The Medtronic Minimed Gold continuous glucose monitoring system: an effective means to discover hypo- and hyperglycemia in children under 7 years of age.
ABSTRACT The glycemic patterns of children less than 7 years with type 1 diabetes have not been well studied using continuous glucose monitoring. Our goal was to assess the incidence of hypoglycemia as well as postprandial glycemic patterns in this age group utilizing continuous glucose monitoring.
Nineteen children used the Medtronic MiniMed (Northridge, CA) CGMS System Gold on three to seven occasions over approximately 6 months.
Nineteen children (nine girls and 10 boys; mean age 4.8 +/- 1.4 years, range 1.6-6.8 years) used the CGMS 102 times, providing 434 days of data; 79% of days were optimal based on CGMS Solutions software version 3.0. Mild hypoglycemia (glucose <or=70 mg/dL) was noted during 28% of 323 nights. When compared to paired meter blood glucose values, the false-positive rate was 16% for mild and 55% for severe sensor hypoglycemia. The mean peak glucose during the 3 h following breakfast (247 +/- 64 mg/dL) was higher than following lunch (199 +/- 67 mg/dL) or dinner (194 +/- 63 mg/dL). The rate of glucose rise to peak was >or=2 mg/dL/min following 50% of breakfasts. Children with hemoglobin A1c levels >or=8% had higher postprandial glucose concentrations. There was no significant advantage of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy over multiple daily injection therapy in decreasing postprandial hyperglycemia.
CGMS tracings from young children with diabetes demonstrate frequent mild nocturnal hypoglycemia and significant postprandial hyperglycemia, with a rapid rise in glucose following the meal. The most rapid rate of rise and the most severe postprandial hyperglycemia occurred after breakfast.
- SourceAvailable from: Noelle S Larson[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), while a relatively new technology, has the potential to transform care for children with type 1 diabetes. Some, but not all studies, have shown that CGM can significantly improve hemoglobin A1c levels and reduce time spent in the hypoglycemic range in children, particularly when used as part of sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. Despite the publication of recent clinical practice guidelines suggesting CGM be offered to all children 8 years of age or older who are likely to benefit, and studies showing that younger children can also benefit, this technology is not yet commonly used by children with type 1 diabetes. Effects of CGM are enhanced when used on a near-daily basis (a use-dependent effect) and with insulin pump therapy. Therefore, coordinated strategies are needed to help children and their families initiate and continue to use this resource for diabetes care. This review introduces CGM to pediatric endocrinologists who are not yet familiar with the finer details of this technology, summarizes current data showing the benefits and limitations of CGM use in children, reviews specific case examples demonstrating when CGM can be helpful, and shows the value of both retrospective and real-time CGM. It is hoped that this information leads to discussion of this technology in pediatric endocrinology clinics as an important next step in improving the care of children with type 1 diabetes.International Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology 03/2013; 2013(1):8. DOI:10.1186/1687-9856-2013-8
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE To detect clinical correlates of cognitive abilities and white matter (WM) microstructural changes using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) in young children with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Children, ages 3 to <10 years, with type 1 diabetes (n = 22) and age- and sex-matched healthy control subjects (n = 14) completed neurocognitive testing and DTI scans. RESULTS Compared with healthy controls, children with type 1 diabetes had lower axial diffusivity (AD) values (P = 0.046) in the temporal and parietal lobe regions. There were no significant differences between groups in fractional anisotropy and radial diffusivity (RD). Within the diabetes group, there was a significant, positive correlation between time-weighted HbA(1c) and RD (P = 0.028). A higher, time-weighted HbA(1c) value was significantly correlated with lower overall intellectual functioning measured by the full-scale intelligence quotient (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Children with type 1 diabetes had significantly different WM structure (as measured by AD) when compared with controls. In addition, WM structural differences (as measured by RD) were significantly correlated with their HbA(1c) values. Additional studies are needed to determine if WM microstructural differences in young children with type 1 diabetes predict future neurocognitive outcome.Diabetes care 09/2012; 35(11):2167-73. DOI:10.2337/dc12-0017 · 8.57 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Distinct robust controllers based on H∞-theory have been developed to prevent hyperglycemic levels in type I diabetic patients. The underlying idea is that the calculated insulin by these controllers is automatically adjusted by computation and delivered by an insulin pump via intravenous route. Although the evidence shows that severe hyperglycemic condition can be handled by these controllers, none has been tested on possible hypoglycemic scenarios which can be attributable to changes in physiological parameters under action of automatic insulin delivery. In this paper, a computational essay on hypoglycemic scenarios for three robust H∞ controllers is presented. The objective is to study controllers performance in face to hypoglycemic scenarios induced by metabolic parameters. For this purpose two parameters on hepatic glucose production were selected to test the controllers execution against hypoglycemic scenarios. The results were analyzed statistically resulting similar for the three controllers. Our essay shows conditions such that the analyzed controllers cannot prevent hypoglycemic conditions even if they compute that delivered insulin has to be null at sub-intervals.Applied Mathematics and Computation 09/2011; 218(2):376-385. DOI:10.1016/j.amc.2011.05.074 · 1.60 Impact Factor