Short-term use of CGM in youth onset type 2 diabetes is associated with behavioral modifications.

Background: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is beneficial to glycemic control in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D); however, studies in youth with T2D are limited. Objective: Determine if 10-day trial CGM use in youth with T2D improves glycemic control and behavioral modifications. Methods: Youth with T2D > 3 months, on insulin, with no prior CGM use were enrolled. Staff placed CGM and provided education. Participants received 5-day and 10-day follow-up phone calls to review CGM data, behavioral modifications, and adjust insulin doses as needed. We compared 5-day to 10-day TIR, and baseline to 3-6 month HbA1c via paired t-test. Results: Participants (n=41) had median age of 16.2 y, were 61% female, 81% NH Black, median diabetes duration of 0.8 y, and baseline HbA1c of 10.3%. A majority had household income<$50,000 (81%) and parental education level of HS or less (73%). Average 5-day TIR 49% was similar to 10-day TIR 51% (p=0.62). There was no change in HbA1c after 3-6 months (10.2% v 10.3%, p=0.89). Nineteen participants completed full 10-day CGM use; of those, 84% wanted a CGM long-term. Adolescents reported behavioral changes including increased blood sugar checks, increased insulin administration and overall improved diabetes management. Conclusion: Although 10-day CGM use did not impact short-term or long-term glycemic control in youth with T2D, most participants reported behavioral changes and wanted to continue using CGM. Future studies with longer use of CGM may clarify the potential impact of CGM in youth with T2D.

Improving Continuous Glucose Monitoring Uptake in Underserved Youth with Type 1 Diabetes: The IMPACT Study.

Background: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves glycemic control. Less than half of youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) use CGM, with disparities among minority and low-income youth. The aim of this study was to determine if trial CGM use increases uptake of personal CGM. Methods: T1D youth were provided sample CGM placement at the point of care, with CGM education and app setup. Follow-up calls at 5 and 10 days assessed CGM data, and desire to continue using CGM. Follow-up at 3-6 months recorded CGM use, CGM data, and A1c. Participants completed surveys at enrollment, 10 days, and 3 months. Differences were assessed between baseline and follow-up. Results: Of the 26 enrolled participants with T1D, 15 were CGM naive, and 11 were prior CGM users. The mean age was 14.1 ± 2.9 years, 65% male, 42% were Black, 12% were Hispanic, 65% were on public insurance, and 43% had household income of <$50,000. The median duration of diabetes was 4.6 years (interquartile range 2.4-7.7), mean baseline A1c was 10.7% ± 2.4%. After trial CGM use, 85% of participants reported wanting personal CGM, and at 3-6 months follow-up 76% had obtained one and 43% were using a personal CGM. There were no improvements in A1C or time in range, but participants reported an increase in the perceived benefits of CGM usage (4.0 vs. 4.3, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Placing a sample CGM at the point of care can improve uptake of personal CGM and may help mitigate disparities in CGM use in minority and underserved youth. Long-term studies are needed to determine how similar interventions impact glycemic control and patient outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04721145.