A Randomized Clinical Trial Assessing Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Use With Standardized Education With or Without a Family Behavioral Intervention Compared With Fingerstick Blood Glucose Monitoring in Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes.

ObjectiveThis study evaluated the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) combined with family behavioral intervention (CGM+FBI) and CGM alone (Standard-CGM) on glycemic outcomes and parental quality of life compared with blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in children ages 2 to <8 years with type 1 diabetes.Research design and methodsThis was a multicenter (N = 14), 6-month, randomized controlled trial including 143 youth 2 to <8 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Primary analysis included treatment group comparisons of percent time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) across follow-up visits.ResultsApproximately 90% of participants in the CGM groups used CGM ≥6 days/week at 6 months. Between-group TIR comparisons showed no significant changes: CGM+FBI vs. BGM 3.2% (95% CI -0.5, 7.0), Standard-CGM vs. BGM 0.5% (-2.6 to 3.6), CGM+FBI vs. Standard-CGM 2.7% (-0.6, 6.1). Mean time with glucose level <70 mg/dL was reduced from baseline to follow-up in the CGM+FBI (from 5.2% to 2.6%) and Standard-CGM (5.8% to 2.5%) groups, compared with 5.4% to 5.8% with BGM (CGM+FBI vs. BGM, P < 0.001, and Standard-CGM vs. BGM, P < 0.001). No severe hypoglycemic events occurred in the CGM+FBI group, one occurred in the Standard-CGM group, and five occurred in the BGM group. CGM+FBI parents reported greater reductions in diabetes burden and fear of hypoglycemia compared with Standard-CGM (P = 0.008 and 0.04) and BGM (P = 0.02 and 0.002).ConclusionsCGM used consistently over a 6-month period in young children with type 1 diabetes did not improve TIR but did significantly reduce time in hypoglycemia. The FBI benefited parental well-being

A Randomized Clinical Trial Assessing Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Use With Standardized Education With or Without a Family Behavioral Intervention Compared With Fingerstick Blood Glucose Monitoring in Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE This study evaluated the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) combined with family behavioral intervention (CGM+FBI) and CGM alone (Standard-CGM) on glycemic outcomes and parental quality of life compared with blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in children ages 2 to &amp;lt;8 years with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This was a multicenter (N = 14), 6-month, randomized controlled trial including 143 youth 2 to &amp;lt;8 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Primary analysis included treatment group comparisons of percent time in range (TIR) (70–180 mg/dL) across follow-up visits. RESULTS Approximately 90% of participants in the CGM groups used CGM ≥6 days/week at 6 months. Between-group TIR comparisons showed no significant changes: CGM+FBI vs. BGM 3.2% (95% CI −0.5, 7.0), Standard-CGM vs. BGM 0.5% (−2.6 to 3.6), CGM+FBI vs. Standard-CGM 2.7% (−0.6, 6.1). Mean time with glucose level &amp;lt;70 mg/dL was reduced from baseline to follow-up in the CGM+FBI (from 5.2% to 2.6%) and Standard-CGM (5.8% to 2.5%) groups, compared with 5.4% to 5.8% with BGM (CGM+FBI vs. BGM, P &amp;lt; 0.001, and Standard-CGM vs. BGM, P &amp;lt; 0.001). No severe hypoglycemic events occurred in the CGM+FBI group, one occurred in the Standard-CGM group, and five occurred in the BGM group. CGM+FBI parents reported greater reductions in diabetes burden and fear of hypoglycemia compared with Standard-CGM (P = 0.008 and 0.04) and BGM (P = 0.02 and 0.002). CONCLUSIONS CGM used consistently over a 6-month period in young children with type 1 diabetes did not improve TIR but did significantly reduce time in hypoglycemia. The FBI benefited parental well-being. </jats:sec

The Contemporary Prevalence of Diabetic Neuropathy in Type 1 Diabetes: Findings From the T1D Exchange

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the contemporary prevalence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in participants with type 1 diabetes in the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry throughout the U.S. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS DPN was assessed with the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument Questionnaire (MNSIQ) in adults with ≥5 years of type 1 diabetes duration. A score of ≥4 defined DPN. Associations of demographic, clinical, and laboratory factors with DPN were assessed. RESULTS Among 5,936 T1D Exchange participants (mean ± SD age 39 ± 18 years, median type 1 diabetes duration 18 years [interquartile range 11, 31], 55% female, 88% non-Hispanic white, mean glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] 8.1 ± 1.6% [65.3 ± 17.5 mmol/mol]), DPN prevalence was 11%. Compared with those without DPN, DPN participants were older, had higher HbA1c, had longer duration of diabetes, were more likely to be female, and were less likely to have a college education and private insurance (all P &amp;lt; 0.001). DPN participants also were more likely to have cardiovascular disease (CVD) (P &amp;lt; 0.001), worse CVD risk factors of smoking (P = 0.008), hypertriglyceridemia (P = 0.002), higher BMI (P = 0.009), retinopathy (P = 0.004), reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (P = 0.02), and Charcot neuroarthropathy (P = 0.002). There were no differences in insulin pump or continuous glucose monitor use, although DPN participants were more likely to have had severe hypoglycemia (P = 0.04) and/or diabetic ketoacidosis (P &amp;lt; 0.001) in the past 3 months. CONCLUSIONS The prevalence of DPN in this national cohort with type 1 diabetes is lower than in prior published reports but is reflective of current clinical care practices. These data also highlight that nonglycemic risk factors, such as CVD risk factors, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower socioeconomic status, may also play a role in DPN development. </jats:sec