Literature DB >> 32723843

Use of Factory-Calibrated Real-time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Improves Time in Target and HbA1c in a Multiethnic Cohort of Adolescents and Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: The MILLENNIALS Study.

Hood Thabit1,2, Joshi Navis Prabhu3, Womba Mubita3, Catherine Fullwood4, Shazli Azmi3, Andrea Urwin3, Ian Doughty5, Lalantha Leelarathna3,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: International type 1 diabetes registries have shown that HbA1c levels are highest in young people with type 1 diabetes; however, improving their glycemic control remains a challenge. We propose that use of the factory-calibrated Dexcom G6 CGM system would improve glycemic control in this cohort. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized crossover trial in young people with type 1 diabetes (16-24 years old) comparing the Dexcom G6 CGM system and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Participants were assigned to the interventions in random order during two 8-week study periods. During SMBG, blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was worn by each participant for 10 days at the start, week 4, and week 7 of the control period. HbA1c measurements were drawn after enrollment and before and after each treatment period. The primary outcome was time in range 70-180 mg/dL.
RESULTS: Time in range was significantly higher during CGM compared with control (35.7 ± 13.5% vs. 24.6 ± 9.3%; mean difference 11.1% [95% CI 7.0-15.2]; P < 0.001). CGM use reduced mean sensor glucose (219.7 ± 37.6 mg/dL vs. 251.9 ± 36.3 mg/dL; mean difference -32.2 mg/dL [95% CI -44.5 to -20.0]; P < 0.001) and time above range (61.7 ± 15.1% vs. 73.6 ± 10.4%; mean difference 11.9% [95% CI -16.4 to -7.4]; P < 0.001). HbA1c level was reduced by 0.76% (95% CI -1.1 to -0.4) (-8.5 mmol/mol [95% CI -12.4 to -4.6]; P < 0.001). Times spent below range (<70 mg/dL and <54 mg/dL) were low and comparable during both study periods. Sensor wear was 84% during the CGM period.
CONCLUSIONS: CGM use in young people with type 1 diabetes improves time in target and HbA1c levels compared with SMBG.
© 2020 by the American Diabetes Association.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32723843     DOI: 10.2337/dc20-0736

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Care        ISSN: 0149-5992            Impact factor:   19.112


  13 in total

Review 1.  Recent advances in closed-loop insulin delivery.

Authors:  Julia Ware; Roman Hovorka
Journal:  Metabolism       Date:  2021-12-07       Impact factor: 8.694

Review 2.  Diabetes: the role of continuous glucose monitoring.

Authors:  Julianna Rivich Kluemper; Alexandria Smith; Brooke Wobeter
Journal:  Drugs Context       Date:  2022-06-14

Review 3.  Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in maintaining glycaemic control among people with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Evelyn Teo; Norasyikin Hassan; Wilson Tam; Serena Koh
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 10.460

4.  Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Benefits Glycemic Control in Adolescents and Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Irrespective of Insulin Delivery Modality: Subanalysis of the MILLENNIAL Study.

Authors:  Ik Hur Teoh; Joshi Prabhu; Womba Mubita; Shazli Azmi; Andrea Urwin; Ian Doughty; Lalantha Leelarathna; Hood Thabit
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2021-10-09

Review 5.  Barriers and Facilitators to Diabetes Device Adoption for People with Type 1 Diabetes.

Authors:  Molly L Tanenbaum; Persis V Commissariat
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2022-05-06       Impact factor: 5.430

6.  Racial Disparities in Diabetes Technology Use and Outcomes in Type 1 Diabetes in a Safety-Net Hospital.

Authors:  Kathryn L Fantasia; Kamonkiat Wirunsawanya; Christopher Lee; Ivania Rizo
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2021-03-10

7.  Universal Subsidized Continuous Glucose Monitoring Funding for Young People With Type 1 Diabetes: Uptake and Outcomes Over 2 Years, a Population-Based Study.

Authors:  Stephanie R Johnson; Deborah J Holmes-Walker; Melissa Chee; Arul Earnest; Timothy W Jones; Maria Craig; Kym Anderson; Geoff Ambler; Helen Barrett; Jenny Batch; Philip Bergman; Fergus Cameron; Peter Colman; Louise Conwell; Chris Cooper; Jennifer Couper; Elizabeth Davis; Martin de Bock; Kim Donaghue; Jan Fairchild; Gerry Fegan; Spiros Fourlanos; Sarah Glastras; Leonie Gray; Shane Hamblin; Paul Hofman; Dianne Jane Holmes-Walker; Neville Howard; Michelle Jack; Steven James; Craig Jefferies; Stephanie Johnson; Jeff Kao; Bruce R King; Antony Lafferty; Michelle Martin; Robert McCrossin; Mark Pascoe; Ryan Paul; Dorota Pawlak; Alexia Peña; Sarah Price; Darrell Price; Christine Rodda; David Simmons; Richard Sinnott; Alan Sive; Carmel Smart; Monique Stone; Steve Stranks; Elaine Tham; Charles Verge; Glenn Ward; Ben Wheeler; Judy Williams; Helen Woodhead; Nick Woolfield; Anthony Zimmermann
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 19.112

8.  Technological Ecological Momentary Assessment Tools to Study Type 1 Diabetes in Youth: Viewpoint of Methodologies.

Authors:  Mary Katherine Ray; Alana McMichael; Maria Rivera-Santana; Jacob Noel; Tamara Hershey
Journal:  JMIR Diabetes       Date:  2021-06-03

Review 9.  Current treatment options and challenges in patients with Type 1 diabetes: Pharmacological, technical advances and future perspectives.

Authors:  Federico Boscari; Angelo Avogaro
Journal:  Rev Endocr Metab Disord       Date:  2021-03-23       Impact factor: 6.514

10.  Real-World Outcomes of Glucose Sensor Use in Type 1 Diabetes-Findings from a Large UK Centre.

Authors:  Kyuhan Lee; Shakthi Gunasinghe; Alyson Chapman; Lynne A Findlow; Jody Hyland; Sheetal Ohol; Andrea Urwin; Martin K Rutter; Jonathan Schofield; Hood Thabit; Lalantha Leelarathna
Journal:  Biosensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-11-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.