Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Glycemic Control in Young Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Benefit for Even the Simplest Insulin Administration Methods.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 100889084 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1557-8593 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 15209156 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Diabetes Technol Ther Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: Larchmont, NY : Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., c1999-
    • Subject Terms:
      Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1*/drug therapy; Adolescent ; Adult ; Blood Glucose ; Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/methods ; Female ; Glycated Hemoglobin/analysis ; Glycemic Control ; Humans ; Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use ; Insulin/therapeutic use ; Male ; Young Adult
    • Abstract:
      The impact of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glycemic control in young adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is controversial. Data from 888 young adults with T1D were reviewed (ages 18-30 years, 52% female, glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] 8.1% ± 1.5%). Prescription of CGM was recorded for 54% of young adults; 66% were pump users, 46% on insulin injections and carbohydrate (carb) counting, and 32% on insulin doses without carb counting ( P  ≤ 0.001). HbA1c was lower in young adults with CGM versus no CGM (7.7% ± 1.3% vs. 8.2% ± 1.7%, P  ≤ 0.001). Difference in HbA1c between CGM versus no CGM was greater in young adults noncarb counting (7.9% ± 1.4% vs. 8.9% ± 2.3%, P  = 0.002) than carb counting (7.7% ± 1.5% vs. 8.2% ± 1.7%, P  = 0.0008), or pump users (7.6 ± 1.2 vs. 7.9 ± 1.1, P  = 0.01). Prescription of CGM was higher with increasing complexity of insulin regimens; however, impact of CGM was greatest with simpler insulin administration methods. Further studies are needed to clarify this association.
    • References:
      Pediatrics. 2013 Apr;131(4):e1062-70. (PMID: 23530167)
      N Engl J Med. 2008 Oct 2;359(14):1464-76. (PMID: 18779236)
      JAMA. 2020 Jun 16;323(23):2388-2396. (PMID: 32543683)
      Diabetes Care. 2013 Jul;36(7):2009-14. (PMID: 23378621)
      Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020 Sep;22(9):645-650. (PMID: 31905008)
      Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019 Sep;21(9):493-498. (PMID: 31287721)
      Diabetes Care. 2016 Jun;39(6):e81-2. (PMID: 27208319)
      Diabetes Care. 2005 Jul;28(7):1618-23. (PMID: 15983310)
      Pediatr Diabetes. 2017 May;18(3):188-195. (PMID: 26875589)
      Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014 Feb;2(2):133-40. (PMID: 24622717)
      Diabetes Care. 2019 Dec;42(12):2220-2227. (PMID: 31548241)
      Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019 Feb;21(2):66-72. (PMID: 30657336)
    • Grant Information:
      P30 DK036836 United States DK NIDDK NIH HHS
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: Continuous Glucose Monitoring; Type 1 diabetes; Young adult
    • Accession Number:
      0 (Blood Glucose)
      0 (Glycated Hemoglobin A)
      0 (Hypoglycemic Agents)
      0 (Insulin)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20210317 Date Completed: 20220328 Latest Revision: 20221207
    • Publication Date:
      20240105
    • Accession Number:
      PMC9464086
    • Accession Number:
      10.1089/dia.2020.0624
    • Accession Number:
      33729833