ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To describe continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) derived glycemic variables, and study their association with HbA1c and socio-economic factors in young people with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). METHODS: Ninety-two participants [age 15.7 ± 5.0 y (mean ± SD), HbA1c 8.0 ± 1.5% (mean ± SD)] wore a professional CGM sensor for 14 d. RESULTS: Median (IQR) time in range (TIR) was 41 (18)%. Participants spent 41 ± 20% of their day in hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dl), and 14 (13)% in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dl). High glycemic variability (percent CV >36%) was seen in 92% participants. Older age at diagnosis was associated with higher TIR (ß = 0.267, p = 0.01), lower time above range (TAR) (ß = -0.352, p <0.001), but higher time below range (TBR) (ß = 0.274, p = 0.006). The use of NPH vs. glargine basal insulin was associated with higher TBR (ß = -0.262, p = 0.009) but lower TAR (ß = 0.202, p = 0.041). HbA1c showed negative correlation with TIR (r = -0.449, p <0.001) and TBR (r = -0.466, p <0.001) and positive correlation with TAR (r = 0.580, p <0.001) and mean glucose (r = 0.589, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate wide gaps between the recommended vs. real world glycemic variables in patients with T1DM in this region on multiple daily insulin injections. CGM identifies glycemic variability and complements HbA1c in improving glycemic control.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on glycemic control and acceptability of basic carbohydrate counting (BCC) in children and young adults with type 1 diabetes (T1DM). METHODS: Ninety-two children and young adults (6-25 y of age) with T1DM were randomized to receive either routine nutrition education (RNE), which addressed food groups, glycemic index, and effects of food and exercise on glycemia, or learn BCC with personalized portion size education. A continuous glucose monitoring study and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were performed at baseline and after 12 wk. The primary outcome was a change in time-in-range from baseline through 12 wk. A questionnaire on the acceptability of BCC was administered. RESULTS: At 12 wk, there was no significant difference in change in time-in-range between the two groups (BCC group: 1.2 ± 12.2; RNE group: 1.9 ± 12.3; P = 0.786). No significant changes were observed in the percentage of time that blood glucose was >180 or >250 mg/dL; <70 or <54 mg/dL; glycemic variability, percentage of nights with hypoglycemia and HbA1c. In subgroup analysis, there was a significant decrease in HbA1c in the BCC group among participants with higher maternal education (-0.5 versus 0.2, P = 0.042). The total score on the acceptability questionnaire was higher in the BCC group (P = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Among children and young adults in our region with T1DM, BCC provided flexibility in food choices and perception of greater ease of insulin adjustment. Although BCC was equivalent to RNE in terms of glycemic control, larger studies may reveal benefit in outcomes in certain subgroups.
