Author:
,Laffel Lori,Harrington Kara,Hanono Anat,Naik Nisha,Ambler-Osborn Louise,Schultz Alan,DiMeglio Linda,Woerne Stephanie,Jolivette Heather,Ismail Heba,Tebbe Megan,Newman America,Legge Megan,Tamborlane William,Van Name Michelle,Weyman Kate,Finnegan Jennifer,Steffen Amy,Zgorski Melinda,DeSalvo Daniel,Hilliard Marisa,DeLaO Kylie,Xie Cicilyn,Levy Wendy,Wadwa R. Paul,Forlenza Greg,Majidi Shideh,Alonso Guy,Weber Isabel,Clay Michelle,Simmons Emily,Nathan Brandon,Sunni Muna,Sweet Jessica,Pappenfus Beth,Kogler Anne,Ludwig Marrissa,Nelson Brittney,Street Anne,Weingartner Darcy,Albanese-O’Neill Anastasia,Haller Michael,Adams Janey,Cintron Miriam,Thomas Nicole,Kelley Jennifer,Simmons Jill,William George,Brendle Faith,Goland Robin,Williams Kristen,Gandica Rachelle,Pollak Sarah,Casciano Emily,Robinson Elizabeth,Willi Steven,Minnock Pantea,Olivos Diana,Carchidi Cathy,Grant Brian,Wong Jenise C.,Adi Saleh,Corathers Sarah,Sheanon Nicole,Fox Cathy,Weis Tammy,MacLeish Sarah,Wood Jamie,Casey Terri,Campbell Wendy,McGuigan Paul,Wintergerst Kupper,Watson Sara,Kingery Suzanne,Pierce Gwen,Ruch Heather,Rayborn Lauren,Rodriguez-Luna Manuel,Deuser Amy
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
This study evaluated the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) combined with family behavioral intervention (CGM+FBI) and CGM alone (Standard-CGM) on glycemic outcomes and parental quality of life compared with blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in children ages 2 to <8 years with type 1 diabetes.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
This was a multicenter (N = 14), 6-month, randomized controlled trial including 143 youth 2 to <8 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Primary analysis included treatment group comparisons of percent time in range (TIR) (70–180 mg/dL) across follow-up visits.
RESULTS
Approximately 90% of participants in the CGM groups used CGM ≥6 days/week at 6 months. Between-group TIR comparisons showed no significant changes: CGM+FBI vs. BGM 3.2% (95% CI −0.5, 7.0), Standard-CGM vs. BGM 0.5% (−2.6 to 3.6), CGM+FBI vs. Standard-CGM 2.7% (−0.6, 6.1). Mean time with glucose level <70 mg/dL was reduced from baseline to follow-up in the CGM+FBI (from 5.2% to 2.6%) and Standard-CGM (5.8% to 2.5%) groups, compared with 5.4% to 5.8% with BGM (CGM+FBI vs. BGM, P < 0.001, and Standard-CGM vs. BGM, P < 0.001). No severe hypoglycemic events occurred in the CGM+FBI group, one occurred in the Standard-CGM group, and five occurred in the BGM group. CGM+FBI parents reported greater reductions in diabetes burden and fear of hypoglycemia compared with Standard-CGM (P = 0.008 and 0.04) and BGM (P = 0.02 and 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS
CGM used consistently over a 6-month period in young children with type 1 diabetes did not improve TIR but did significantly reduce time in hypoglycemia. The FBI benefited parental well-being.
Funder
The Leona M. And Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
Subject
Advanced and Specialized Nursing,Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism,Internal Medicine