Use of continuous glucose monitoring and its association with type 1 diabetes control in children over the first 3 years of reimbursement approval: Population data from the ČENDA registry
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
PubMed
33533545
DOI
10.1111/pedi.13184
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- CGM, children, registry, type 1 diabetes,
- MeSH
- časové faktory MeSH
- diabetes mellitus 1. typu krev farmakoterapie MeSH
- dítě MeSH
- glykovaný hemoglobin metabolismus MeSH
- hypoglykemika terapeutické užití MeSH
- inzulin terapeutické užití MeSH
- kojenec MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladiství MeSH
- předškolní dítě MeSH
- registrace MeSH
- selfmonitoring glykemie * MeSH
- sexuální faktory MeSH
- úhrada zdravotního pojištění MeSH
- věkové faktory MeSH
- Check Tag
- dítě MeSH
- kojenec MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladiství MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- předškolní dítě MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- Geografické názvy
- Česká republika MeSH
- Názvy látek
- glykovaný hemoglobin MeSH
- hypoglykemika MeSH
- inzulin MeSH
OBJECTIVE: Increased access to modern technologies is not always accompanied by a decrease in HbA1c. The aim of this study was to identify changes in the proportion of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) users since 2017, when general reimbursement for CGM became effective in Czechia, and to test whether HbA1c is associated with the percentage of time spent on CGM. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: All T1D children in the Czech national ČENDA registry (3197 children) were categorized according to their time spent on CGM and associations with age, sex, center size, and HbA1c were tested with calendar year as a stratification factor. RESULTS: The proportion of children with any CGM use increased from 37.9% in 2017 to 50.3% in 2018 and 74.8% in 2019. Of the CGM users, 16%, 28%, and 41% of the children spent >70% of their time on CGM over the 3 years of the study period, with an overrepresentation of children in the <10 years age group versus the older age groups (p < 0.001). The proportion of CGM users differed among centers and was positively associated with a large center size (>100 patients) (p < 0.001). HbA1c was negatively associated with the time spent on CGM (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A rapid increase in CGM use was reported over the 3 years after general reimbursement. HbA1c was associated with time spent on CGM, a continuing decrease was observed in the >70% category. Reimbursement for CGM likely contributes to the improvement of T1D control at the population level.
Department of Pediatrics 3rd Faculty of Medicine Prague Czech Republic
Department of Pediatrics Hospital České Budějovice České Budějovice Czech Republic
Department of Pediatrics Masaryk Hospital Ústí nad Labem Czech Republic
Department of Pediatrics University Hospital Brno Brno Czech Republic
Department of Pediatrics University Hospital Hradec Králové Czech Republic
Department of Pediatrics University Hospital Olomouc Olomouc Czech Republic
Department of Pediatrics University Hospital Ostrava Ostrava Czech Republic
Department of Pediatrics University Hospital Pilsen Pilsen Czech Republic
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Tauschmann M, Hovorka R. Technology in the management of type 1 diabetes mellitus - current status and future prospects. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2018;14:464-475.
van den Boom L, Karges B, Auzanneau M, et al. Temporal trends and contemporary use of insulin pump therapy and glucose monitoring among children, adolescents, and adults with type 1 diabetes between 1995 and 2017. Diabetes Care. 2019;42:2050-2056.
Miller KM, Hermann J, Foster N, et al. Longitudinal changes in continuous glucose monitoring use among individuals with type 1 diabetes: international comparison in the German and Austrian DPV and U.S. T1D exchange registries. Diabetes Care. 2020;43:1-2.
Šoupal J, Petruželková L, Grunberger G, et al. Glycemic outcomes in adults with T1D are impacted more by continuous glucose monitoring than by insulin delivery method: 3 years of follow-up from the COMISAIR study. Diabetes Care. 2020;43:37-43.
Battelino T, Conget I, Olsen B, et al. The use and efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy: a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia. 2012;55:3155-3162.
DeSalvo DJ, Miller KM, Hermann JM, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring and glycemic control among youth with type 1 diabetes: international comparison from the T1D exchange and DPV initiative. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018;19:1271-1275.
Clements MA, Schwandt A, Donaghue KC, et al. Five heterogeneous HbA1c trajectories from childhood to adulthood in youth with type 1 diabetes from three different continents: a group-based modeling approach. Pediatr Diabetes. 2019;20:920-931.
Sumnik Z, Szypowska A, Iotova V, et al. Persistent heterogeneity in diabetes technology reimbursement for children with type 1 diabetes: the SWEET perspective. Pediatr Diabetes. 2019;20:434-443.
Šumník Z, Venháčová J, Škvor J, et al. Five years of improving diabetes control in Czech children after the establishment of the population-based childhood diabetes register ČENDA. Pediatr Diabetes. 2020;21:77-87.
Cinek O, Kulich M, Sumnik Z. The incidence of type 1 diabetes in young Czech children stopped rising. Pediatr Diabetes. 2012;13:559-563.
American Diabetes Association; European Association for the Study of Diabetes; International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine; International Diabetes Federation. Consensus statement on the worldwide standardisation of the HbA1c measurement. Diabetologia. 2007;50:2042-2043.
Mastrototaro J. The MiniMed continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS). J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 1999;12(3):751-758.
Westen SC, Warnick JL, Albanese-O'Neill A, et al. Objectively measured adherence in adolescents with type 1 diabetes on multiple daily injections and insulin pump therapy. J Pediatr Psychol. 2019;44:21-31.
Szypowska A, Schwandt A, Svensson J, et al. Insulin pump therapy in children with type 1 diabetes: analysis of data from the SWEET registry. Pediatr Diabetes. 2016;17(23):38-45.
Hásková A, Radovnická L, Petruželková L, et al. Real-time CGM is superior to flash glucose monitoring for glucose control in type 1 diabetes: the CORRIDA randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2020;43:2744-2750.
Birkebaek N, Hermann J, Hanberger L, et al. Centre size and glycemic control: an international study with 504 centers from seven countries. Diabetes Care. 2019;42:37-39.
Sandig D, Grimsmann J, Reinauer C, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes: real-world data from the German/Austrian prospective diabetes follow-up registry. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020;22:602-612.
Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, et al. Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes Care. 2019;42:1593-1603.
Sherr JL, Tauschmann M, Battelino T, et al. ISPAD clinical practice consensus guidelines 2018: diabetes technologies. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018;19(27):302-325.
Szypowska A, Ramotowska A, Dzygalo K, Golicki D. Beneficial effect of real-time continuous glucose monitoring system on glycemic control in type 1 diabetic patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur J Endocrinol. 2012;166:567-574.
Low-Carbohydrate Diet among Children with Type 1 Diabetes: A Multi-Center Study
