Torben Biester1, Julia M Grimsmann2,3, Bettina Heidtmann4, Birgit Rami-Merhar5, Uwe Ermer6, Johannes Wolf7, Markus Freff8, Beate Karges9,10, Dirk Agena11, Peter Bramlage12, Thomas Danne1, Reinhard W Holl2,3. 1. Kinder-und Jugendkrankenhaus AUF DER BULT, Hannover, Germany. 2. Institut für Epidemiologie und Medizinische Biometrie, ZIBMT, Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany. 3. Deutsches Zentrum für Diabetesforschung (DZD), München-Neuherberg, Germany. 4. Katholisches Kinderkrankenhaus Wilhelmstift, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Medical University of Vienna, Austria, Department od Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Vienna, Austria. 6. Kliniken St. Elisabeth, Klinik für Kinder-und Jugendmedizin, Neuburg, Germany. 7. Klinik für Kinder-und Jugendmedizin St. Louise, St. Vincenz-Krankenhaus, Paderborn, Germany. 8. Darmstädter Kinderkliniken Prinzessin Margaret, Darmstadt, Germany. 9. Bethlehem Gesundheitszentrum, Klinik für Kinder-und Jugendmedizin, Stolberg, Germany. 10. Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany. 11. Kinderärztliche Gemeinschaftspraxis Franziska Fritz und Dirk Agena, Hildesheim, Germany. 12. Institute for Pharmacology and Preventive Medicine, Cloppenburg, Germany.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Intermittent scanning continuous glucose monitoring (iscCGM) is increasingly used for glycemic monitoring in diabetes care. In this cross-sectional real-world analysis, iscCGM data were compared to traditional parameters of glycemic control in young people with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Using the DPV registry, most recent data from children and adolescents aged <18 years with uploaded iscCGM sensor profiles with at least 14 days of data and a > 50% completeness were evaluated using recommended parameters of sensor metrics. Analysis was performed stratified by age group, glycemic control, and type of therapy; data were taken from DPV data pool in February 2020. Results: Glucose sensor profiles and clinical data from 1809 individuals (mean age 13.4 years, 53% male, and mean diabetes duration 5.02 years) were evaluated in this study. More than 50% of this population (n = 965) reached the current German treatment target of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) <7.5%. In this target, the mean scanning frequency was higher than in groups with HbA1c >7.5 or >8.0% (12.0 vs. 10.2 vs 7.6 times per day). The group of preschool children had the highest frequency of scanning (16.6 vs. 13.3 times per day in school kids and 7.9 in adolescents), the lowest HbA1c level, and the lowest risk for hypoglycemia (low blood glucose index 0.8 vs. 1.0 vs 1.2). Conclusion: Real-world data will help to determine the value of iscCGM to improve clinical and patient-related outcomes in pediatric diabetology. Not only the use of a device but also the intensity of use seems to have a high and direct impact on glycemic control.
Background and Objective: Intermittent scanning continuous glucose monitoring (iscCGM) is increasingly used for glycemic monitoring in diabetes care. In this cross-sectional real-world analysis, iscCGM data were compared to traditional parameters of glycemic control in young people with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Using the DPV registry, most recent data from children and adolescents aged <18 years with uploaded iscCGM sensor profiles with at least 14 days of data and a > 50% completeness were evaluated using recommended parameters of sensor metrics. Analysis was performed stratified by age group, glycemic control, and type of therapy; data were taken from DPV data pool in February 2020. Results: Glucose sensor profiles and clinical data from 1809 individuals (mean age 13.4 years, 53% male, and mean diabetes duration 5.02 years) were evaluated in this study. More than 50% of this population (n = 965) reached the current German treatment target of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) <7.5%. In this target, the mean scanning frequency was higher than in groups with HbA1c >7.5 or >8.0% (12.0 vs. 10.2 vs 7.6 times per day). The group of preschool children had the highest frequency of scanning (16.6 vs. 13.3 times per day in school kids and 7.9 in adolescents), the lowest HbA1c level, and the lowest risk for hypoglycemia (low blood glucose index 0.8 vs. 1.0 vs 1.2). Conclusion: Real-world data will help to determine the value of iscCGM to improve clinical and patient-related outcomes in pediatric diabetology. Not only the use of a device but also the intensity of use seems to have a high and direct impact on glycemic control.
Entities:
Keywords:
Continuous glucose monitoring; Flash glucose monitoring; Pediatric; Time in Range; Type 1 diabetes
Authors: Peter Bramlage; Stefanie Lanzinger; Sascha R Tittel; Eva Hess; Simon Fahrner; Christoph H J Heyer; Mathias Friebe; Ivo Buschmann; Thomas Danne; Jochen Seufert; Reinhard W Holl Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 2.388