Advances, Challenges, and Cost Associated with Continuous Glucose Monitor Use in Adolescents and Young Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Overview

Journal Curr Diab Rep

Publisher Current Science

Specialty Endocrinology

Date 2021 May 15

PMID 33991264

Citations 12

Authors

Karishma A Datye

Daniel R Tilden

Angelee M Parmar

Eveline R Goethals

Sarah S Jaser

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose Of Review: Continuous glucose monitors (CGM) are transforming diabetes management, yet adolescents and young adults (AYA) with type 1 diabetes (T1D) do not experience the same benefits seen with CGM use in adults. The purpose of this review is to explore advances, challenges, and the financial impact of CGM use in AYA with T1D.

Recent Findings: CGM studies in young adults highlight challenges and suggest unique barriers to CGM use in this population. Recent studies also demonstrate differences in CGM use related to race and ethnicity, raising questions about potential bias and emphasizing the importance of patient-provider communication. Cost of these devices remains a significant barrier, especially in countries without nationalized reimbursement of CGM. More research is needed to understand and address the differences in CGM utilization and to increase the accessibility of CGM therapy given the significant potential benefits of CGM in this high-risk group.

Citing Articles

Impact of Bindarit, a CCL2 Chemokine Synthesis Inhibitor, on Macrophage-Based Biofouling and Continuous Glucose Monitoring .

Sharafieh R, Qiao Y, Godlewski I, Czajkowski C, Wu R, Hargis G Biosens Bioelectron X. 2024; 19.

PMID: 39703931 PMC: 11654743. DOI: 10.1016/j.biosx.2024.100511.

Improving Continuous Glucose Monitoring Use in Emerging Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

Malik F, Perez S, Lowry S, Weaver K, Hirsch I, Pihoker C Clin Diabetes. 2024; 42(4):570-573.

PMID: 39429462 PMC: 11486856. DOI: 10.2337/cd23-0104.

Unveiling the interplay between rational, psychological and functional factors in continuous glucose monitoring early adoption: Novel evidence from the Dexcom ONE case in Italy.

Zoccarato F, Manzoni M, Minotti D, Lettieri E, Boaretto A BMC Health Serv Res. 2024; 24(1):747.

PMID: 38890619 PMC: 11186290. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-11195-6.

Causes and Consequences of Continuous Glucose Monitor "Breaks": Perspectives from Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes.

Datye K, Bonnet K, Parmar A, Schlundt D, Jaser S Diabetes Technol Ther. 2024; 26(10):780-782.

PMID: 38885320 PMC: 11535451. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2024.0210.

Continuous glucose monitoring metrics in pregnancy with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

Jeeyavudeen M, Crosby M, Pappachan J World J Methodol. 2024; 14(1):90316.

PMID: 38577196 PMC: 10989406. DOI: 10.5662/wjm.v14.i1.90316.

References

Chaugule S, Graham C . Cost-effectiveness of G5 Mobile continuous glucose monitoring device compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose alone for people with type 1 diabetes from the Canadian societal perspective. J Med Econ. 2017; 20(11):1128-1135. DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2017.1360312. View

Agarwal S, Kanapka L, Raymond J, Walker A, Gerard-Gonzalez A, Kruger D . Racial-Ethnic Inequity in Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020; 105(8). PMC: 7457963. DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa236. View

Anhalt H . Limitations of Continuous Glucose Monitor Usage. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016; 18(3):115-7. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2016.0011. View

Laffel L, Kanapka L, Beck R, Bergamo K, Clements M, Criego A . Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Adolescents and Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2020; 323(23):2388-2396. PMC: 7298603. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.6940. View

Lanning M, Tanenbaum M, Wong J, Hood K . Barriers to Continuous Glucose Monitoring in People With Type 1 Diabetes: Clinician Perspectives. Diabetes Spectr. 2020; 33(4):324-330. PMC: 7666603. DOI: 10.2337/ds19-0039. View

Pickup J, Ford Holloway M, Samsi K . Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes: a qualitative framework analysis of patient narratives. Diabetes Care. 2015; 38(4):544-50. DOI: 10.2337/dc14-1855. View

Nicolucci A, Rossi M, DOstilio D, Delbaere A, de Portu S, Roze S . Cost-effectiveness of sensor-augmented pump therapy in two different patient populations with type 1 diabetes in Italy. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2018; 28(7):707-715. DOI: 10.1016/j.numecd.2018.03.011. View

Chaugule S, Oliver N, Klinkenbijl B, Graham C . An Economic Evaluation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring for People with Type 1 Diabetes and Impaired Awareness of Hypoglycaemia within North West London Clinical Commissioning Groups in England. Eur Endocrinol. 2018; 13(2):81-85. PMC: 5813470. DOI: 10.17925/EE.2017.13.02.81. View

Beck R, Riddlesworth T, Ruedy K, Ahmann A, Bergenstal R, Haller S . Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Using Insulin Injections: The DIAMOND Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017; 317(4):371-378. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.19975. View

10.

Wan W, Skandari M, Minc A, Nathan A, Winn A, Zarei P . Cost-effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Compared With Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose: The DIAMOND Randomized Trial. Diabetes Care. 2018; 41(6):1227-1234. PMC: 5961392. DOI: 10.2337/dc17-1821. View

11.

Foster N, Beck R, Miller K, Clements M, Rickels M, DiMeglio L . State of Type 1 Diabetes Management and Outcomes from the T1D Exchange in 2016-2018. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019; 21(2):66-72. PMC: 7061293. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2018.0384. View

12.

Welsh J, Derdzinski M, Parker A, Puhr S, Jimenez A, Walker T . Real-Time Sharing and Following of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data in Youth. Diabetes Ther. 2019; 10(2):751-755. PMC: 6437306. DOI: 10.1007/s13300-019-0571-0. View

13.

Cappon G, Vettoretti M, Sparacino G, Facchinetti A . Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensors for Diabetes Management: A Review of Technologies and Applications. Diabetes Metab J. 2019; 43(4):383-397. PMC: 6712232. DOI: 10.4093/dmj.2019.0121. View

14.

Edelman S, Argento N, Pettus J, Hirsch I . Clinical Implications of Real-time and Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring. Diabetes Care. 2018; 41(11):2265-2274. DOI: 10.2337/dc18-1150. View

15.

Charleer S, De Block C, Van Huffel L, Broos B, Fieuws S, Nobels F . Quality of Life and Glucose Control After 1 Year of Nationwide Reimbursement of Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults Living With Type 1 Diabetes (FUTURE): A Prospective Observational Real-World Cohort Study. Diabetes Care. 2019; 43(2):389-397. DOI: 10.2337/dc19-1610. View

16.

Van Beers C, DeVries J, Kleijer S, Smits M, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P, Kramer M . Continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IN CONTROL): a randomised, open-label, crossover trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016; 4(11):893-902. DOI: 10.1016/S2213-8587(16)30193-0. View

17.

Borus J, Laffel L . Adherence challenges in the management of type 1 diabetes in adolescents: prevention and intervention. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2010; 22(4):405-11. PMC: 3159529. DOI: 10.1097/MOP.0b013e32833a46a7. View

18.

Charleer S, Mathieu C, Nobels F, De Block C, Radermecker R, Hermans M . Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control, Acute Admissions, and Quality of Life: A Real-World Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018; 103(3):1224-1232. DOI: 10.1210/jc.2017-02498. View

19.

Sherr J, Tauschmann M, Battelino T, de Bock M, Forlenza G, Roman R . ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: Diabetes technologies. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018; 19 Suppl 27:302-325. DOI: 10.1111/pedi.12731. View

20.

Lal R, Basina M, Maahs D, Hood K, Buckingham B, Wilson D . One Year Clinical Experience of the First Commercial Hybrid Closed-Loop System. Diabetes Care. 2019; 42(12):2190-2196. PMC: 6868462. DOI: 10.2337/dc19-0855. View