4.7 Article

Factors Predictive of Use and of Benefit From Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Type 1 Diabetes

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 32, Issue 11, Pages 1947-1953

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc09-0889

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Medtronic MiniMed
  2. Abbott Diabetes Care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE - To evaluate factors associated with successful use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) among participants with intensively treated type 1 diabetes in the juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Randomized Clinical Trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - The 232 participants randomly assigned to the CGM group (165 with baseline AlC >= 7.0% and 67 with AlC <7.0%) were asked to use CGM on a daily basis. The associations of baseline factors and early CGM use with CGM use >= 6 days/week in the 6th month and with change in AlC from baseline to 6 months were evaluated in regression models. RESULTS - The only baseline factors found to be associated wrath greater CGM use in month 6 were age >= 25 years (P < 0.001) and more frequent self-reported prestudy blood glucose meter measurements per day (P < 0.001). CGM use and the percentage of CGM glucose values between 71 and 180 mg/dl during the 1st month were predictive of CGM use in month 6 (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). More frequent CGM use was associated with a greater reduction in AlC from baseline to 6 months (P < 0.001), a finding present in all age-groups. CONCLUSIONS - After 6 months, near-daily CGM use is snore frequent in intensively treated adults with type 1 diabetes than in children and adolescents, although in all age-groups near-daily CGM use is associated with a similar reduction in AlC. Frequency of blood glucose meter monitoring and initial CGM use may help predict the likelihood of long-term CGM benefit in intensively treated patients with type 1 diabetes of all ages.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available