Dataset Information

Schooling diabetes: Use of continuous glucose monitoring and remote monitors in the home and school settings.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Despite significant advances in type 1 diabetes (T1D) management, achieving targeted glycemic control in pediatric patients remains a struggle. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with remote access holds the promise to address this challenge by allowing caregivers to monitor glucose, even when the child is not directly under their supervision. OBJECTIVE:To explore real-time and remote CGM practices in homes and schools, including caregiver expectations regarding this technology. SUBJECTS:Parents and daytime caregivers. METHODS:Respondents answered an anonymous survey assessing characteristics of CGM use. Cross-sectional data were collected and analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methods. RESULTS:Thirty-three parents and 17 daytime caregivers responded. Threshold alerts (alerts when patients reached certain pre-set high or low limits) were used most frequently, followed by rate of change alerts. Most parents and daytime caregivers responded to low- and high-threshold CGM alerts by confirming with a glucose meter prior to treatment; while about one-third endorsed treating lows without a confirmatory test. Most parents expected their child's daytime caregiver to respond to CGM alerts and daytime caregivers felt the parent's expectations of them were reasonable. All parents and most caregivers reported decreased overall worry/stress. Parents felt positive about CGM use and daytime caregivers felt comfortable with CGM. CONCLUSION:The positive and collaborative management reported by parents and daytime caregivers sets the stage for CGM to play an important role in the management of children with T1D both in the home and in the school settings.

SUBMITTER: Erie C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5601025 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Schooling diabetes: Use of continuous glucose monitoring and remote monitors in the home and school settings.

Erie Christine C Van Name Michelle A MA Weyman Kate K Weinzimer Stuart A SA Finnegan Jennifer J Sikes Kristin K Tamborlane William V WV Sherr Jennifer L JL

Pediatric diabetes 20170317 1

<h4>Background</h4>Despite significant advances in type 1 diabetes (T1D) management, achieving targeted glycemic control in pediatric patients remains a struggle. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with remote access holds the promise to address this challenge by allowing caregivers to monitor glucose, even when the child is not directly under their supervision.<h4>Objective</h4>To explore real-time and remote CGM practices in homes and schools, including caregiver expectations regarding this t ...[more]

PMID: 28303678

Similar Datasets

Project description:DisclaimerIn an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.PurposeInpatient diabetes management involves frequent assessment of glucose levels for treatment decisions. Here we describe a program for inpatient real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) at a community hospital and the accuracy of rtCGM-based glucose estimates.MethodsAdult inpatients with preexisting diabetes managed with intensive insulin therapy and a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were monitored via rtCGM for safety. An rtCGM system transmitted glucose concentration and trending information at 5-minute intervals to nearby smartphones, which relayed the data to a centralized monitoring station. Hypoglycemia alerts were triggered by rtCGM values of ≤85 mg/dL, but rtCGM data were otherwise not used in management decisions; insulin dosing adjustments were based on blood glucose values measured via blood sampling. Accuracy was evaluated retrospectively by comparing rtCGM values to contemporaneous point-of-care (POC) blood glucose values.ResultsA total of 238 pairs of rtCGM and POC data points from 10 patients showed an overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of 10.3%. Clarke error grid analysis showed 99.2% of points in the clinically acceptable range, and surveillance error grid analysis showed 89.1% of points in the lowest risk category. It was determined that for 25% of the rtCGM values, discordances in rtCGM and POC values would likely have resulted in different insulin doses. Insulin dose recommendations based on rtCGM values differed by 1 to 3 units from POC-based recommendations.ConclusionrtCGM for inpatient diabetes monitoring is feasible. Evaluation of individual rtCGM-POC paired values suggested that using rtCGM data for management decisions poses minimal risks to patients. Further studies to establish the safety and cost implications of using rtCGM data for inpatient diabetes management decisions are warranted.

Project description:BackgroundHigh postprandial glucose excursions may increase risk for disease. Individuals have widely varying glucose responses to different meals, and precision nutrition approaches often seek to personalize diets to minimize postprandial glycemic responses as measured by continuous glucose monitors (CGMs). However, it is unknown whether different CGM devices result in concordant meal rankings according to postprandial glycemic excursions.ObjectiveWe explored whether meal rankings according to postprandial glycemic excursions differ between 2 simultaneously worn CGMs.MethodsWe collected 27,489 simultaneous measurements from Dexcom G4 Platinum and Abbott Freestyle Libre Pro CGMs during 28 inpatient days in 16 adults without diabetes. Simultaneous glucose measurements obtained for 2 h following 760 ad libitum meals were used to compare within-subject meal rankings between the CGM devices according to their incremental glucose response.ResultsPostprandial responses to ad libitum meals were highly variable, with the Abbott and Dexcom systems resulting in within-subject incremental mean ± SD glucose CVs of 91.7 ± 1.9% and 94.2 ± 2.7%, respectively. Within-subject meal rankings for incremental glycemic responses were relatively discordant between CGMs, with a mean Kendall rank correlation coefficient of 0.43 ± 0.05. Meals in the bottom compared with those in the top half of incremental glycemic responses ranked by Abbott resulted in 50 ± 10% (P = 0.0002) less glycemic reduction as measured by Dexcom, and vice versa. The missing glycemic reduction by eating meals ranked according to the discordant CGM was inversely correlated with each subject's Kendall rank correlation coefficient (r = -0.95; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsPrecision nutrition approaches that use CGMs to personalize meal recommendations for minimizing glycemic excursions may be premature given the discordance of within-subject meal rankings between simultaneous CGM devices. More research is needed to clarify the source of this imprecision. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03407053.

Dataset Information

Schooling diabetes: Use of continuous glucose monitoring and remote monitors in the home and school settings.

Publications

Schooling diabetes: Use of continuous glucose monitoring and remote monitors in the home and school settings.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets