Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Introduction: Continuous glucose monitors (CGM) may improve diabetes self-management in youth-onset type 2 diabetes (Y-T2D), but feasibility in Y-T2D on infrequent self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) regimens and device burden is unclear. This is an interim analysis of primary aims to assess CGM feasibility (recruitment >60%) and acceptability (wear time >60%) and explore diabetes burden and adverse events. Methods: This is an active 12-week randomized 2:1, two arm parallel pilot trial of CGM vs fingerstick monitoring (Con) in Y-T2D prescribed SMBG <3 times daily (not on multiple insulin injections). Diabetes distress was measured with Diabetes Distress and CGM benefit/burden scale. Results: Between August-December 2023, recruitment rate was 60% [40 screened, 24 enrolled (14 CGM, 10 Con; 77% female, 69% Black, 14.9±3.8y, BMI: 36.2±7.7 kg/m2, HbA1c: 7.3± 2.6% (mean±SD))]. Most cited reasons for declining were reluctance to wear a device (31%) or study participation (25%). 45% (6 CGM, 5 Con) completed the study; one Con was lost to follow-up. Among CGM, wear time was 62% at 1st 6 weeks [n=11], 49% at 2nd 6 weeks [n=6], and 61% at 12 weeks [n=6], P=0.11. Among Con, blood glucoses were reported in 66% at 1st 6 weeks [n=6] and 20% at 12 weeks [n=5]. 75% of CGM users had sensors dislodged. Diabetes distress score did not change: CGM:1.8 ±0.9 to 1.3±0.1 and control: 1.2±0.2 to 1.2±0.1. No difference in mean CGM burden scale; 17±4.8 to ±7.6. Conclusion: CGM use in Y-T2D may be feasible but device-related events were common. There is no increase in disease burden with technology use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Patel et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: