A Randomized Clinical Trial Assessing Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Use With Standardized Education With or Without a Family Behavioral Intervention Compared With Finger-stick Blood Glucose Monitoring in Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes

Diabetes Care ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. dc201060
Author(s):  
Linda A. DiMeglio ◽  
Lauren G. Kanapka ◽  
Daniel J. DeSalvo ◽  
Marisa E. Hilliard ◽  
Lori M. Laffel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Behavioral Intervention ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Blood Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Very Young Children ◽  
Finger Stick

scholarly journals A Randomized Clinical Trial Assessing Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Use With Standardized Education With or Without a Family Behavioral Intervention Compared With Finger-stick Blood Glucose Monitoring in Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda A. DiMeglio ◽  
Lauren G. Kanapka ◽  
Daniel J. DeSalvo ◽  
Marisa E. Hilliard ◽  
Lori M. Laffel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Young Children ◽  
Behavioral Intervention ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Blood Glucose Monitoring

<b>Objective: </b>This study evaluated the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) combined with family behavioral intervention (CGM+FBI) and CGM alone (Standard-CGM) on glycemic outcomes and parental quality of life compared with blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in children ages 2 to <8 years with type 1 diabetes <p><b>Research Design and Methods: </b>A multicenter (N=14), 6-month, randomized controlled trial including 143 youth 2 to <8 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Primary analysis included treatment group comparisons of percent time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) across follow-up visits.</p> <p><b>Results: </b>About 90% of participants in the CGM groups used CGM ≥ 6 days/week at 6-months. Between-group TIR comparisons showed no significant changes: CGM+FBI vs BGM = 3.2% [95% CI -0.5%, 7.0%], Standard-CGM vs BGM = 0.5% [-2.6% to 3.6%], CGM+FBI vs Standard-CGM = 2.7% [-0.6%, 6.1%]. Mean time <70 mg/dL was reduced from baseline to follow-up in the CGM+FBI (from 5.2% to 2.6%) and Standard-CGM (5.8% to 2.5%) groups , compared with 5.4% to 5.8% with BGM (CGM+FBI vs. BGM, p<0.001, Standard-CGM vs BGM p<0.001). No severe hypoglycemic events occurred in the CGM+FBI group, 1 in the Standard-CGM, and 5 in the BGM. CGM+FBI parents reported greater reductions in diabetes burden and fear of hypoglycemia compared with Standard-CGM (p=0.008 and 0.04) and BGM (p=0.02 and 0.002). </p> <b>Conclusions: </b>CGM used consistently over a 6-month period in young children with type 1 diabetes did not improve TIR but did significantly reduce time in hypoglycemia. The FBI benefited parental well-being.

scholarly journals A Randomized Clinical Trial Assessing Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Use With Standardized Education With or Without a Family Behavioral Intervention Compared With Finger-stick Blood Glucose Monitoring in Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda A. DiMeglio ◽  
Lauren G. Kanapka ◽  
Daniel J. DeSalvo ◽  
Marisa E. Hilliard ◽  
Lori M. Laffel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Young Children ◽  
Behavioral Intervention ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Blood Glucose Monitoring

<b>Objective: </b>This study evaluated the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) combined with family behavioral intervention (CGM+FBI) and CGM alone (Standard-CGM) on glycemic outcomes and parental quality of life compared with blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in children ages 2 to <8 years with type 1 diabetes <p><b>Research Design and Methods: </b>A multicenter (N=14), 6-month, randomized controlled trial including 143 youth 2 to <8 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Primary analysis included treatment group comparisons of percent time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) across follow-up visits.</p> <p><b>Results: </b>About 90% of participants in the CGM groups used CGM ≥ 6 days/week at 6-months. Between-group TIR comparisons showed no significant changes: CGM+FBI vs BGM = 3.2% [95% CI -0.5%, 7.0%], Standard-CGM vs BGM = 0.5% [-2.6% to 3.6%], CGM+FBI vs Standard-CGM = 2.7% [-0.6%, 6.1%]. Mean time <70 mg/dL was reduced from baseline to follow-up in the CGM+FBI (from 5.2% to 2.6%) and Standard-CGM (5.8% to 2.5%) groups , compared with 5.4% to 5.8% with BGM (CGM+FBI vs. BGM, p<0.001, Standard-CGM vs BGM p<0.001). No severe hypoglycemic events occurred in the CGM+FBI group, 1 in the Standard-CGM, and 5 in the BGM. CGM+FBI parents reported greater reductions in diabetes burden and fear of hypoglycemia compared with Standard-CGM (p=0.008 and 0.04) and BGM (p=0.02 and 0.002). </p> <b>Conclusions: </b>CGM used consistently over a 6-month period in young children with type 1 diabetes did not improve TIR but did significantly reduce time in hypoglycemia. The FBI benefited parental well-being.

136-OR: Nocturnal Hypoglycemia Prevention Strategies Used by People with Type 1 Diabetes According to Their Insulin Delivery and Blood Glucose Monitoring Technology

Diabetes ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 136-OR
Author(s):  
MERYEM K. TALBO ◽  
VIRGINIE MESSIER ◽  
KATHERINE DESJARDINS ◽  
RÉMI RABASA-LHORET ◽  
ANNE-SOPHIE BRAZEAU ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Insulin Delivery ◽  
Blood Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Prevention Strategies ◽  
Monitoring Technology ◽  
Nocturnal Hypoglycemia

scholarly journals Comparison between adherence assessments and blood glucose monitoring measures to predict A1c in type 1 diabetes

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Heiden Teló ◽  
Martina Schaan de Souza ◽  
Thaís Sturmer Andrade ◽  
Beatriz D'Agord Schaan
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Blood Glucose Monitoring
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document