Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
INTRODUCTION: Many challenges are associated with optimizing glycemic control in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D); combining data from smart insulin pens and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) could mitigate some of these obstacles. METHODS: This one-arm, prospective, observational study investigated the effects of introducing a smart pen on glycemic control in pediatric patients with T1D who were using CGM. Children and adolescents with T1D who had been prescribed a smart pen for basal and/or bolus insulin injections were enrolled from three clinics in Sweden. Outcomes compared between baseline and follow-up (≥ 12 months) included: mean numbers of daily (over 24 h) and nocturnal hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic events; time above range (TAR; > 180 mg/dL); time below range (TBR; level 1: 54 to < 70 mg/dL; level 2: < 54 mg/dL); time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL); and missed bolus-dose (MBD) meals. RESULTS: Overall, 39 patients were included. Mean numbers of daily hypoglycemic events (- 31.4%; p = 0.00035) and nocturnal hypoglycemic events (- 24.4%; p = 0.043) were significantly reduced from baseline to follow-up. Mean daily TBR level 2 was reduced from 2.82% at baseline to 2.18% at follow-up (- 0.64 percentage points; p = 0.025). There were no statistically significant changes in number of daily hyperglycemic events, MBD meals, TIR, TAR, or TBR level 1. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing smart insulin pens was associated with a reduced number of hypoglycemic events and decreases in TBR level 2, demonstrating a potential benefit for glycemic control in pediatric patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adolfsson et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: