User login
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers evaluated the effectiveness of CGM use enhanced by geriatric principles in adults aged ≥ 65 years with T1D and at least two episodes of hypoglycemia (blood glucose level, < 70 mg/dL for ≥ 20 minutes over 2 weeks), who were either CGM-naive or CGM users prior to the study.
- Participants were randomly assigned to an intervention group using CGM with geriatric principles (ie, adjusting goals based on overall health and simplifying regimens based on CGM patterns and clinical characteristics) or a control group receiving usual care by their endocrinologist.
- The primary outcome was the change in duration of hypoglycemia from baseline to 6 months.
- A cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed for the intervention using a healthcare sector perspective, considering the cost of CGM devices and the cost of medical staff time.
TAKEAWAY:
- Researchers included 131 participants (mean age, 71 years), of whom 68 were in the intervention group (35 CGM-naive) and 63 in the control group (23 CGM-naive).
- The intervention group showed a median reduction of 2.6% in the duration of hypoglycemia vs a 0.3% reduction in the control group (median difference, −2.3%; P < .001).
- This reduction was observed in both CGM users (median difference, −1.2%) and CGM-naive participants (median difference, −2.8%) in the intervention group.
- No significant difference in A1c levels was observed between the intervention and control groups, indicating that CGM enhanced with geriatric principles did not worsen glycemic control.
- The intervention was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $71,623 per quality-adjusted life-year and was cost-effective for CGM-naive participants but at a lower level owing to the high cost of the CGM device.
IN PRACTICE:
“Personalization of goals and simplification of complex regimens can be combined with CGM use to improve management of type 1 diabetes in older adults,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Medha N. Munshi, MD, Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston. It was published online in Diabetes Care.
LIMITATIONS:
The study included a relatively small sample size and an ethnically homogeneous and highly educated cohort, which may have limited the generalizability of its findings. Additionally, the study did not measure adherence to individual simplification strategies, which may have hindered the quantification of behavioral changes.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Two authors declared serving as consultants for pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers evaluated the effectiveness of CGM use enhanced by geriatric principles in adults aged ≥ 65 years with T1D and at least two episodes of hypoglycemia (blood glucose level, < 70 mg/dL for ≥ 20 minutes over 2 weeks), who were either CGM-naive or CGM users prior to the study.
- Participants were randomly assigned to an intervention group using CGM with geriatric principles (ie, adjusting goals based on overall health and simplifying regimens based on CGM patterns and clinical characteristics) or a control group receiving usual care by their endocrinologist.
- The primary outcome was the change in duration of hypoglycemia from baseline to 6 months.
- A cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed for the intervention using a healthcare sector perspective, considering the cost of CGM devices and the cost of medical staff time.
TAKEAWAY:
- Researchers included 131 participants (mean age, 71 years), of whom 68 were in the intervention group (35 CGM-naive) and 63 in the control group (23 CGM-naive).
- The intervention group showed a median reduction of 2.6% in the duration of hypoglycemia vs a 0.3% reduction in the control group (median difference, −2.3%; P < .001).
- This reduction was observed in both CGM users (median difference, −1.2%) and CGM-naive participants (median difference, −2.8%) in the intervention group.
- No significant difference in A1c levels was observed between the intervention and control groups, indicating that CGM enhanced with geriatric principles did not worsen glycemic control.
- The intervention was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $71,623 per quality-adjusted life-year and was cost-effective for CGM-naive participants but at a lower level owing to the high cost of the CGM device.
IN PRACTICE:
“Personalization of goals and simplification of complex regimens can be combined with CGM use to improve management of type 1 diabetes in older adults,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Medha N. Munshi, MD, Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston. It was published online in Diabetes Care.
LIMITATIONS:
The study included a relatively small sample size and an ethnically homogeneous and highly educated cohort, which may have limited the generalizability of its findings. Additionally, the study did not measure adherence to individual simplification strategies, which may have hindered the quantification of behavioral changes.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Two authors declared serving as consultants for pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers evaluated the effectiveness of CGM use enhanced by geriatric principles in adults aged ≥ 65 years with T1D and at least two episodes of hypoglycemia (blood glucose level, < 70 mg/dL for ≥ 20 minutes over 2 weeks), who were either CGM-naive or CGM users prior to the study.
- Participants were randomly assigned to an intervention group using CGM with geriatric principles (ie, adjusting goals based on overall health and simplifying regimens based on CGM patterns and clinical characteristics) or a control group receiving usual care by their endocrinologist.
- The primary outcome was the change in duration of hypoglycemia from baseline to 6 months.
- A cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed for the intervention using a healthcare sector perspective, considering the cost of CGM devices and the cost of medical staff time.
TAKEAWAY:
- Researchers included 131 participants (mean age, 71 years), of whom 68 were in the intervention group (35 CGM-naive) and 63 in the control group (23 CGM-naive).
- The intervention group showed a median reduction of 2.6% in the duration of hypoglycemia vs a 0.3% reduction in the control group (median difference, −2.3%; P < .001).
- This reduction was observed in both CGM users (median difference, −1.2%) and CGM-naive participants (median difference, −2.8%) in the intervention group.
- No significant difference in A1c levels was observed between the intervention and control groups, indicating that CGM enhanced with geriatric principles did not worsen glycemic control.
- The intervention was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $71,623 per quality-adjusted life-year and was cost-effective for CGM-naive participants but at a lower level owing to the high cost of the CGM device.
IN PRACTICE:
“Personalization of goals and simplification of complex regimens can be combined with CGM use to improve management of type 1 diabetes in older adults,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Medha N. Munshi, MD, Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston. It was published online in Diabetes Care.
LIMITATIONS:
The study included a relatively small sample size and an ethnically homogeneous and highly educated cohort, which may have limited the generalizability of its findings. Additionally, the study did not measure adherence to individual simplification strategies, which may have hindered the quantification of behavioral changes.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Two authors declared serving as consultants for pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.