Sign up for a new account.
And get access to
The latest T1D content
Research that matters
Our daily questions
Sign up by entering your info below.
Sign in to your account with
Reset Your Password
We will email you instructions to reset your
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics and self-reported disease characteristics (severe hypoglycemic events [SHEs], HbA1c) warrant further description in people with T1D using CGM and pumps, including hybrid closed-loop systems (HCLS) . We conducted a one-time online survey of adults with T1D in the T1D Exchange Registry or online communities, where ∼50% of participants contributed up to 1 year of CGM data. Patients were asked about their medical history (SHEs, HbA1c) , while glucose management indicator (GMI) , prolonged hypoglycemic events (<54 mg/dL) , time in and below range (TIR/TBR) , and coefficient of variation (CV) were derived from CGM data. Patients who completed the survey and contributed CGM data (N=926) had a mean age of 42 y and T1D duration of 25 y; 73% were female; 96% were white; 94% had ≥1 year of CGM use. Mean HbA1c was 6.6% (69.0% had HbA1c <7%) . While most patients met consensus glycemic targets (HbA1c, GMI, TIR, TBR, and CV) , with higher proportions observed in those using HCLS pumps than in those using pump + CGM (not HCLS) and MDI + CGM (Table) , patients continued to have significant hypoglycemia based on CGM data and an average of 1.1 SHEs in the prior year. Despite improvements in glycemic control (TIR, TBR, and self-reported HbA1c) with advanced technologies, many patients still cannot achieve clinical targets and experience significant hypoglycemia, highlighting the unmet need for novel T1D treatments.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Gaps Remain in Achieving Target T1D Glycemic Goals Despite Advanced Technologies
You must be logged in to post a comment.