This service exclusively searches for literature that cites resources. Please be aware that the total number of searchable documents is limited to those containing RRIDs and does not include all open-access literature.
To determine the relationship between mean sensor glucose concentrations and hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) values measured in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications laboratory at the University of Minnesota in a cohort of subjects with type 1 diabetes from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation continuous glucose monitoring randomized trial.
Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) has been the traditional method for assessing glycemic control. However, it does not reflect intra- and interday glycemic excursions that may lead to acute events (such as hypoglycemia) or postprandial hyperglycemia, which have been linked to both microvascular and macrovascular complications. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), either from real-time use (rtCGM) or intermittently viewed (iCGM), addresses many of the limitations inherent in HbA1c testing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. Although both provide the means to move beyond the HbA1c measurement as the sole marker of glycemic control, standardized metrics for analyzing CGM data are lacking. Moreover, clear criteria for matching people with diabetes to the most appropriate glucose monitoring methodologies, as well as standardized advice about how best to use the new information they provide, have yet to be established. In February 2017, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address these issues. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations and represents the current understanding of how CGM results can affect outcomes.
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Specific risk factors associated with diabetes, such as hyperglycemia and kidney disease, have been demonstrated to increase the incidence and progression of CVD. Nevertheless, few data exist on the effects of traditional risk factors such as dyslipidemia, obesity, and hypertension on CVD risk in youth with T1D. Improvements in understanding and approaches to the evaluation and management of CVD risk factors, specifically for young persons with T1D, are desirable. Recent advances in noninvasive techniques to detect early vascular damage, such as the evaluation of endothelial dysfunction and aortic or carotid intima-media thickness, provide new tools to evaluate the progression of CVD in childhood. In the present review, current CVD risk factor management, challenges, and potential therapeutic interventions in youth with T1D are described.
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been found to improve glucose control in type 1 diabetic patients. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of CGM versus standard glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This societal cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted in trial populations in which CGM has produced a significant glycemic benefit (A1C >or=7.0% in a cohort of adults aged >or=25 years and A1C <7.0% in a cohort of all ages). Trial data were integrated into a simulation model of type 1 diabetes complications. The main outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
OBJECTIVE The potential benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the management of adults and children with well-controlled type 1 diabetes have not been examined. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A total of 129 adults and children with intensively treated type 1 diabetes (age range 8-69 years) and A1C <7.0% were randomly assigned to either continuous or standard glucose monitoring for 26 weeks. The main study outcomes were time with glucose level < or =70 mg/dl, A1C level, and severe hypoglycemic events. RESULTS At 26 weeks, biochemical hypoglycemia (< or =70 mg/dl) was less frequent in the CGM group than in the control group (median 54 vs. 91 min/day), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.16). Median time with a glucose level < or =60 mg/dl was 18 versus 35 min/day, respectively (P = 0.05). Time out of range (< or =70 or >180 mg/dl) was significantly lower in the CGM group than in the control group (377 vs. 491 min/day, P = 0.003). There was a significant treatment group difference favoring the CGM group in mean A1C at 26 weeks adjusted for baseline (P < 0.001). One or more severe hypoglycemic events occurred in 10 and 11% of the two groups, respectively (P = 1.0). Four outcome measures combining A1C and hypoglycemia data favored the CGM group in comparison with the control group (P < 0.001, 0.007, 0.005, and 0.003). CONCLUSIONS Most outcomes, including those combining A1C and hypoglycemia, favored the CGM group. The weight of evidence suggests that CGM is beneficial for individuals with type 1 diabetes who have already achieved excellent control with A1C <7.0%.
For individuals with Type 1 diabetes (T1D), following a complicated daily medical regimen is critical to maintaining optimal health. Adolescents in particular struggle with regimen adherence. Commonly available technologies (eg, diabetes websites, apps) can provide diabetes-related support, yet little is known about how many adolescents with T1D use them, why they are used, or relationships between use and self-management.
Despite the availability of effective therapies, adolescents with type 1 diabetes demonstrate poorer adherence to treatment regimens compared with other pediatric age groups. Nonadherence is tightly linked to suboptimal glycemic control, increasing morbidity, and risk for premature mortality. This article will review barriers to adherence and discuss interventions that have shown promise in improving outcomes for this population.
Welcome to the FDI Lab - SciCrunch.org Resources search. From here you can search through a compilation of resources used by FDI Lab - SciCrunch.org and see how data is organized within our community.
You are currently on the Community Resources tab looking through categories and sources that FDI Lab - SciCrunch.org has compiled. You can navigate through those categories from here or change to a different tab to execute your search through. Each tab gives a different perspective on data.
If you have an account on FDI Lab - SciCrunch.org then you can log in from here to get additional features in FDI Lab - SciCrunch.org such as Collections, Saved Searches, and managing Resources.
Here is the search term that is being executed, you can type in anything you want to search for. Some tips to help searching:
You can save any searches you perform for quick access to later from here.
We recognized your search term and included synonyms and inferred terms along side your term to help get the data you are looking for.
If you are logged into FDI Lab - SciCrunch.org you can add data records to your collections to create custom spreadsheets across multiple sources of data.
Here are the facets that you can filter your papers by.
From here we'll present any options for the literature, such as exporting your current results.
If you have any further questions please check out our FAQs Page to ask questions and see our tutorials. Click this button to view this tutorial again.
Year:
Count: