Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Use of Technology in Older Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Clinical Characteristics and Glycemic Metrics.
Munshi, Medha; Slyne, Christine; Davis, Dai'Quann; Michals, Amy; Sifre, Kayla; Dewar, Rachel; Atakov-Castillo, Astrid; Toschi, Elena.
Afiliação
  • Munshi M; Joslin Diabetes Center, Clinical Research, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Slyne C; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Davis D; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA .
  • Michals A; Joslin Diabetes Center, Clinical Research, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Sifre K; Joslin Diabetes Center, Clinical Research, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Dewar R; Joslin Diabetes Center, Clinical Research, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Atakov-Castillo A; Joslin Diabetes Center, Clinical Research, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Toschi E; Joslin Diabetes Center, Clinical Research, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Diabetes Technol Ther ; 24(1): 1-9, 2022 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34524033
ABSTRACT

Background:

The use of diabetes-related technology, both for insulin administration and glucose monitoring, has shown benefits in older adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, the characteristics of older adults with T1D and their use of technology in real-world situations are not well documented.

Methods:

Older adults (age ≥65 years) with T1D, using insulin pump or multiple daily injections (MDI) for insulin administration, and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or glucometer (blood glucose monitoring [BGM]) for glucose monitoring were evaluated. Participants wore CGM for 2 weeks, completed surveys, and underwent laboratory evaluation.

Results:

We evaluated 165 older adults with T1D; mean age 70 ± 10 years, diabetes duration 40 ± 17 years, and A1C 7.4% ± 0.9% (57 ± 10 mmol/mol). For insulin administration, 63 (38%) were using MDI, while 102 (62%) were using pump. Compared to MDI, pump users were less likely to have cognitive dysfunction (49% vs. 65%, P = 0.04) and had lower scores on the hypoglycemia fear survey (P = 0.03). For glucose monitoring, 95 (58%) used CGM, while 70 (42%) used BGM. Compared to BGM, CGM users were more likely to report impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) (P = 0.01), and had lower A1C (P = 0.02). Participants who used any technology (pump or CGM) had lower A1C (P = 0.04, 0.006), less hypoglycemia ≤54 mg/dL (P = 0.0006, <0.0001) and <70 mg/dL (P = 0.0002, 0.0001), and fewer glycemic excursions (coefficient of variation %) (P = 0.0001, <0.0001), while reporting more IAH (P = 0.04, P = 0.006) and diabetes distress (P = 0.02, 0.004).

Conclusion:

Older adults with T1D who use newer diabetes-related technology had better glycemic control, lower hypoglycemia risk, and fewer glycemic excursions. However, they were more likely to report IAH and diabetes-related distress. Clinical trials.gov NCT03078491.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 Limite: Aged / Aged80 / Humans / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 Limite: Aged / Aged80 / Humans / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article