Alexandra Sawyer1, Marisa Sobczak2, Gregory P Forlenza3, Guy Todd Alonso3. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA. 2. Graduate Medical Education, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA. 3. Barbara Davis Center, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Abstract
Background: Technology for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), insulin pumps, and hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems, is improving, being used more commonly in the pediatric population, and impacts glycemic control. Materials and Methods: We evaluated the use of these technologies and their impact on glycemic control among patients with T1D who were seen at the Barbara Davis Center (n = 4003) between January 2018 and December 2020, <22 years old, with diabetes duration >3 months. Data were analyzed by age group and technology-use group defined as multiple daily injection with blood glucose meter (MDI/BGM), pump with BGM (pump/BGM), MDI with CGM (MDI/CGM), and pump with CGM (pump/CGM). Glycemic control was compared using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and controlling for diabetes duration, race, and insurance. Results: Among 4003 patients, 20% used MDI/BGM (mean hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] = 10.0%); 14.4% used pump/BGM (mean HbA1c = 10.0%); 15.4% used MDI/CGM (mean HbA1c = 8.6%); and 49.8% used pump/CGM (mean HbA1c = 8.1%). Compared with MDI/BGM patients, MDI/CGM and pump/CGM users had a lower HbA1c and were more likely to reach an HbA1c <7.0% (all P < 0.0001). Among pump/CGM users, 35% used HCL technology (mean HbA1c = 7.6%) and had a lower HbA1c and were more likely to reach an HbA1c <7% than non-HCL users (P < 0.001). Conclusions: CGM use was associated with a lower HbA1c in both MDI and pump users. Pump use was only associated with a lower HbA1c if used with CGM. HCL was associated with the lowest HbA1c. Spanish language and minority race/ethnicity were associated with lower rates of pump and CGM use, highlighting the need to reduce disparities.
Background: Technology for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), insulin pumps, and hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems, is improving, being used more commonly in the pediatric population, and impacts glycemic control. Materials and Methods: We evaluated the use of these technologies and their impact on glycemic control among patients with T1D who were seen at the Barbara Davis Center (n = 4003) between January 2018 and December 2020, <22 years old, with diabetes duration >3 months. Data were analyzed by age group and technology-use group defined as multiple daily injection with blood glucose meter (MDI/BGM), pump with BGM (pump/BGM), MDI with CGM (MDI/CGM), and pump with CGM (pump/CGM). Glycemic control was compared using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and controlling for diabetes duration, race, and insurance. Results: Among 4003 patients, 20% used MDI/BGM (mean hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] = 10.0%); 14.4% used pump/BGM (mean HbA1c = 10.0%); 15.4% used MDI/CGM (mean HbA1c = 8.6%); and 49.8% used pump/CGM (mean HbA1c = 8.1%). Compared with MDI/BGM patients, MDI/CGM and pump/CGM users had a lower HbA1c and were more likely to reach an HbA1c <7.0% (all P < 0.0001). Among pump/CGM users, 35% used HCL technology (mean HbA1c = 7.6%) and had a lower HbA1c and were more likely to reach an HbA1c <7% than non-HCL users (P < 0.001). Conclusions: CGM use was associated with a lower HbA1c in both MDI and pump users. Pump use was only associated with a lower HbA1c if used with CGM. HCL was associated with the lowest HbA1c. Spanish language and minority race/ethnicity were associated with lower rates of pump and CGM use, highlighting the need to reduce disparities.
Entities:
Keywords:
Continuous glucose monitoring; Insulin pumps; Pediatrics; Type 1 diabetes
Authors: Sue A Brown; Boris P Kovatchev; Dan Raghinaru; John W Lum; Bruce A Buckingham; Yogish C Kudva; Lori M Laffel; Carol J Levy; Jordan E Pinsker; R Paul Wadwa; Eyal Dassau; Francis J Doyle; Stacey M Anderson; Mei Mei Church; Vikash Dadlani; Laya Ekhlaspour; Gregory P Forlenza; Elvira Isganaitis; David W Lam; Craig Kollman; Roy W Beck Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-10-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert H Slover; John B Welsh; Amy Criego; Stuart A Weinzimer; Steven M Willi; Michael A Wood; William V Tamborlane Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2011-07-03 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: Kellee M Miller; Nicole C Foster; Roy W Beck; Richard M Bergenstal; Stephanie N DuBose; Linda A DiMeglio; David M Maahs; William V Tamborlane Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Terri H Lipman; Steven M Willi; C W Lai; Jennifer A Smith; Oona Patil; Colin P Hawkes Journal: J Pediatr Nurs Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 2.145
Authors: Roque Cardona-Hernandez; Anke Schwandt; Hessa Alkandari; Heiko Bratke; Agata Chobot; Nicole Coles; Sarah Corathers; Damla Goksen; Peter Goss; Zineb Imane; Katrin Nagl; Stephen M P O'Riordan; Craig Jefferies Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Satish K Garg; Stuart A Weinzimer; William V Tamborlane; Bruce A Buckingham; Bruce W Bode; Timothy S Bailey; Ronald L Brazg; Jacob Ilany; Robert H Slover; Stacey M Anderson; Richard M Bergenstal; Benyamin Grosman; Anirban Roy; Toni L Cordero; John Shin; Scott W Lee; Francine R Kaufman Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Jasmin Divers; Elizabeth J Mayer-Davis; Jean M Lawrence; Scott Isom; Dana Dabelea; Lawrence Dolan; Giuseppina Imperatore; Santica Marcovina; David J Pettitt; Catherine Pihoker; Richard F Hamman; Sharon Saydah; Lynne E Wagenknecht Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2020-02-14 Impact factor: 35.301