Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: Since 2016, German health insurance companies reimburse continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems for persons with insulin-dependent diabetes, leading to a tremendous increase of CGM use. This study assessed the use of CGM, the satisfaction with, and the data analysis behavior among yo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huhn, Friederike, Lange, Karin, Jördening, Mia, Ernst, Gundula
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10347979/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35255729
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/19322968221081216
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Since 2016, German health insurance companies reimburse continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems for persons with insulin-dependent diabetes, leading to a tremendous increase of CGM use. This study assessed the use of CGM, the satisfaction with, and the data analysis behavior among young people. METHODS: During a diabetes camp for young people from all over Germany, participants anonymously answered a questionnaire on their method of glucose monitoring, satisfaction and quality of CGM use, HbA1c, and diabetes distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale [PAID]-5). RESULTS: A total of 308 participants (age 21.4 ± 3.5 years; 73% female; diabetes duration 10.1 ± 5.9 years) completed the questionnaire. Approximately, 25% used self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), 46% intermittent-scanning continuous glucose monitoring (iscCGM), and 30% real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM). Mean HbA1c was slightly, but not significantly, higher among SMBG users compared with CGM users (8.0% ± 1.9% vs. 7.7% ± 1.4%; P = .791). Diabetes distress was not associated with the method of glucose monitoring (SMBG 5.6 vs. iscCGM 6.2 vs. rtCGM 6.5; P = .386). Overall, satisfaction with CGM use was very high; 98% of the CGM users reported better well-being with CGM compared with previous SMBG use. Only 19% of CGM users reported regular data analyses; their HbA1c was lower compared with other CGM users (7.2% ± 1.2% vs. 7.7% ± 1.4%; P = .039). CONCLUSIONS: In this large sample of young people, 75% were using a CGM system. Treatment satisfaction was very high, but CGM use was not associated with reduced diabetes distress or better glycemic control. However, young people who regularly analyzed their CGM data reported lower HbA1c levels.