4.1 Article

The use of CGM to identify hypoglycemia and glycemic patterns in congenital hyperinsulinism

出版社

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/jpem-2023-0289

关键词

congenital hyperinsulinism; continuous glucose monitoring; hypoglycemia; MARD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to evaluate the glycemic pattern of children with HI on stable therapy and determine the frequency of undetected hypoglycemia using CGM. The results showed that CGM can help detect hypoglycemia and guide medical management.
Objectives Unrecognized hypoglycemia, especially in the neonatal population, is a significant cause of morbidity and poor neurologic outcomes. Children with congenital hyperinsulinism (HI) are at risk of hypoglycemia and point of care testing (POCT) is the standard of care. Studies have shown that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves glycemic control and reduces the frequency of hypoglycemia among children with type 1 diabetes. There is limited experience with the use of CGM in children with HI. To assess the glycemic pattern of children with HI on stable therapy and evaluate the frequency of undetected hypoglycemia using Dexcom G6 (R) CGM.Methods A cross-sectional, observational pilot study was done in 10 children, ages 3 months to 17 years. Each child had a clinical or genetic diagnosis of HI on stable medical therapy. Participants were asked to continue their usual POCT blood glucose monitoring, as well as wear a blinded Dexcom G6 (R) CGM during a 20-day study period with the potential of unblinding if there was severe hypoglycemia detected during the study trial.Results During the study period, 26 hypoglycemic events were noted by CGM in 60 % of the participants with 45 % occurring between 0600 and 0800.Conclusions CGM can help detect hypoglycemia and blood glucose trends during a time when there is usually no POCT, which can guide medical management. 30 % of our population had a dose adjustment in their medications. This study was limited by population size.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据