The aim of this study was to assess accuracy of the three most commonly used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems in almost real‐life situation during a diabetes camp in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) aged 9–14 years. Data was gathered during a 2‐week summer camp under physicians' supervision. Out of 38 participating children with T1D (aged: 11.0 [9.9; 12.1] years; 57% girls, mean HbA1c 7.2 [6.9; 7.7] %,) 37 wore a CGM system (either Abbott FreeStyle Libre (FSL), Dexcom G6 (DEX) or Medtronic Enlite (ENL)) throughout the camp. All concomitantly available data pairs of capillary glucose measurements and sensor values were used for the analysis. Mean absolute relative difference (MARD) was calculated and Parkes Error Grid analyses were done for all three systems used. In total 2079 data pairs were available for analysis. The overall MARDs of CGM systems used at the camp was FSL: 13.3% (6.7;21.6). DEX: 10.3% (5.8; 16.7) and ENL 8.5% (3.6; 15.6). During eu‐, hypo‐ and hyperglycemia MARDs were lowest in ENL. Highest MARDs were seen in hypoglycemia, where all three systems exhibited MARDs above 15%. Overnight MARDs of all systems was higher than during daytime. All sensors performed worst in hypoglycemia. Performance of the adequately calibrated Medtronic system outperformed the factory‐calibrated sensors. For clinical practice, it is important to adequately train children with T1D and families in the correct procedures for sensors that require calibrations.

No abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to assess and compare the time in range (TIR) of children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) before and during a diabetes summer camp using different therapy modalities. Methods: A retrospective analysis of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data collected from 26 children with T1D (mean age: 11.0 ± 1.4 years; 62% female; 62% on insulin pump; Hb1Ac 7.3 ± 0.8% (56.3 ± 8.7 mmol/mol) before and during a 14-day summer camp. CGM methods: 50% intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) and 50% real-time CGM (rtCGM). No child was using a hybrid closed loop system. Results: Mean TIR during camp was significantly higher than before camp ((67.0 ± 10.7%) vs. 58.2% ± 17.4%, p = 0.004). There was a significant reduction in time above range (TAR) (p = 0.001) and increase in time below range (TBR) (p < 0.001), Children using isCGM showed a more pronounced improvement in TIR during camp compared to rtCGM-users (p = 0.025). The increase in TIR strongly correlated with numbers of scans per day in isCGM-users (r = 0.751, p = 0.003). Compared to isCGM-users, rtCGM-users showed significantly less TBR. The TIR target was met by 30.8% of participants during camp. Conclusion: Glycemic control improved significantly during the camp. However, on average, the therapy goal (TIR > 70%) could not be achieved despite great professional effort.

No abstract

No abstract