'We're taught green is good': Perspectives on time in range and time in tight range from youth with type 1 diabetes, and parents of youth with type 1 diabetes.
continuous glucose monitoring
paediatrics
psychosocial aspects
time in range
type 1 diabetes
Journal
Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association
ISSN: 1464-5491
Titre abrégé: Diabet Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8500858
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Aug 2024
08 Aug 2024
Historique:
revised:
26
07
2024
received:
14
02
2024
accepted:
29
07
2024
medline:
9
8
2024
pubmed:
9
8
2024
entrez:
9
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems are standard of care for youth with type 1 diabetes with the goal of spending >70% time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL, 3.9-10 mmol/L). We aimed to understand paediatric CGM user experiences with TIR metrics considering recent discussion of shifting to time in tight range (TITR; >50% time between 70 and 140 mg/dL, 3.9 and 7.8 mmol/L). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with adolescents with type 1 diabetes and parents of youth with type 1 diabetes focused on experiences with TIR goals and reactions to TITR. Groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using content analysis. Thirty participants (N = 19 parents: age 43.6 ± 5.3 years, 79% female, 47% non-Hispanic White, 20 ± 5 months since child's diagnosis; N = 11 adolescents: age 15.3 ± 2 years, 55% female, 55% non-Hispanic White, 16 ± 3 months since diagnosis) attended. Participants had varying levels of understanding of TIR. Some developed personally preferred glucose ranges. Parents often aimed to surpass 70% TIR. Many described feelings of stress and disappointment when they did not meet a TIR goal. Concerns about TITR included increased stress and burden; risk of hypoglycaemia; and family conflict. Some participants said TITR would not change their daily lives; others said it would improve their diabetes management. Families requested care team support and a clear scientific rationale for TITR. The wealth of CGM data creates frequent opportunities for assessing diabetes management and carries implications for management burden. Input from people with type 1 diabetes and their families will be critical in considering a shift in glycaemic goals and targets.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e15423Subventions
Organisme : NIH HHS
Pays : United States
Organisme : National Science Foundation
Organisme : Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust
Informations de copyright
© 2024 Diabetes UK.
Références
Prahalad P, Scheinker D, Desai M, et al. Equitable implementation of a precision digital health program for glucose management in individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. Nat Med. 2024;30:1‐9.
Tauschmann M, Forlenza G, Hood K, et al. ISPAD clinical practice consensus guidelines 2022: diabetes technologies: glucose monitoring. Pediatr Diabetes. 2022;23(8):1390‐1405.
Burckhardt M‐A, Abraham MB, Mountain J, et al. Improvement in psychosocial outcomes in children with type 1 diabetes and their parents following subsidy for continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(10):575‐580.
Aouchiche K, Bernoux D, Sadoul EB, et al. Impact of continuous glucose monitoring on everyday life of young children with type 1 diabetes and their parents: an evaluation of 114 families. Prim Care Diabetes. 2023;18:91‐96.
Carlson AL, Martens TW, Johnson L, Criego AB. Continuous glucose monitoring integration for remote diabetes management: virtual diabetes care with case studies. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021; 23(Supplement_3):S56‐S65.
Chang A, Gao MZ, Ferstad JO, et al. A quantitative model to ensure capacity sufficient for timely access to care in a remote patient monitoring program. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab. 2023;6:e435.
14. Children and adolescents: standards of care in diabetes—2024. Diabetes Care. 2024;47(Supplement_1):S258‐S281.
de Bock M, Codner E, Craig ME, et al. ISPAD clinical practice consensus guidelines 2022: glycemic targets and glucose monitoring for children, adolescents, and young people with diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2022;23(8):1270‐1276.
Battelino T, Alexander CM, Amiel SA, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring and metrics for clinical trials: an international consensus statement. Lancet Diabet Endocrinol. 2023;11(1):42‐57.
Dovc K, Battelino T. Time in range centered diabetes care. Clin Pediatr Endocrinol. 2021;30(1):1‐10.
Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, Cheng P, et al. The relationships between time in range, hyperglycemia metrics, and HbA1c. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019;13(4):614‐626.
Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, Riddlesworth TD, et al. Validation of time in range as an outcome measure for diabetes clinical trials. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(3):400‐405.
Vigersky RA, McMahon C. The relationship of hemoglobin A1c to time‐in‐range in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(2):81‐85.
Aldridge S. EASD e‐Learning [Internet]. 2023 Accessed December 28, 2023. https://easd‐elearning.org/is‐time‐in‐tight‐range‐the‐metric‐of‐the‐future‐news/
Beck RW. Is it time to replace time‐in‐range with time‐in‐tight‐range? Maybe not. Diabetes Technol Therap. 2024;26(3):147‐150.
Passanisi S, Piona C, Salzano G, et al. Aiming for the best glycemic control beyond time in range: time in tight range as a new CGM metric in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes using different treatment modalities. Diabetes Technol Therap. 2024;26(3):161‐166.
Lind M, Svensson A‐M, Kosiborod M, et al. Glycemic control and excess mortality in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(21):1972‐1982.
Castañeda J, Arrieta A, van den Heuvel T, Battelino T, Cohen O. Time in tight glucose range in type 1 diabetes: predictive factors and achievable targets in real‐world users of the MiniMed 780G system. Diabetes Care. 2023;47(5):790‐797.
Eviz E, Killi NE, Karakus KE, et al. Assessing the feasibility of time in tight range (TITR) targets with advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) use in children and adolescents: a single‐centre real‐world study. Diabet Med. 2024;41:e15333.
Beck RW, Raghinaru D, Calhoun P, Bergenstal RM. A comparison of continuous glucose monitoring‐measured time‐in‐range 70–180 mg/dL versus time‐in‐tight‐range 70–140 mg/dL. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2024;26(3):151‐155.
Zaharieva DP, Bishop FK, Maahs DM. Advancements and future directions in the teamwork, targets, technology, and tight control—the 4T study: improving clinical outcomes in newly diagnosed pediatric type 1 diabetes. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2022;34(4):423‐429.
Lambert SD, Loiselle CG. Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(2):228‐237.
Morse JM. The Significance of Saturation. Sage Publications Sage CA; 1995:147‐149.
Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative Research in Health Care. 2nd ed. BMJ Books; 2000.
Patton MQ. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Sage; 2002.
Lumivero. NVivo (Version 14). 2023.
Hamidi V, Pettus JH. Time in tight range for patients with type 1 diabetes: the time is now, or is it too soon? Diabetes Care. 2024;47(5):782‐784.
Litterbach E, Holmes‐Truscott E, Pouwer F, Speight J, Hendrieckx C. I wish my health professionals understood that it's not just all about your HbA1c!'. Qualitative responses from the second diabetes MILES–Australia (MILES‐2) study. Diabet Med. 2020;37(6):971‐981.
NICE. Hybrid closed loop systems for managing blood glucose levels in type 1 diabetes: NICE Technology Appraisal TA943. 2023. Accessed December 19 2023. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta943
Read M, Henshaw KN, Zaharieva DP, et al. “Empowering us”: a community‐led survey of real‐world perspectives of adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring to manage their glucose levels. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2023;202:110830.