scholarly journals Blood Glucose Fluctuation During Ramadan Fasting in Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: Findings of Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Diabetes Care ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 38 (10) ◽  
pp. e162-e163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walid Kaplan ◽  
Bachar Afandi
Diabetes ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1664-P
Author(s):  
MINORI SHINODA ◽  
TADASHI YAMAKAWA ◽  
RIKA SAKAMOTO ◽  
JUN SUZUKI ◽  
KENICHIRO TAKAHASHI ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 193229682110315
Author(s):  
Benjamin Wong ◽  
Yalin Deng ◽  
Karen L. Rascati

Objective: To compare healthcare utilization, costs, and incidence of diabetes-specific adverse events (ie, hyperglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and hypoglycemia) in type 1 diabetes adult patients using real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) versus traditional blood glucose monitoring (BG). Methods: Adult patients (≥18 years old) with type 1 diabetes in a large national administrative claims database between 2013 and 2015 were identified. rtCGM patients with 6-month continuous health plan enrollment and ≥1 pharmacy claim for insulin during pre-index and post-index periods were propensity-score matched with BG patients. Healthcare utilization associated with diabetic adverse events were examined. A difference-in-difference (DID) method was used to compare the change in costs between rtCGM and BG cohorts. Results: Six-month medical costs for rtCGM patients ( N = 153) increased from pre- to post-index period, while they decreased for matched BG patients ( N = 153). DID analysis indicated a $2,807 ( P = .062) higher post-index difference in total medical costs for rtCGM patients. Pharmacy costs for both cohorts increased. DID analysis indicated a $1,775 ( P < .001) higher post-index difference in pharmacy costs for rtCGM patients. The incidence of hyperglycemia for both cohorts increased minimally from pre- to post-index period. The incidence of hypoglycemia for rtCGM patients decreased, while it increased marginally for BG patients. Inpatient hospitalizations for rtCGM and BG patients increased and decreased marginally, respectively. Conclusions: rtCGM users had non-significantly higher pre-post differences in medical costs but significantly higher pre-post differences in pharmacy costs (mostly due to the rtCGM costs themselves) compared to BG users. Changes in adverse events were minimal.


2012 ◽  
Vol 08 (01) ◽  
pp. 22 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Susan Walker ◽  
Stephanie J Fonda ◽  
Sara Salkind ◽  
Robert A Vigersky ◽  
◽  
...  

Previous research has shown that realtime continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) is a useful clinical and lifestyle aid for people with type 1 diabetes. However, its usefulness and efficacy for people with type 2 diabetes is less known and potentially controversial, given the continuing controversy over the efficacy of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in this cohort. This article reviews theextantliterature on RT-CGM for people with type 2 diabetes, and enumerates several of the advantages and disadvantages of this technology from the perspective of providers and patients. Even patients with type 2 diabetes who are not using insulin and/or are relatively well controlled on oral medications have been shown to spend a significant amount of time each day in hyperglycemia. Additional tools beyond SMBG are necessary to enable providers and patients to clearly grasp and manage the frequency and amplitude of glucose excursions in people with type 2 diabetes who are not on insulin. While SMBG is useful for measuring blood glucose levels, patients do not regularly check and SMBG does not enable many to adequately manage blood glucose levels or capture marked and sustained hyperglycemic excursions. RT-CGM systems, valuable diabetes management tools for people with type 1 diabetes or insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, have recently been used in type 2 diabetes patients. Theextantstudies, although few, have demonstrated that the use of RT-CGM has empowered people with type 2 diabetes to improve their glycemic control by making and sustaining healthy lifestyle choices.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document