Continuous glucose monitoring in children and adolescents

The Relationship Between Glycated Hemoglobin and Time in Range in a Pediatric Population

In adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), time in range (TIR) [70-180 mg/dL] has been proposed as an additional metric besides glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). This retrospective monocentric cohort study determined the correlation between HbA1c and TIR during the 2, 4, and 12 weeks (TIR2w, TIR4w, and TIR12w) before consultation in a pediatric T1D population. A total of 168 children with T1D were included. Continuous glucose monitoring data, HbA1c, and demographic variables were collected. We found strong linear correlations between HbA1c and TIR2w (R = -0.571), HbA1c and TIR4w (R = -0.603), and between HbA1c and TIR12w (R = -0.624). A strong correlation exists between TIR2w and TIR12w, HbA1c and time above range (TAR), and between TIR and TAR at different time points. In conclusion, a strong correlation was found between HbA1c and TIR, making TIR a potentially complementary metric to HbA1c. TIR2w seems a viable alternative to TIR12w. TAR also seems promising in assessing glycemic control.

Practical Approach to Using Trend Arrows on Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in Type 1 Diabetes Adolescents Living Camp Setting Treated With Multiple Daily Injection or Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Insulin Therapy

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to determine the effect of an educational intervention on the use of trend arrows of a real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) to manage daily therapy decisions in a group of adolescents with type 1 diabetes attending a camp. The secondary aim was to evaluate the variations in total daily dose (TDD) of insulin requirement.

METHODS

Twenty patients (15-17 years) on multiple insulin injections (n = 8) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (n = 12) attended a training session at the beginning of the camp to learn our algorithm for the management of therapy depending on trend arrows. TDD, time in range (TIR), time above range (TAR), and time below range (TBR) (in the 24 hours and in the three hours after breakfast) before the training session (run-in) and at the end of the camp (T1) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Data showed a reduction of TAR (run-in 42.6%, T1 32.05%, P = .036) and an increase in TIR (run-in 52.9%, T1 62.4%, P = .013). Reduction of TBR (run-in 42.5%, T1 37.5%, P = .05) and improvement in TIR (run-in 49.0%, T1 57.0%, P = .02) were also observed in the post-breakfast period. Data showed a significant reduction in the TDD (run-in 52.02 ± 17.44 U/die, T1 46.49 ± 12.39 U/die, P = .024).

CONCLUSIONS

Statistically significant improvement of glycemic control and reduction of TTD were observed in all patients regardless of therapy type. The improvement between run-in and T1 demonstrates the importance of patients' education on the correct use of rt-CGM with simple algorithms for the management of therapy.

Technological Ecological Momentary Assessment Tools to Study Type 1 Diabetes in Youth: Viewpoint of Methodologies

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is one of the most common chronic childhood diseases, and its prevalence is rapidly increasing. The management of glucose in T1D is challenging, as youth must consider a myriad of factors when making diabetes care decisions. This task often leads to significant hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glucose variability throughout the day, which have been associated with short- and long-term medical complications. At present, most of what is known about each of these complications and the health behaviors that may lead to them have been uncovered in the clinical setting or in laboratory-based research. However, the tools often used in these settings are limited in their ability to capture the dynamic behaviors, feelings, and physiological changes associated with T1D that fluctuate from moment to moment throughout the day. A better understanding of T1D in daily life could potentially aid in the development of interventions to improve diabetes care and mitigate the negative medical consequences associated with it. Therefore, there is a need to measure repeated, real-time, and real-world features of this disease in youth. This approach is known as ecological momentary assessment (EMA), and it has considerable advantages to in-lab research. Thus, this viewpoint aims to describe EMA tools that have been used to collect data in the daily lives of youth with T1D and discuss studies that explored the nuances of T1D in daily life using these methods. This viewpoint focuses on the following EMA methods: continuous glucose monitoring, actigraphy, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, personal digital assistants, smartphones, and phone-based systems. The viewpoint also discusses the benefits of using EMA methods to collect important data that might not otherwise be collected in the laboratory and the limitations of each tool, future directions of the field, and possible clinical implications for their use.

The Effect of Lockdown and Physical Activity on Glycemic Control in Italian Children and Young Patients With Type 1 Diabetes

AIMS

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the impact of the lockdown established by the Italian government to limit the spread of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on glycemic control in a large sample of patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) based on age, type of insulin therapy, number of telemedicine visits and physical activity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated glycemic control in young T1D patients using the DexcomG6^® system before the Italian lockdown (February 10-23, 2020-Time 0) and during lockdown (April 17-30, 2020-Time 1). Data on age, type of insulin therapy, number of telemedicine visits and physical activity of 202 patients with T1D and a median age of 18.2 years (range: 6-39) were collected.

RESULTS

Data showed a significant improvement of TIR from 54.58% at T0 to 59.09% at T1 (p ≤0.0001). Glycemic control improved significantly in patients ≥14 years old, showing the best outcome in the "university students and young adults" group (55.40% at T0 and 61.37% at T1, p ≤0.001). All patients reduced physical activity during lockdown; in the 56 patients of "intense physical activity" group both at T0 and T1 TIR increased from ±56.91 to 64.11% (p ≤0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the lockdown led to an unexpected improvement in glycemic control of young patients with T1D. A healthier and stressless lifestyle changes in association with the maintenance of physical activity resulted in a significant age-proportional improvement in glycemic control.

A randomized trial comparing the rate of hypoglycemia--assessed using continuous glucose monitoring--in 125 preschool children with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin glargine or NPH insulin (the PRESCHOOL study)

BACKGROUND

Avoidance of hypoglycemia is a key consideration in treating young children with type 1 diabetes (T1DM).

KEY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate hypoglycemia with insulin glargine vs. neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in young children, using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

SUBJECTS

Children of 1 to <6 yr treated with once-daily glargine vs. once- or twice-daily NPH, with bolus insulin lispro/regular human insulin provided to all.

METHODS

Twenty-four week, multicenter, randomized, open-label study. Primary endpoint was event rate of composite hypoglycemia [symptomatic hypoglycemia, low CGM excursions (<3.9 mmol/L) or low fingerstick blood glucose (FSBG; <3.9 mmol/L)]. Noninferiority of glargine vs. NPH was assessed for the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-five patients (mean age, 4.2 yr) were randomized to treatment (glargine, n = 61; NPH, n = 64). At baseline, mean HbA1c was 8.0 and 8.2% with glargine and NPH, respectively. Composite hypoglycemia episodes/100 patient-yr was 1.93 for glargine and 1.69 for NPH; glargine noninferiority was not met. Events/100 patient-yr of symptomatic hypoglycemia were 0.26 for glargine vs. 0.33 for NPH; low CGM excursions 0.75 vs. 0.72; and low FSBG 1.93 vs.1.68. There was a slight difference in between-group severe/nocturnal/severe nocturnal hypoglycemia and glycemic control. All glargine-treated patients received once-daily injections; on most study days NPH-treated patients received twice-daily injections.

CONCLUSIONS

While glargine noninferiority was not achieved, in young children with T1DM, there was a slight difference in hypoglycemia outcomes and glycemic control between glargine and NPH. Once-daily glargine may therefore be a feasible alternative basal insulin in young populations, in whom administering injections can be problematic.