Is Continuous Glucose Monitoring Underappreciated in the UK?

Christopher G Parkin, Melissa Holloway, Jeffrey Truesdell, Tomas C Walker
Author Information
  1. Christopher G Parkin: CGParkin Communications, Inc., Boulder City, NV, US.
  2. Melissa Holloway: Speaking Diabetes Ltd, London, UK.
  3. Jeffrey Truesdell: Dexcom, Inc., San Diego, CA, US.
  4. Tomas C Walker: Dexcom, Inc., San Diego, CA, US.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Information about continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use in the UK is limited. We conducted an online survey of a representative sample of current CGM users in England, Scotland and Wales to address this deficit.
METHODS: The 29-item online survey was conducted between 29 December 2016 and 25 January 2017. Persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and caregivers of T1D children/adolescents were recruited from mailing lists, using Nielsen and Harris Polling databases.
RESULTS: 315 patients and caregivers responded to the survey - 170 adult patients and 145 caregivers. Among respondents, 144 received full funding for CGM use, 72 received partial funding and 83 received no funding. Most reported improvements in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) (67.0%), fewer hypoglycaemia episodes (70.2%), improved hypoglycaemia awareness (77.5%) and better diabetes management (92.4%). Self-funders reported significantly higher CGM use (76.1%) than those who were fully funded (58.9%) and/or partially funded (65.9%), p=0.0008. Fewer than 50% of all respondents reported receiving guidance in interpreting CGM data from their diabetes care team; 30.1% of self-funders reported receiving no CGM support from their diabetes team compared with fully funded (2.8%) and partially funded (1.4%) respondents, p<0.0001.
CONCLUSIONS: patients with T1D and their caregivers are realising benefits from CGM use but are largely unsupported by the UK healthcare system.

Keywords

References

  1. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015 Mar;9(2):339-41 [PMID: 25385947]
  2. N Engl J Med. 2013 Jul 18;369(3):224-32 [PMID: 23789889]
  3. Diabetes Care. 2017 Apr;40(4):538-545 [PMID: 28209654]
  4. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016 Jun 28;10 (4):985-6 [PMID: 26902791]
  5. JAMA. 2017 Jan 24;317(4):371-378 [PMID: 28118453]
  6. Acta Diabetol. 2015 Apr;52(2):323-9 [PMID: 25223531]
  7. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2015 Jan;31(1):61-8 [PMID: 24816997]
  8. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015 Jun 12;9(5):1103-10 [PMID: 26071425]
  9. BMJ. 2009 May 26;338:b1870 [PMID: 19474024]
  10. Diabet Med. 2015 May;32(5):609-17 [PMID: 25661981]
  11. Diabetes Care. 2010 Jan;33(1):17-22 [PMID: 19837791]
  12. BMJ. 2011 Jul 07;343:d3805 [PMID: 21737469]
  13. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Aug;98(8):3411-9 [PMID: 23760624]
  14. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015 Mar;9(2):209-14 [PMID: 25370149]
  15. Diabetes Care. 2014 Oct;37(10):2702-9 [PMID: 25011947]
  16. Diabet Med. 2014 Apr;31(4):412-8 [PMID: 24117515]
  17. Acta Diabetol. 2014 Oct;51(5):845-51 [PMID: 25037251]
  18. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016 May;18(5):288-91 [PMID: 26907513]
  19. Diabetes Care. 2016 Apr;39(4):e61-2 [PMID: 26895885]
  20. JAMA. 2017 Jan 24;317(4):379-387 [PMID: 28118454]
  21. Diabetes Care. 2016 May;39(5):686-93 [PMID: 26861924]
  22. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2014 May;16(5):277-83 [PMID: 24758729]
  23. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017 May;11(3):522-528 [PMID: 28745091]
  24. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017 Nov;11(6):1138-1146 [PMID: 28449590]
  25. Diabetologia. 2012 Dec;55(12):3155-62 [PMID: 22965294]
  26. N Engl J Med. 1993 Sep 30;329(14 ):977-86 [PMID: 8366922]
  27. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016 Mar;18(3):127-35 [PMID: 26950530]
  28. Diabetologia. 2016 Jan;59(1):87-91 [PMID: 26546085]
  29. Diabet Med. 2015 Aug;32(8):1036-50 [PMID: 25510978]
  30. Diabetes Care. 2011 Mar;34(3):574-9 [PMID: 21278138]
  31. Diabetes Care. 2012 May;35(5):965-71 [PMID: 22456864]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0CGMdiabetesusecaregiversreportedfundedglucosesurvey1T1DrespondentsreceivedfundingmonitoringUKconductedonlinetypepatientshypoglycaemia4%1%fully9%partiallyreceivingteaminsulinINTRODUCTION:InformationcontinuouslimitedrepresentativesamplecurrentusersEnglandScotlandWalesaddressdeficitMETHODS:29-item29December201625January2017Personschildren/adolescentsrecruitedmailinglistsusingNielsenHarrisPollingdatabasesRESULTS:315responded-170adult145Among144full72partial83improvementsglycatedhaemoglobinHbA1c670%fewerepisodes702%improvedawareness775%bettermanagement92Self-funderssignificantlyhigher7658and/or65p=00008Fewer50%guidanceinterpretingdatacare30self-funderssupportcompared28%p<00001CONCLUSIONS:PatientsrealisingbenefitslargelyunsupportedhealthcaresystemContinuousGlucoseMonitoringUnderappreciatedUK?ContinuousmultipledailyinjectionsMDIselfmonitoringbloodSMBG

Similar Articles

Cited By