica Harting; Greg Strylewicz; Ralph D'Agostino; Elizabeth T Jensen; Lynne E Wagenknecht; Ronny A Bell; Ramon Casanova; Jasmin Divers; Maureen T Goldstein; Leora Henkin; Scott Isom; Kristin Lenoir; June Pierce; Beth Reboussin; Joseph Rigdon; Andrew Michael South; Jeanette Stafford; Cynthia Suerken; Brian Wells; Carrie Williams Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Karishma A Datye; Daniel R Tilden; Angelee M Parmar; Eveline R Goethals; Sarah S Jaser Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2021-05-15 Impact factor: 4.810
Authors: Laura M Nally; Julie Wagner; Jennifer Sherr; Eileen Tichy; Kate Weyman; Meredith K Ginley; Kristyn Zajac; Marcia Desousa; Veronika Shabanova; Nancy M Petry; William V Tamborlane; Michelle Van Name Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 3.443