Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019 Jun;152:111-118. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2019.05.015. Epub 2019 May 21.

Comparison of flash glucose monitoring with real time continuous glucose monitoring in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion.

Author information

1
Department of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium. Electronic address: guy.massa@jessazh.be.
2
Department of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium. Electronic address: inge.gys@jessazh.be.
3
Department of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium. Electronic address: esmiralda.bevilacqua@jessazh.be.
4
Department of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium. Electronic address: anne.wijnands@jessazh.be.
5
Department of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium. Electronic address: renate.zeevaert@jessazh.be.

Abstract

AIMS:

In 2016 intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) became the first reimbursed CGM system in Belgium. Many children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with multiple daily injections as well as with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) switched from self-monitoring of blood glucose to isCGM to monitor their treatment. In 2017 the Enlite® real-time CGM (rtCGM) system was reimbursed enabling its use with the Minimed® 640G insulin pump with integrated SmartGuard technology. In this study we compared the metabolic control during CSII with isCGM with that during rtCGM. Patient's satisfaction and side effects of the rtCGM system were also evaluated.

METHODS:

20 children with T1D, aged 5-16 years, were included. Metabolic control during the last month of isCGM use was compared to that during the 3rd and 6th month of rtCGM.

RESULTS:

Three patients stopped early rtCGM mainly due to calibration burden. The HbA1c level and the mean glucose value in the other patients did not change after switching to the rtCGM system. Glucose variability was smaller (46.2% vs 38.4% and 36.4%, p = 0.000). Time in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dl) was lower (7.4% vs 1.6% and 1.5%, p = 0.000). The main patient inconvenience was the sensor calibration.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our data show that during Enlite® rtCGM with the Minimed® 640G pump system glucose variability was smaller and the patients spent less time in hypoglycemia than during isCGM. The need for timely calibrations is considered as the main drawback of the system.

KEYWORDS:

Child; Insulin pump therapy; Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring; Real time continuous glucose monitoring; Type 1 diabetes

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center