Continuous Glucose Monitor in Children With Poorly Controlled Diabetes
NCT ID: NCT02530450
Last Updated: 2017-10-06
Study Results
Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.
View full resultsBasic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
30 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2011-05-31
2013-03-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
All subjects had point-of-care HgbA1c (standard of care) and CGM data collected at time points 0, 3 months, and 6 months. After a regularly scheduled clinic appointment, all subjects and families at time 0 were counseled by a registered dietician regarding carbohydrate counting with a focus on minimizing errors in carbohydrate estimation, as is standard of care for patients with poorly controlled diabetes in our clinic. At time 0, subjects in both Group 1 and 2 had CGM placement after meeting with the dietician. Group 1 subjects were blinded to the first CGM data, meaning that they did not review the CGM download data. Group 2 was scheduled to return to clinic within 2 weeks of placement to meet with a pediatric endocrinologist involved in the study to interpret the CGM results and make adjustments to insulin regimen if appropriate. Both Groups 1 and 2 were not blinded to CGM data at 3 months and 6 months. Again, the CGM was placed after their regularly scheduled diabetes clinic appointments and all families returned within 2 weeks of these visits to meet with the pediatric endocrinologist to interpret the data and adjust the insulin regimen if necessary.
The iPro™ CGM was worn for a minimum of 48 hours (2 days), maximum 96 hours (4 days). Participants were instructed to complete a minimum of 4 SMBG records daily while wearing the iPro™ CGM for system calibration purposes. Subjects documented SMBGs, meal times, carbohydrate intake, insulin doses, exercise, and any hypoglycemic symptoms in a log book for correlation to CGM data.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
CASE_CROSSOVER
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Group 1
Initially blinded to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data after 1st use Not blinded to continuous glucose monitoring data after 2nd and 3rd use
continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)
All subjects in Groups 1 and 2 wore the CGM device at time points 0, 3 months, and 6 months. Group 1 did not review CGM data at time 0, but did review CGM data at time point 3 months and 6 months. Group 2 reviewed CGM data at all time points.
Group 2
Never blinded to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data
continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)
All subjects in Groups 1 and 2 wore the CGM device at time points 0, 3 months, and 6 months. Group 1 did not review CGM data at time 0, but did review CGM data at time point 3 months and 6 months. Group 2 reviewed CGM data at all time points.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)
All subjects in Groups 1 and 2 wore the CGM device at time points 0, 3 months, and 6 months. Group 1 did not review CGM data at time 0, but did review CGM data at time point 3 months and 6 months. Group 2 reviewed CGM data at all time points.
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
2. Treated at UT Health Science Center pediatric diabetes clinic for at least the previous 3 months.
3. HgbA1c \>8.5% (equivalent to average BG of \>205 mg/dL for past three months).
4. Supportive family with willingness to self monitoring blood glucose values at least 4 times per day during study.
5. Supportive family with willingness to participate in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for at least 48 hours including self monitoring blood glucose values at least 4 times per day, documenting meals, carbohydrates eaten, insulin dose given, exercise, and hypoglycemic symptoms.
6. Attend proposed clinic, nutritional, and CGM follow up visits.
7. Pump or multiple daily injection (MDI) insulin therapy (3-4 injections minimum daily). If on pump, on pump for at least the past 3 months. Current insulin regimen involves basal/ bolus therapy with no plans to switch the modality of insulin administration during the study (e.g., injection user switching to a pump, pump user switching to injections).
8. Hypoglycemic unawareness.
9. English or Spanish primary language.
Exclusion Criteria
2. Documented concomitant chronic disease known to affect glycemic control.
3. 3 or more incidents in the last 12 months of severe hypoglycemia with documented blood glucose below 50mg/dL (if possible), resulting in unconsciousness, hospitalization or third party assistance, where recovery follows treatment with glucose or glucagon or similar.
4. 3 or more incidents in the last 12 months of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).
5. Reported alcohol or drug abuse.
6. Documented cutaneous allergy to latex products.
7. Documented eating disorders or morbid obesity as assessed by the investigator.
8. Any other medical, social or psychological condition that, in the investigator's opinion, makes the patient unable to comply with the study protocol and all study procedures.
9. Home use of CGM in the past 6 months.
7 Years
17 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Medtronic Diabetes
INDUSTRY
The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Maria Rayas, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
UT Health Science Center San Antonio
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Maahs DM, West NA, Lawrence JM, Mayer-Davis EJ. Epidemiology of type 1 diabetes. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2010 Sep;39(3):481-97. doi: 10.1016/j.ecl.2010.05.011.
Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group; Nathan DM, Genuth S, Lachin J, Cleary P, Crofford O, Davis M, Rand L, Siebert C. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993 Sep 30;329(14):977-86. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199309303291401.
Nathan DM, Cleary PA, Backlund JY, Genuth SM, Lachin JM, Orchard TJ, Raskin P, Zinman B; Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Study Research Group. Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2005 Dec 22;353(25):2643-53. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa052187.
Borus JS, Laffel L. Adherence challenges in the management of type 1 diabetes in adolescents: prevention and intervention. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2010 Aug;22(4):405-11. doi: 10.1097/MOP.0b013e32833a46a7.
Boland E, Monsod T, Delucia M, Brandt CA, Fernando S, Tamborlane WV. Limitations of conventional methods of self-monitoring of blood glucose: lessons learned from 3 days of continuous glucose sensing in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2001 Nov;24(11):1858-62. doi: 10.2337/diacare.24.11.1858.
Gandrud LM, Xing D, Kollman C, Block JM, Kunselman B, Wilson DM, Buckingham BA. The Medtronic Minimed Gold continuous glucose monitoring system: an effective means to discover hypo- and hyperglycemia in children under 7 years of age. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2007 Aug;9(4):307-16. doi: 10.1089/dia.2007.0026.
Bode BW, Gross TM, Thornton KR, Mastrototaro JJ. Continuous glucose monitoring used to adjust diabetes therapy improves glycosylated hemoglobin: a pilot study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 1999 Dec;46(3):183-90. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8227(99)00113-8.
Tanenberg R, Bode B, Lane W, Levetan C, Mestman J, Harmel AP, Tobian J, Gross T, Mastrototaro J. Use of the Continuous Glucose Monitoring System to guide therapy in patients with insulin-treated diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Mayo Clin Proc. 2004 Dec;79(12):1521-6. doi: 10.4065/79.12.1521.
Chetty VT, Almulla A, Odueyungbo A, Thabane L. The effect of continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring (CGMS) versus intermittent whole blood finger-stick glucose monitoring (SBGM) on hemoglobin A1c (HBA1c) levels in Type I diabetic patients: a systematic review. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2008 Jul;81(1):79-87. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2008.02.014. Epub 2008 Apr 15.
Kaufman FR, Gibson LC, Halvorson M, Carpenter S, Fisher LK, Pitukcheewanont P. A pilot study of the continuous glucose monitoring system: clinical decisions and glycemic control after its use in pediatric type 1 diabetic subjects. Diabetes Care. 2001 Dec;24(12):2030-4. doi: 10.2337/diacare.24.12.2030.
Ludvigsson J, Hanas R. Continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring improved metabolic control in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes: a controlled crossover study. Pediatrics. 2003 May;111(5 Pt 1):933-8. doi: 10.1542/peds.111.5.933.
Lagarde WH, Barrows FP, Davenport ML, Kang M, Guess HA, Calikoglu AS. Continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Pediatr Diabetes. 2006 Jun;7(3):159-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-543X.2006.00162.x.
Schaepelynck-Belicar P, Vague P, Simonin G, Lassmann-Vague V. Improved metabolic control in diabetic adolescents using the continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS). Diabetes Metab. 2003 Dec;29(6):608-12. doi: 10.1016/s1262-3636(07)70076-9.
Ryan EA, Germsheid J. Use of continuous glucose monitoring system in the management of severe hypoglycemia. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009 Oct;11(10):635-9. doi: 10.1089/dia.2009.0042.
Hood KK, Rohan JM, Peterson CM, Drotar D. Interventions with adherence-promoting components in pediatric type 1 diabetes: meta-analysis of their impact on glycemic control. Diabetes Care. 2010 Jul;33(7):1658-64. doi: 10.2337/dc09-2268.
Stanger C, Ryan SR, Delhey LM, Thrailkill K, Li Z, Li Z, Budney AJ. A multicomponent motivational intervention to improve adherence among adolescents with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes: a pilot study. J Pediatr Psychol. 2013 Jul;38(6):629-37. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jst032. Epub 2013 May 22.
Mulvaney SA, Hood KK, Schlundt DG, Osborn CY, Johnson KB, Rothman RL, Wallston KA. Development and initial validation of the barriers to diabetes adherence measure for adolescents. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011 Oct;94(1):77-83. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2011.06.010. Epub 2011 Jul 7.
Telo GH, Volkening LK, Butler DA, Laffel LM. Salient characteristics of youth with type 1 diabetes initiating continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015 Jun;17(6):373-8. doi: 10.1089/dia.2014.0290. Epub 2015 Mar 6.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
HSC20110049H
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id