Real-World Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Systems Among Adolescents and Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Reduced Burden, but Little Interest in Data Analysis

Type 1 diabetes-related distress: Current implications in care

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a complex chronic disease associated with major health and economic consequences, also involving important issues in the psychosocial sphere. In this regard, T1D-related distress, defined as the emotional burden of living with T1D, has emerged as a specific entity related to the disease. Diabetes distress (DD) is an overlooked but prevalent condition in people living with T1D, and has significant implications in both glycemic control and mental health in this population. Although overlapping symptoms may be found between DD and mental health disorders, specific approaches should be performed for the diagnosis of this problem. In recent years, different DD-targeted interventions have been postulated, including behavioral and psychosocial strategies. Moreover, new technologies in this field may be helpful to address DD in people living with T1D. In this article, we summarize the current knowledge on T1D-related distress, and we also discuss the current approaches and future perspectives in its management.

Associations between use of diabetes technology and diabetes distress: a Danish cross-sectional survey of adults with type 1 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

The study aimed to investigate independent and combined associations between insulin delivery method (insulin pump therapy (IPT) vs multiple daily injections (MDI)), glucose monitoring method (intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) and real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) vs blood glucose metre (BGM)) and diabetes distress (DD) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We combined data from two Danish questionnaire-based surveys, the Steno Tech Survey (n=1591) and the Type 1 Diabetes Distress Scale (T1-DDS) validation survey (n=4205), in which individuals aged ≥18 years with T1D were invited to participate. The 28-item T1-DDS was used to measure DD and DD scores were categorised as little or no distress (score <2.0), moderate distress (2.0-2.9) and high distress (score ≥3.0). Associations between insulin delivery, glucose monitoring methods and DD were assessed using linear regression.

RESULTS

Among 2068 adults with T1D who responded to one of the surveys, the use of IPT was associated with a lower total T1-DDS score (-0.09, 95% CI 0.16 to -0.03) compared with MDI and adjusted for glucose monitoring method. The use of CGM was associated with a higher total T1-DDS score (0.11, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.18) compared with BGM and adjusted for the insulin delivery method. IPT was still associated with a lower T1-DDS score, regardless of being combined with BGM (-0.17, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.06) or CGM (-0.13, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.05), compared with MDI with CGM. No association was found between the type of CGM (isCGM vs rtCGM) and DD among either IPT or MDI users when restricting analysis to individuals using CGM.

CONCLUSIONS

Among Danish adults with T1D, the use of IPT was associated with lower levels of DD, while CGM use was associated with higher levels of DD. DD should be addressed when introducing people with T1D to diabetes technology, CGM in particular.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04311164 (Results).

Comparing Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose: Advantages and Limitations for Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes

Objectives We aimed to determine the benefits and drawbacks of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) compared with those of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and their impact on glycemic control, hypo- and hyperglycemic episodes, exercise, quality of life, and psychosocial factors. Methodology This quantitative, comparative, cross-sectional study was conducted between July 2022 and March 2023 at the Pediatric Endocrine Outpatient Clinic, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Saudi Arabia. Data were obtained via a clinical interview with children and adolescents with T1D aged 2-18 years. Results The study involved 121 participants, with 71 (58.7%) male patients and 50 (41.3%) female patients. The participants' mean age was 11.9 ± 4.4 years. Compared with patients using SMBG, patients using rtCGM demonstrated a more significant decrease in the mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level from baseline (7.79 ± 1.17 vs. 8.92 ± 1.63, P = 0.001), a reduction in the number of hypoglycemic episodes (85.7% vs. 70.6%, P = 0.028), and stable blood glucose level during exercise (97.2% vs. 76.4%, P = 0.001). Additionally, 65 (92.9%) rtCGM users had undisturbed sleep compared with 22 (43.1%) SMBG users. Approximately 64 (91.4%) rtCGM users reported that the sensor helped decrease their anxiety levels and pain sensations. Conclusions In this novel study in Saudi Arabia, rtCGM demonstrated a significantly better impact than SMBG on glycemic control, hypo- and hyperglycemic episodes, and psychosocial factors in children and adolescents with T1D.

Effectiveness, safety and costs of the FreeStyle Libre glucose monitoring system for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in Spain: a prospective, uncontrolled, pre-post study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, safety and costs of FreeStyle Libre (FSL) glucose monitoring system for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in Spain.

DESIGN

Prospective, multicentre pre-post study.

SETTING

Thirteen Spanish public hospitals recruited patients from January 2019 to March 2020, with a 12-month follow-up.

PARTICIPANTS

156 patients were included.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary: glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change. Secondary: severe hypoglycaemic events (self-reported and clinical records), quality of life, diabetes treatment knowledge, treatment satisfaction, adverse events, adherence, sensor usage time and scans. Healthcare resource utilisation was assessed for cost analysis from the National Health System perspective, incorporating direct healthcare costs. Data analysis used mixed regression models with repeated measures. The intervention's total cost was estimated by multiplying health resource usage with unit costs.

RESULTS

In the whole sample, HbA1c increased significantly (0.32%; 95% CI 0.10% to 0.55%). In the subgroup with baseline HbA1c≥7.5% (n=88), there was a significant reduction at 3 months (-0.46%; 95% CI -0.69% to -0.23%), 6 months (-0.49%; 95% CI -0.73% to -0.25%) and 12 months (-0.43%; 95% CI -0.68% to -0.19%). Well-controlled patients had a significant 12-month worsening (0.32%; 95% CI 0.18% to 0.47%). Self-reported severe hypoglycaemia significantly decreased compared with the previous year for the whole sample (-0.37; 95% CI -0.62 to -0.11). Quality of life and diabetes treatment knowledge showed no significant differences, but satisfaction increased. Adolescents had lower sensor usage time and scans than children. Reduction in HbA1c was significantly associated with device adherence. No serious adverse effects were observed. Data suggest that use of FSL could reduce healthcare resource use (strips and lancets) and costs related to productivity loss.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of FSL in young patients with T1DM was associated with a significant reduction in severe hypoglycaemia, and improved HbA1c levels were seen in patients with poor baseline control. Findings suggest cost savings and productivity gains for caregivers. Causal evidence is limited due to the study design. Further research is needed to confirm results and assess risks, especially for patients with lower baseline HbA1c.

Experience with burdens of diabetes device use that affect uptake and optimal use in people with type 1 diabetes

Diabetes technology continues to advance, with more individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) adopting insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems that integrate real-time glucose data with an algorithm to assist with insulin dosing decisions. These technologies are linked with benefits to glycemic outcomes (e.g. increased time in target range), diabetes management behaviors, and quality of life. However, current devices and systems are not without barriers and hassles for the user. The intent of this review is to describe the personal challenges and reactions that users experience when interacting with current diabetes technologies, which can affect their acceptance and motivation to engage with their devices. This review will discuss user experiences and strategies to address three main areas: (i) the emotional burden of utilizing a wearable device; (ii) the perceived and experienced negative social consequences of device use; and (iii) the practical challenges of wearing devices.

High diabetes-specific distress among adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia despite widespread use of sensor technology

AIMS

Impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) has been associated with increased diabetes distress and use of sensor technology can reduce diabetes distress. The aim of this study was to examine diabetes-specific distress (emotions, cognitions, behaviours) in relation to IAH status and use of glucose sensors in people with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

Individuals with type 1 diabetes from an academic diabetes outpatient clinic completed the Clarke questionnaire (to assess hypoglycaemic awareness), Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID-5), Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey-II (HFS-II), Attitudes to Awareness of Hypoglycaemia Survey (A2A), Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument Survey (NCSI) and Hyperglycaemia Avoidance Scale (HAS).

RESULTS

Of the 422 participants (51.9% male, diabetes duration 30 [16-40] years, HbA1c 60 ± 11 mmol/mol [7.6 ± 1.0%], 351 [88.2%] used a glucose sensor; 82 [19.4%]) had IAH. Compared to individuals with normal awareness, those with IAH more often had PAID-5 scores ≥8 (35.4% vs. 21.5%, p = 0.008) and higher scores on all HFS-II subscores (total [40.2 ± 21.5 vs. 27.9 ± 17.2, p < 0.001]), HFS-II behaviour (18.5 ± 10.0 vs. 15.1 ± 8.0, p = 0.005), HFS-II worry (21.8 ± 13.5 vs. 12.7 ± 10.9, p < 0.001), HAS worries (17.5 ± 7.3 vs. 14.3 ± 7.0, p < 0.001) and NCSI hypoglycaemia items. HAS behaviour, A2A and NCSI hyperglycaemia scores did not differ between individuals with or without IAH. Restricting the analyses to individuals using a glucose sensor did not materially change the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes-specific distress remains a major problem among individuals with type 1 diabetes, particularly those with IAH, despite the widespread use of (intermittently scanned) sensor technology. Further studies are needed to examine strategies to lower diabetes-specific distress in individuals with IAH.

Efficacy of unblinded and blinded intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring for glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) is used for unblinded or blinded monitoring of interstitial glucose. We aimed to compare the efficacy of blinded and unblinded isCGM with the FreeStyle Libre system for glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This randomized clinical trial conducted between October 2018 and September 2019 across four endocrinology practices in China included 273 adults aged ≥18 years with T1D, who were randomly divided in a 2:1 ratio into the unblinded (n = 199) or blinded isCGM group (n = 78). In the blinded group, the clinician used FreeStyle Libre Pro system for monitoring, but self-monitoring was also performed by the patients.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixteen (78%) participants completed the study (152 [75%] in the unblinded and 64 [82%] in the blinded group). At 12 weeks, a significant increase in TIR (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was only observed in the unblinded group, along with a significant decrease in hyperglycemia (>13.9 mmol/L), hypoglycemia (<3.0 mmol/L), glycemic variability. Further, the mean HbA1c reduction from baseline to 12 weeks was 0.5% in the unblinded isCGM group and 0.4% in the blinded isCGM group respectively (P < 0.001), but the significance did not remain after adjustment for between-group differences. Finally, 99.5% of the blinded isCGM values and 93.8% the of unblinded isCGM values were obtained at the final visit.

CONCLUSIONS

The unblinded isCGM system was associated with benefits for glucose management, but nearly 100% of the attempted profiles were obtained successfully with the blinded isCGM system. Thus, combining real-time and retrospective data with isCGM might be the most impactful way to utilize flash glycemic monitoring devices.