Comparison of the clinical effects of intermittently scanned and real‐time continuous glucose monitoring in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: A retrospective cohort study

• Published in: Journal of diabetes investigation Vol. 13; no. 10; pp. 1745 - 1752
• Main Authors: Urakami, Tatsuhiko, Terada, Hiroki, Yoshida, Kei, Kuwabara, Remi, Mine, Yusuke, Aoki, Masako, Shoji, Yasuko, Suzuki, Junichi, Morioka, Ichiro
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Japan John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.10.2022; John Wiley and Sons Inc; Wiley
• Subjects: Adolescents; Body mass index; Children; Cohort analysis; Continuous glucose monitoring; Diabetes; Diabetes mellitus (insulin dependent); Drug dosages; Glucose monitoring; Hemoglobin; Hypoglycemia; Insulin; Original; Patients; Pediatrics; Sensors; Smartphones; Teenagers; Type 1 diabetes; United States > US; Japan; Continuous glucose monitoring; Type 1 diabetes; Hypoglycemia
• ISSN: 2040-1116; 2040-1124
• DOI: 10.1111/jdi.13830

ABSTRACT Aims/Introduction The aim of the study was to compare two continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) and real‐time CGM (rtCGM), to determine which system achieved better glycemic control in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods We carried out a retrospective cohort study of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes, and compared the time in range (70–180 mg/dL), time below range (<70 mg/dL) and time above range (>180 mg/dL), and estimated glycated hemoglobin levels between patients on isCGM and rtCGM. Results Of the 112 participants, 76 (67.9%) used isCGM and 36 (32.1%) used rtCGM for glycemic management. Patients on rtCGM had significantly greater time in range (57.7 ± 12.3% vs 52.3 ± 12.3%, P = 0.0368), and had significantly lower time below range (4.3 ± 2.7% vs 10.2% ± 5.4%, P < 0.001) than those on isCGM, but there was no significant difference in the time above range (37.4 ± 12.9% vs 38.0% ± 12.5%, P = 0.881) or the glycosylated hemoglobin A1c levels (7.4 ± 0.9% vs 7.5 ± 0.8%, P = 0.734) between the two groups. Conclusions Pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes on rtCGM also showed more beneficial effects for increase of time in range, with a notable reduction of time below range compared with those on isCGM. Real‐time CGM might provide better glycemic control than isCGM in children with type 1 diabetes. Children with type 1 diabetes on rtCGM showed more beneficial effects for increase of TIR with notably reduction of TBR than those on isCGM. Real‐time CGM may provide better glycemic outcome than isCGM in children with type 1 diabetes.