4.7 Article

Use of the GlucoWatch biographer in children with type 1 diabetes

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 111, 期 4, 页码 790-794

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.111.4.790

关键词

type 1 diabetes; GlucoWatch biographer; hypoglycemia; hemoglobin A1c

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To determine whether use of the GlucoWatch biographer improves glucose control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Methods. Forty children in poor glucose control (glycohemoglobin [HbA1c] > 8%) were randomized to diabetes management with or without glucose monitoring using the biographer. Conventional glucose monitoring was performed 4 times daily in both groups. Those randomized to the biographer group were asked to wear the device 4 times per week for 3 months (intervention phase) and to perform blood glucose monitoring if the biographer alerted them that glucose was less than or equal to70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) or greater than or equal to300 mg/dL (16.7 mmol/L). After 3 months, all patients received biographers and were followed for 6 months (observation phase). HbA1c values were determined at baseline and after 1, 3, 6, and 9 months. Results. The median HbA1c was 8.6% and 8.9% (control versus biographer) at baseline and was significantly lower in the biographer group after 3 months (8.4% vs 9%). More hypoglycemia was detected when subjects were wearing the biographer, especially at night. No severe hypoglycemia occurred. During the observation phase, HbA1c values at 6 months were 8.5% and 8.3% and at 9 months were 8.6% and 8.4% in the control and biographer groups, respectively. Two children dropped out of the study, 1 because of skin irritation from using the device. Conclusions. The GlucoWatch biographer was well tolerated by children and adolescents and significantly improved glucose control compared with standard therapy. The use of the biographer with an alarm to detect nocturnal hypoglycemia has the potential to increase the safety of diabetes management in children.

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

4.7
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