User login
Home Insulin Pumps Safe for In-Hospital Pediatric Care
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Clinical guidelines support the use of home insulin pumps in adults hospitalized for noncritical illnesses, but it has been unclear if adult safety data translate to pediatric inpatients.
- The study evaluated if insulin can be safely and precisely delivered using home insulin pumps managed by patients or caregivers in 2738 patients (0.5-25 years old; median age about 16) with insulin-dependent diabetes admitted to non–intensive care units of a tertiary children’s hospital between January 2016 and December 2021.
- Insulin was delivered either using home insulin pumps managed by patients or caregivers or using hospital insulin pumps or subcutaneous injections managed by hospital staff.
- Safety was measured by hyperglycemia (glucose level > 250 mg/dL), hypoglycemia (moderate: glucose level, 45-59 mg/dL or severe: glucose level, < 45 mg/dL), glucose variability, and the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis for each delivery method.
- Results were calculated by the number of days a patient had one or more glucose levels meeting the definition of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia and divided by the number of days a patient receive any insulin dose.
TAKEAWAY:
The number of hyperglycemic days was lower in patients using a hospital (15.7%) or a home (27.0%) insulin pump than in those receiving subcutaneous insulin injections (45.2%; P < .001).
At least one moderate hypoglycemic day was noted in patients receiving insulin through subcutaneous injections (5.1%) compared with those receiving it through hospital (3.1%) or home insulin pumps (4.5%; P = .02).
The proportion of days within the desired blood glucose range and glucose variability were similar in patients using hospital or home insulin pumps and worse in patients managed with injections (P < .001).
No patients using home or hospital pumps developed diabetic ketoacidosis, but two cases of diabetic ketoacidosis were noted among patients using injections.
IN PRACTICE:
“Safety is not sacrificed when patients or caregivers use home pumps during pediatric non–intensive care unit admissions,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The investigation, led by Jodi Owens, MSN, RN, Division of Endocrinology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, was published along with an invited commentary in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The strategies employed for insulin safety and awareness by the institution may have led to improved rates of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. Moreover, the study did not assess changes in glycemic levels during transition in the insulin delivery method. The study was limited to non–intensive care units and hence cannot be generalized to intensive care unit settings or in patients with diabetic ketoacidosis. The study did not include patients using hybrid-closed loop insulin pumps.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not disclose any source of funding. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Clinical guidelines support the use of home insulin pumps in adults hospitalized for noncritical illnesses, but it has been unclear if adult safety data translate to pediatric inpatients.
- The study evaluated if insulin can be safely and precisely delivered using home insulin pumps managed by patients or caregivers in 2738 patients (0.5-25 years old; median age about 16) with insulin-dependent diabetes admitted to non–intensive care units of a tertiary children’s hospital between January 2016 and December 2021.
- Insulin was delivered either using home insulin pumps managed by patients or caregivers or using hospital insulin pumps or subcutaneous injections managed by hospital staff.
- Safety was measured by hyperglycemia (glucose level > 250 mg/dL), hypoglycemia (moderate: glucose level, 45-59 mg/dL or severe: glucose level, < 45 mg/dL), glucose variability, and the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis for each delivery method.
- Results were calculated by the number of days a patient had one or more glucose levels meeting the definition of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia and divided by the number of days a patient receive any insulin dose.
TAKEAWAY:
The number of hyperglycemic days was lower in patients using a hospital (15.7%) or a home (27.0%) insulin pump than in those receiving subcutaneous insulin injections (45.2%; P < .001).
At least one moderate hypoglycemic day was noted in patients receiving insulin through subcutaneous injections (5.1%) compared with those receiving it through hospital (3.1%) or home insulin pumps (4.5%; P = .02).
The proportion of days within the desired blood glucose range and glucose variability were similar in patients using hospital or home insulin pumps and worse in patients managed with injections (P < .001).
No patients using home or hospital pumps developed diabetic ketoacidosis, but two cases of diabetic ketoacidosis were noted among patients using injections.
IN PRACTICE:
“Safety is not sacrificed when patients or caregivers use home pumps during pediatric non–intensive care unit admissions,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The investigation, led by Jodi Owens, MSN, RN, Division of Endocrinology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, was published along with an invited commentary in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The strategies employed for insulin safety and awareness by the institution may have led to improved rates of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. Moreover, the study did not assess changes in glycemic levels during transition in the insulin delivery method. The study was limited to non–intensive care units and hence cannot be generalized to intensive care unit settings or in patients with diabetic ketoacidosis. The study did not include patients using hybrid-closed loop insulin pumps.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not disclose any source of funding. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Clinical guidelines support the use of home insulin pumps in adults hospitalized for noncritical illnesses, but it has been unclear if adult safety data translate to pediatric inpatients.
- The study evaluated if insulin can be safely and precisely delivered using home insulin pumps managed by patients or caregivers in 2738 patients (0.5-25 years old; median age about 16) with insulin-dependent diabetes admitted to non–intensive care units of a tertiary children’s hospital between January 2016 and December 2021.
- Insulin was delivered either using home insulin pumps managed by patients or caregivers or using hospital insulin pumps or subcutaneous injections managed by hospital staff.
- Safety was measured by hyperglycemia (glucose level > 250 mg/dL), hypoglycemia (moderate: glucose level, 45-59 mg/dL or severe: glucose level, < 45 mg/dL), glucose variability, and the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis for each delivery method.
- Results were calculated by the number of days a patient had one or more glucose levels meeting the definition of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia and divided by the number of days a patient receive any insulin dose.
TAKEAWAY:
The number of hyperglycemic days was lower in patients using a hospital (15.7%) or a home (27.0%) insulin pump than in those receiving subcutaneous insulin injections (45.2%; P < .001).
At least one moderate hypoglycemic day was noted in patients receiving insulin through subcutaneous injections (5.1%) compared with those receiving it through hospital (3.1%) or home insulin pumps (4.5%; P = .02).
The proportion of days within the desired blood glucose range and glucose variability were similar in patients using hospital or home insulin pumps and worse in patients managed with injections (P < .001).
No patients using home or hospital pumps developed diabetic ketoacidosis, but two cases of diabetic ketoacidosis were noted among patients using injections.
IN PRACTICE:
“Safety is not sacrificed when patients or caregivers use home pumps during pediatric non–intensive care unit admissions,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The investigation, led by Jodi Owens, MSN, RN, Division of Endocrinology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, was published along with an invited commentary in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The strategies employed for insulin safety and awareness by the institution may have led to improved rates of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. Moreover, the study did not assess changes in glycemic levels during transition in the insulin delivery method. The study was limited to non–intensive care units and hence cannot be generalized to intensive care unit settings or in patients with diabetic ketoacidosis. The study did not include patients using hybrid-closed loop insulin pumps.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not disclose any source of funding. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Osteoporosis Drug Denosumab May Confer Lower Risk for Diabetes
TOPLINE:
Continued denosumab treatment is associated with a lower risk for diabetes in adults with osteoporosis older than 65 years, found a large-scale cohort study in Taiwan.
METHODOLOGY:
- Denosumab, used in osteoporosis treatment, has been suggested to improve glycemic parameters, but clinical evidence of its effects on diabetes risk is limited and inconsistent.
- Using data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD), the study asked if continued denosumab treatment (60 mg) for osteoporosis reduced the risk for diabetes compared to those who discontinued denosumab.
- Researchers included all new users of denosumab between 2012 and 2019 who had no prior history of malignant neoplasms, Paget disease, or diabetes requiring antidiabetic medication.
- Patients in the treatment group (n = 34,255), who received a second dose of denosumab within 225 days, were 1:1 propensity matched with a control group (n = 34,255) of patients who had discontinued denosumab after the first dose.
- The 68,510 patients (mean age, 77.7 years; 84.3% women) were followed up for a mean of 1.9 years. The primary outcome was new-onset diabetes that required treatment with any antidiabetic drug.
TAKEAWAY:
- Continued denosumab treatment vs its discontinuation was associated with a lower risk for incident diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.90).
- In patients aged 65 years or older who were on continued treatment of denosumab, the risk for diabetes was lower (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.85) but not among those younger than 65 years.
- A reduced risk for diabetes with continued denosumab treatment was observed in both men (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97) and women (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76-0.86).
- Lower diabetes risk with continued denosumab treatment was observed regardless of comorbidities, such as dyslipidemia, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, or kidney failure.
IN PRACTICE:
“Given the high osteoporosis prevalence, the extensive use of antiosteoporosis medications, and the negative effect of diabetes on both patient health and healthcare system burdens in the global aging population, our findings possess substantial clinical and public health significance,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Huei-Kai Huang, MD, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Medical Research, Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Hualien, Taiwan, and published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The research used claims-based data, so some clinical details, such as lifestyle, substance use, prediabetes weight status, and laboratory results, were not included. Owing to the anonymity policy of the NHIRD, patients could not be directly evaluated to validate incident diabetes. The study included the Taiwanese population, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations. In Taiwan, the threshold for reimbursement of initiating denosumab treatment for osteoporosis includes below-normal bone density scores and a hip or vertebral fracture.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by grants from the National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan and the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan and a grant from the Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation. The corresponding author and a coauthor disclosed receiving funds from Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, and AbbVie, all outside the submitted work.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Continued denosumab treatment is associated with a lower risk for diabetes in adults with osteoporosis older than 65 years, found a large-scale cohort study in Taiwan.
METHODOLOGY:
- Denosumab, used in osteoporosis treatment, has been suggested to improve glycemic parameters, but clinical evidence of its effects on diabetes risk is limited and inconsistent.
- Using data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD), the study asked if continued denosumab treatment (60 mg) for osteoporosis reduced the risk for diabetes compared to those who discontinued denosumab.
- Researchers included all new users of denosumab between 2012 and 2019 who had no prior history of malignant neoplasms, Paget disease, or diabetes requiring antidiabetic medication.
- Patients in the treatment group (n = 34,255), who received a second dose of denosumab within 225 days, were 1:1 propensity matched with a control group (n = 34,255) of patients who had discontinued denosumab after the first dose.
- The 68,510 patients (mean age, 77.7 years; 84.3% women) were followed up for a mean of 1.9 years. The primary outcome was new-onset diabetes that required treatment with any antidiabetic drug.
TAKEAWAY:
- Continued denosumab treatment vs its discontinuation was associated with a lower risk for incident diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.90).
- In patients aged 65 years or older who were on continued treatment of denosumab, the risk for diabetes was lower (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.85) but not among those younger than 65 years.
- A reduced risk for diabetes with continued denosumab treatment was observed in both men (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97) and women (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76-0.86).
- Lower diabetes risk with continued denosumab treatment was observed regardless of comorbidities, such as dyslipidemia, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, or kidney failure.
IN PRACTICE:
“Given the high osteoporosis prevalence, the extensive use of antiosteoporosis medications, and the negative effect of diabetes on both patient health and healthcare system burdens in the global aging population, our findings possess substantial clinical and public health significance,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Huei-Kai Huang, MD, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Medical Research, Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Hualien, Taiwan, and published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The research used claims-based data, so some clinical details, such as lifestyle, substance use, prediabetes weight status, and laboratory results, were not included. Owing to the anonymity policy of the NHIRD, patients could not be directly evaluated to validate incident diabetes. The study included the Taiwanese population, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations. In Taiwan, the threshold for reimbursement of initiating denosumab treatment for osteoporosis includes below-normal bone density scores and a hip or vertebral fracture.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by grants from the National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan and the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan and a grant from the Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation. The corresponding author and a coauthor disclosed receiving funds from Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, and AbbVie, all outside the submitted work.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Continued denosumab treatment is associated with a lower risk for diabetes in adults with osteoporosis older than 65 years, found a large-scale cohort study in Taiwan.
METHODOLOGY:
- Denosumab, used in osteoporosis treatment, has been suggested to improve glycemic parameters, but clinical evidence of its effects on diabetes risk is limited and inconsistent.
- Using data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD), the study asked if continued denosumab treatment (60 mg) for osteoporosis reduced the risk for diabetes compared to those who discontinued denosumab.
- Researchers included all new users of denosumab between 2012 and 2019 who had no prior history of malignant neoplasms, Paget disease, or diabetes requiring antidiabetic medication.
- Patients in the treatment group (n = 34,255), who received a second dose of denosumab within 225 days, were 1:1 propensity matched with a control group (n = 34,255) of patients who had discontinued denosumab after the first dose.
- The 68,510 patients (mean age, 77.7 years; 84.3% women) were followed up for a mean of 1.9 years. The primary outcome was new-onset diabetes that required treatment with any antidiabetic drug.
TAKEAWAY:
- Continued denosumab treatment vs its discontinuation was associated with a lower risk for incident diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.90).
- In patients aged 65 years or older who were on continued treatment of denosumab, the risk for diabetes was lower (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.85) but not among those younger than 65 years.
- A reduced risk for diabetes with continued denosumab treatment was observed in both men (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97) and women (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76-0.86).
- Lower diabetes risk with continued denosumab treatment was observed regardless of comorbidities, such as dyslipidemia, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, or kidney failure.
IN PRACTICE:
“Given the high osteoporosis prevalence, the extensive use of antiosteoporosis medications, and the negative effect of diabetes on both patient health and healthcare system burdens in the global aging population, our findings possess substantial clinical and public health significance,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Huei-Kai Huang, MD, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Medical Research, Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Hualien, Taiwan, and published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The research used claims-based data, so some clinical details, such as lifestyle, substance use, prediabetes weight status, and laboratory results, were not included. Owing to the anonymity policy of the NHIRD, patients could not be directly evaluated to validate incident diabetes. The study included the Taiwanese population, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations. In Taiwan, the threshold for reimbursement of initiating denosumab treatment for osteoporosis includes below-normal bone density scores and a hip or vertebral fracture.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by grants from the National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan and the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan and a grant from the Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation. The corresponding author and a coauthor disclosed receiving funds from Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, and AbbVie, all outside the submitted work.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Diabetes Tech Falls Short as Hypoglycemic Challenges Persist
TOPLINE:
Despite diabetes technology, many with type 1 diabetes (T1D) miss glycemic targets and experience severe hypoglycemia and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH).
METHODOLOGY:
- The clinical management of T1D through technology is now recognized as the standard of care, but its real-world impact on glycemic targets and severe hypoglycemic events and IAH is unclear.
- Researchers assessed the self-reported prevalence of glycemic metrics, severe hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia awareness according to the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems.
- They enrolled 2044 individuals diagnosed with T1D for at least 2 years (mean age, 43.0 years; 72.1% women; 95.4% White) from the T1D Exchange Registry and online communities who filled an online survey.
- Participants were stratified on the basis of the presence or absence of CGM and different insulin delivery methods (multiple daily injections, conventional pumps, or AID systems).
- The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who achieved glycemic targets (self-reported A1c), had severe hypoglycemia (any low glucose incidence in 12 months), and/or IAH (a modified Gold score on a seven-point Likert scale).
TAKEAWAY:
- Most participants (91.7%) used CGM, and 50.8% of CGM users used an AID system.
- Despite advanced interventions, only 59.6% (95% CI, 57.3%-61.8%) of CGM users met the glycemic target (A1c < 7%), while nearly 40% of CGM users and 35.6% of AID users didn’t reach the target.
- At least one event of severe hypoglycemia in the previous 12 months was reported in 10.8% of CGM users and 16.6% of those using an AID system.
- IAH prevalence was seen in 31.1% (95% CI, 29.0%-33.2%) and 30.3% (95% CI, 17.5%-33.3%) of participants using CGM and CGM + AID, respectively.
IN PRACTICE:
“Educational initiatives continue to be important for all individuals with type 1 diabetes, and the development of novel therapeutic options and strategies, including bihormonal AID systems and beta-cell replacement, will be required to enable more of these individuals to meet treatment goals,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, published online in Diabetes Care, was led by Jennifer L. Sherr, MD, PhD, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
LIMITATIONS:
The survey participants in this study were from the T1D Exchange online community, who tend to be highly involved, have technology experience, and are more likely to achieve glycemic targets. The data reported as part of the survey were based on self-reports by participants and may be subject to recall bias. Notably, severe hypoglycemic events may be overreported by individuals using CGM and AID systems due to sensor alarms.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Several authors disclosed financial relationships, including grants, consulting fees, honoraria, stock ownership, and employment with pharmaceutical and device companies and other entities.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Despite diabetes technology, many with type 1 diabetes (T1D) miss glycemic targets and experience severe hypoglycemia and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH).
METHODOLOGY:
- The clinical management of T1D through technology is now recognized as the standard of care, but its real-world impact on glycemic targets and severe hypoglycemic events and IAH is unclear.
- Researchers assessed the self-reported prevalence of glycemic metrics, severe hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia awareness according to the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems.
- They enrolled 2044 individuals diagnosed with T1D for at least 2 years (mean age, 43.0 years; 72.1% women; 95.4% White) from the T1D Exchange Registry and online communities who filled an online survey.
- Participants were stratified on the basis of the presence or absence of CGM and different insulin delivery methods (multiple daily injections, conventional pumps, or AID systems).
- The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who achieved glycemic targets (self-reported A1c), had severe hypoglycemia (any low glucose incidence in 12 months), and/or IAH (a modified Gold score on a seven-point Likert scale).
TAKEAWAY:
- Most participants (91.7%) used CGM, and 50.8% of CGM users used an AID system.
- Despite advanced interventions, only 59.6% (95% CI, 57.3%-61.8%) of CGM users met the glycemic target (A1c < 7%), while nearly 40% of CGM users and 35.6% of AID users didn’t reach the target.
- At least one event of severe hypoglycemia in the previous 12 months was reported in 10.8% of CGM users and 16.6% of those using an AID system.
- IAH prevalence was seen in 31.1% (95% CI, 29.0%-33.2%) and 30.3% (95% CI, 17.5%-33.3%) of participants using CGM and CGM + AID, respectively.
IN PRACTICE:
“Educational initiatives continue to be important for all individuals with type 1 diabetes, and the development of novel therapeutic options and strategies, including bihormonal AID systems and beta-cell replacement, will be required to enable more of these individuals to meet treatment goals,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, published online in Diabetes Care, was led by Jennifer L. Sherr, MD, PhD, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
LIMITATIONS:
The survey participants in this study were from the T1D Exchange online community, who tend to be highly involved, have technology experience, and are more likely to achieve glycemic targets. The data reported as part of the survey were based on self-reports by participants and may be subject to recall bias. Notably, severe hypoglycemic events may be overreported by individuals using CGM and AID systems due to sensor alarms.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Several authors disclosed financial relationships, including grants, consulting fees, honoraria, stock ownership, and employment with pharmaceutical and device companies and other entities.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Despite diabetes technology, many with type 1 diabetes (T1D) miss glycemic targets and experience severe hypoglycemia and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH).
METHODOLOGY:
- The clinical management of T1D through technology is now recognized as the standard of care, but its real-world impact on glycemic targets and severe hypoglycemic events and IAH is unclear.
- Researchers assessed the self-reported prevalence of glycemic metrics, severe hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia awareness according to the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems.
- They enrolled 2044 individuals diagnosed with T1D for at least 2 years (mean age, 43.0 years; 72.1% women; 95.4% White) from the T1D Exchange Registry and online communities who filled an online survey.
- Participants were stratified on the basis of the presence or absence of CGM and different insulin delivery methods (multiple daily injections, conventional pumps, or AID systems).
- The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who achieved glycemic targets (self-reported A1c), had severe hypoglycemia (any low glucose incidence in 12 months), and/or IAH (a modified Gold score on a seven-point Likert scale).
TAKEAWAY:
- Most participants (91.7%) used CGM, and 50.8% of CGM users used an AID system.
- Despite advanced interventions, only 59.6% (95% CI, 57.3%-61.8%) of CGM users met the glycemic target (A1c < 7%), while nearly 40% of CGM users and 35.6% of AID users didn’t reach the target.
- At least one event of severe hypoglycemia in the previous 12 months was reported in 10.8% of CGM users and 16.6% of those using an AID system.
- IAH prevalence was seen in 31.1% (95% CI, 29.0%-33.2%) and 30.3% (95% CI, 17.5%-33.3%) of participants using CGM and CGM + AID, respectively.
IN PRACTICE:
“Educational initiatives continue to be important for all individuals with type 1 diabetes, and the development of novel therapeutic options and strategies, including bihormonal AID systems and beta-cell replacement, will be required to enable more of these individuals to meet treatment goals,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, published online in Diabetes Care, was led by Jennifer L. Sherr, MD, PhD, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
LIMITATIONS:
The survey participants in this study were from the T1D Exchange online community, who tend to be highly involved, have technology experience, and are more likely to achieve glycemic targets. The data reported as part of the survey were based on self-reports by participants and may be subject to recall bias. Notably, severe hypoglycemic events may be overreported by individuals using CGM and AID systems due to sensor alarms.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Several authors disclosed financial relationships, including grants, consulting fees, honoraria, stock ownership, and employment with pharmaceutical and device companies and other entities.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.