Do-it-yourself continuous glucose monitoring in people aged 16 to 69 years with type 1 diabetes: A qualitative study.

AIMS: In many countries, real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) is not funded, and cost presents a barrier to access. A do-it-yourself conversion of intermittently scanned CGM (DIY-CGM) is a cheaper alternative. This qualitative study aimed to explore user experiences with DIY-CGM in people aged 16 to 69 years with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants for semi-structured virtual interviews exploring experiences of DIY-CGM use. Participants were recruited after completing the intervention arm of a crossover randomised controlled trial that evaluated DIY-CGM versus intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM). Participants were previously naive to DIY-CGM and rt-CGM but not isCGM. The DIY-CGM intervention consisted of a Bluetooth bridge connected to isCGM, adding rt-CGM functionality over 8 weeks. Interviews were transcribed, then thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: Interviews were with 12 people aged 16 to 65 years, with T1D: mean age ± SD 43 ± 14 years; baseline mean HbA1c ± SD 60 mmol/mol ± 9.9 (7.6 ± 0.9%) and time in range 59.8% ± 14.8%. Participants perceived that using DIY-CGM improved both glycaemic control and aspects of quality of life. Alarm and trend functionality allowed participants to perceive reduced glycaemic variability overnight and following meals. The addition of a smartwatch increased discrete access to glucose information. There was a high degree of trust in DIY-CGM. Challenges while using DIY-CGM included signal loss during vigorous exercise, alarm fatigue and short battery life. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that for users, DIY-CGM appears to be an acceptable alternative method of rt-CGM.

Effects of 12-Week Freestyle Libre 2.0 in Children with Type 1 Diabetes and Elevated HbA1c: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective: To investigate whether intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) reduced glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) compared with capillary self-monitored capillary blood glucose (SMBG) in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and elevated glycemic control. Research Design and Methods: This multicenter 12-week 1:1 randomized, controlled, parallel-arm trial included 100 participants with established T1D aged 4-13 years (mean 10.9 ± 2.3 years) naive to isCGM and with elevated HbA1c 7.5%-12.2% [58-110 mmol/mol] [mean HbA1c was 9.05 (1.3)%] [75.4 (13.9) mmol/mol]. Participants were allocated to 12-week intervention (isCGM; FreeStyle Libre 2.0; Abbott Diabetes Care, Witney, United Kingdom) (n = 49) or control (SMBG; n = 51). The primary outcome was the difference in change of HbA1c from baseline to 12 weeks. Results: There was no evidence of a difference between groups for change in HbA1c at 12 weeks (0.23 [95% confidence interval; CI: -0.21 to 0.67], P = 0.3). However, glucose-monitoring frequency increased with isCGM +4.89/day (95% CI 2.97-6.81; P < 0.001). Percent time below range (TBR) <3.9 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL) was reduced with isCGM -6.4% (10.6 to -4.2); P < 0.001. There were no differences in within group changes for Parent or Child scores of psychosocial outcomes at 12 weeks. Conclusions: For children aged 4-13 years with elevated Hba1c isCGM led to improvements in glucose testing frequency and reduced time below range. However, isCGM did not translate into reducing Hba1c or psychosocial outcomes compared to usual care over 12-weeks. The trial is registered within the Australian New Zealand Trial Registry on February 19, 2020 (ACTRN12620000190909p; ANZCTR.org.au) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (Universal Trial Number U1111-1237-0090).

Knowledge, safety, and impact of alcohol consumption in young adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: To explore the lived experiences of alcohol consumption among young adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted amongst young adults aged between 18 and 25 years, inclusive, with type 1 diabetes and experience consuming alcohol. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed to identify common themes regarding their experiences. RESULTS: The interviews confirmed that young adults with type 1 diabetes engage in social, and occasionally excessive, drinking behaviour. Furthermore, the interviews revealed four key themes: (i) Several sources contribute to a widely inconsistent understanding of the impact and management of alcohol consumption; (ii) Perceived inconvenience of maintaining healthy glycaemic control whilst drinking socially; (iii) Engagement in proactive strategies for harm reduction occurred when convenient; and (iv) Impact of modern diabetes technology in overcoming previous burdens and promoting glycaemic safety. CONCLUSION: Young adults with type 1 diabetes continue to need anticipatory education surrounding safe alcohol consumption and behaviours, as well as ongoing support and encouragement to ensure engagement with traditional self-management tasks. Significant alcohol-diabetes related safety issues, particularly hypoglycaemia do occur, and were captured within this small sample and study. Diabetes technology has an important complementary role along with education and tailored support strategies to support health and safe glucose control during alcohol consumption.

The OPTIMISE study protocol: a multicentre optimisation trial comparing continuous glucose monitoring, snacking habits, sleep extension and values-guided self-care interventions to improve glucose time-in-range in young people (13-20 years) with type 1 diabetes.

Purpose: The OPTIMISE study uses a Multiphase Optimisation Strategy (MOST) to identify the best combination of four interventions targeting key diabetes self-care behaviours for use in clinical practice to improve short-term glycaemic outcomes. Methods: This 4-week intervention trial will recruit 80 young people (aged 13-20 years) with type 1 diabetes ≥ 6 months duration), and pre-enrolment HbA1c ≥ 58 mmol/mol (7.5%) in the prior 6 months. Both main intervention and interaction effects will be estimated using a linear regression model with change in glucose time-in-range (TIR; 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) as the primary outcome. Participants will be randomised to one of 16 conditions in a factorial design using four intervention components: (1) real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), (2) targeted snacking education, (3) individualised sleep extension, and (4) values-guided self-care goal setting. Baseline and post-intervention glucose TIR will be assessed with blinded CGM. Changes in self-care (snacking behaviours, sleep habits and duration, and psychosocial outcomes) will be assessed at baseline and post-intervention to determine if these interventions impacted behaviour change. Discussion: The study outcomes will enable the selection of effective and efficient intervention components that increase glucose TIR in young people who struggle to achieve targets for glycaemic control. The optimised intervention will be evaluated in a future randomised controlled trial and guide the planning of effective clinical interventions in adolescents and young adults living with type 1 diabetes. Trial registration: This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on 7 October 2020 (ACTRN12620001017910) and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trails Registry Platform on 26 July 2020 (Universal Trial Number WHO U1111-1256-1248).

Insulin pump special eligibility criteria in New Zealand: a survey of prescriber opinion and practice.

AIM: Funding for insulin pump therapy (CSII) in New Zealand for people with type 1 diabetes is determined by meeting PHARMAC special authority (SA) criteria. We aimed to survey the opinion and practice of CSII prescribers with respect to the current SA criteria and contextualise the results with respect to contemporary literature and best practice. METHOD: Quantitative and semi-qualitative survey of CSII prescribers in New Zealand. Mixed qualitative and quantitative analyses were used. RESULTS: Of the 94 survey respondents, 88% stated the criteria needed updating. However, 75% maintained CSII funding by PHARMAC should remain under updated SA criteria. Most (60%) of respondents thought the current criteria did not promote health equity for Maori and Pasifika. Only 33% of respondents strictly adhered to the criteria. Thematic analyses of free text responses indicated that the criteria did not reflect quality of life benefits offered by CSII, changes in life course, clinician or patient autonomy, and beneficence of CSII not otherwise stated in the current criteria. CONCLUSION: The majority of CSII prescribers in New Zealand disagreed with the SA criteria, resulting in most not strictly adhering to them. Updated criteria are required to improve health equity, and reflect best evidence.

The effect of do-it-yourself real-time continuous glucose monitoring on psychological and glycemic variables in children with type 1 diabetes: A randomized crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) decreases fear of hypoglycemia (FOH) and improves glycemic control among those affected by type 1 diabetes (T1D). No studies to date have examined the impact of using do-it-yourself real-time continuous glucose monitoring (DIY RT-CGM) on psychological and glycemic outcomes. METHODS: Child-parent dyads were recruited for a multicentre randomized crossover trial. Children with T1D were current intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) users and aged 2-13 years. Families received either 6 weeks of DIY RT-CGM with parental remote monitoring (intervention) or 6 weeks of isCGM plus usual diabetes care (control), followed by a 4-week washout period, then crossed over. The primary outcome was parental FOH. Secondary outcomes were glycemic control using traditional CGM metrics, as well as a range of other psychosocial measures. FINDINGS: Fifty five child-parent dyads were recruited. The child mean age was 9.1 ± 2.8 years. Although, there was no effect on parental FOH, -0.1 (95%CI: -0.3, 0.1, p = 0.4), time-in-range (TIR) (%3.9-10 mmol/L) was significantly higher with DIY RT-CGM over isCGM (54.3% ± 13.7 vs. 48.1% ± 13.6), mean difference, 5.7% (95%CI 1.8, 9.6, p <0.004). There was no difference for time spent in hypoglycemia. Parent diabetes treatment satisfaction was significantly higher following DIY RT-CGM compared to isCGM, mean difference 5.3 (95%CI: 2.3, 8.2, p <0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of DIY RT-CGM versus isCGM did not improve parental FOH; however, TIR and parental satisfaction with diabetes treatment were significantly improved. This suggests in the short term, DIY RT-CGM appears safe and may offer families some clinically important advantages over isCGM.

Use of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in young people with high-risk type 1 diabetes-Extension phase outcomes following a 6-month randomized control trial.

AIMS: To describe the impact of a 12-month intervention using intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) on glycaemic control and glucose test frequency in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and high-risk glycaemic control (HbA1c ≥75 mmol/mol [≥9.0%]). METHODS: In total, 64 young people (aged 13-20 years, 16.6 ± 2.1 years; 48% female; 41% Maori or Pacific ethnicity; mean diabetes duration 7.5 ± 3.8 years) with T1D were enrolled in a 6-month, randomized, parallel-group study comparing glycaemic outcomes from the isCGM intervention (n = 33) to self monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) controls (n = 31). In this 6-month extension phase, both groups received isCGM; HbA1c , glucose time-in-range (TIR), and combined glucose test frequency were assessed at 9 and 12 months. RESULTS: At 12 months, the mean difference in HbA1c from baseline was -4 mmol/mol [-0.4%] (95% confidence interval, CI: -8, 1 mmol/mol [-0.8, 0.1%]; p = 0.14) in the isCGM intervention group, and -7 mmol/mol [-0.7%] (95% CI: -16, 1 mmol/mol [-1.5, 0.1%]; p = 0.08) in the SMBG control group. No participants achieved ≥70% glucose TIR (3.9-10.0 mmol/L). The isCGM intervention group mean rate of daily glucose testing was highest at 9 months, 2.4 times baseline rates (p < 0.001), then returned to baseline by 12 months (incidence rate ratio = 1.4; 95% CI: 0.9, 2.1; p = 0.091). CONCLUSIONS: The use of isCGM in young people with high-risk T1D resulted in transient improvements in HbA1c and glucose monitoring over a 9-month time frame; however, benefits were not sustained to 12 months.

Parental experiences of short term supported use of a do-it-yourself continuous glucose monitor (DIYrtCGM): A qualitative study.

AIMS: To investigate the experiences of parents caring for young children with type 1 diabetes type 1 diabetes using a do-it-yourself continuous glucose monitor (DIYrtCGM) in a supported setting. METHODS: Exit interviews were conducted with parents from 11 families at the end of the MiaoMiao study: a randomised cross-over trial focusing on parental fear of hypoglycaemia. Technical support was provided to participants while using DIYrtCGM during the trial. A convenience sampling approach was used to recruit parents. An in-depth, semi-structured interview approach was used. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Parents identified that remote monitoring enabled proactive management and that overall alarms/glucose alerts were useful. Some parents reported reductions in anxiety, increased independence for their child, and improvements in the child-parent relationship. However, parents also reported regular signal loss with DIYrtCGM, along with complicated apps and challenges troubleshooting technical problems. Despite this, nine of the 11 families continued to use the system after the end of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Do-it-yourself continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was on balance beneficial for the parents interviewed. However, while access to CGM shifted the burden of care experienced by parents, burden did not significantly reduce for all parents, as the improved glycaemic control that they achieved was accompanied with the responsibility for continually monitoring their child's data. Supported use of do-it-yourself CGM may be an achievable, cost-effective option for parents caring for children with type 1 diabetes in countries without funded access to CGM.

A comparison of FreeStyle Libre 2 to self-monitoring of blood glucose in children with type 1 diabetes and sub-optimal glycaemic control: a 12-week randomised controlled trial protocol.

PURPOSE: Frequent glucose monitoring is necessary for optimal glycaemic control. Second-generation intermittently scanned glucose monitoring (isCGM) systems inform users of out-of-target glucose levels and may reduce monitoring burden. We aim to compare FreeStyle Libre 2 (Abbott Diabetes Care, Witney, U.K.) to self-monitoring of blood glucose in children with type 1 diabetes and sub-optimal glycaemic control. METHODS: This open-label randomised controlled trial will enrol 100 children (4-13 years inclusive, diagnosis of type 1 diabetes ≥ 6 months, HbA1c 58-110 mmol/mol [7.5-12.2%]), from 5 New Zealand diabetes centres. Following 2 weeks of blinded sensor wear, children will be randomised 1:1 to control or intervention arms. The intervention (duration 12 weeks) includes second-generation isCGM (FreeStyle Libre 2) and education on using interstitial glucose data to manage diabetes. The control group will continue self-monitoring blood glucose. The primary outcome is the difference in glycaemic control (measured as HbA1c) between groups at 12 weeks. Pre-specified secondary outcomes include change in glucose monitoring frequency, glycaemic control metrics and psychosocial outcomes at 12 weeks as well as isCGM acceptability. DISCUSSION: This research will investigate the effectiveness of the second-generation isCGM to promote recommended glycaemic control. The results of this trial may have important implications for including this new technology in the management of children with type 1 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on 19 February 2020 (ACTRN12620000190909p) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (Universal Trial Number U1111-1237-0090).