The ‘flash’ adhesive study: a randomized crossover trial using an additional adhesive patch to prolong freestyle libre sensor life among youth with type 1 diabetes mellitus

Marsters, Brooke L; Boucher, Sara E; Galland, Barbara; Lange, Michel de; Wiltshire, Esko; Bock, Martin de; Elbalshy, Mona; Tomlinson, Paul; Rayns, Jenny; MacKenzie, Karen E; Chan, Huan; Wheeler, Benjamin J

doi:10.1007/s00592-020-01556-y

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another issue raised by participants was a perceived reduced duration of sensor use, that was reported to range from 3 to 6 days for both sensor types, leading to some user frustration. Sensor life and reliability remains an area for improvement in all systems, with up to 32% of CGM and 24% of isCGM ending prematurely (22). Connectivity with newer phones and associated operating systems is a challenge for industry to keep up with and could further contribute to lower device satisfaction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

User experiences during the transition to calibration-free sensors with remote monitoring while using automated insulin delivery - a qualitative study.

Sehgal

Bock

Jones

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To evaluate the experiences of patients with type 1 diabetes following transition from a calibration-requiring to a calibration-free sensor and remote monitoring in the context of using automated insulin delivery (AID). Methods: Fifteen participants aged 7–65 years with type 1 diabetes participating in a longitudinal study used a Medtronic® advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) device with initially calibration-requiring then calibration-free sensors. Qualitative interviews were conducted ≥20 weeks following use of the calibration-requiring and ≥4 weeks after use of the calibration-free sensors/remote monitoring. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes and subthemes. Results: At baseline, mean diabetes duration was 14.5 years (±10.9), mean Hba1c 54.8 mmol/mol (±10.2) (7.2±0.9%) and Time in range 75.4% (±11.6). Participants reported a progressive improvement in digital and lifestyle integration, and device trust following transition to calibration-free sensors with remote monitoring potential. They also reported a reduced need for capillary glucose, increased device satisfaction and trust, and reduced burden of diabetes care. Negative aspects reported included periodic early sensor loss, and for some, impaired integration with mobile devices. Conclusion: Transitioning to calibration-free sensors with remote monitoring while using AID was associated with better user experience, including perceptions of improved quality of life and a reduced burden of diabetes care. Appropriate expectation setting, training, and ongoing support allow for the optimal user experience while using AID.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

User experiences during the transition to calibration-free sensors with remote monitoring while using automated insulin delivery - a qualitative study.

Sehgal

Bock

Jones

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This in turn requires close coordination between persons with diabetes and their clinicians (22,23). The need for a personalized approach to alert/alarm settings form the cornerstone of recently published adult and pediatric clinical guidelines that address continuous glucose monitoring (24, 25) Another issue raised by participants was a perceived reduced duration of sensor use, that was reported to range from 3 to 6 days for both sensor types, leading to some user frustration Sensor life and reliability remains an area for improvement in many systems with up to 32% of CGM and 24% of intermittent scanned continuous glucose monitors(isCGM) ending prematurely (26) In contrast earlier work on the retention and reliability of rt-CGM sensors has revealed rates of retention between 87-95.7% over 10-14 days depending on sensor type used (27)(28)(29)(30). In the case of Dexcom sensors, most cases of reduced sensor survival were due to early sensor shut off (29).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

User experiences during the transition to calibration-free sensors with remote monitoring while using automated insulin delivery - a qualitative study

Sehgal,

De Bock,

Jones

et al. 2023

Front. Endocrinol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionTo evaluate the experiences of patients with type 1 diabetes following transition from a calibration-requiring to a calibration-free sensor and remote monitoring in the context of using automated insulin delivery (AID).Research design and methodsFifteen participants aged 7–65 years with type 1 diabetes participating in a longitudinal study used a Medtronic® advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) device with initially calibration-requiring then calibration-free sensors. Qualitative interviews were conducted ≥20 weeks following use of the calibration-requiring and ≥4 weeks after use of the calibration-free sensors/remote monitoring. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes and subthemes.ResultsAt baseline, mean diabetes duration was 14.5 years ( ± 10.9), mean Hba1c 54.8 mmol/mol ( ± 10.2) (7.2 ± 0.9%) and Time in range 75.4% ( ± 11.6). Participants reported a progressive improvement in digital and lifestyle integration, and device trust following transition to calibration-free sensors with remote monitoring potential. They also reported a reduced need for capillary glucose, increased device satisfaction and trust, and reduced burden of diabetes care. Negative aspects reported included periodic early sensor loss, and for some, impaired integration with mobile devices.ConclusionTransitioning to calibration-free sensors with remote monitoring while using AHCL was associated with better user experience, including perceptions of improved quality of life and a reduced burden of diabetes care. Appropriate expectation setting, training, and ongoing support allow for the optimal user experience while using AHCL.Clinical trial registrationhttps://www.anzctr.org.au, identifier ACTRN12621000360819

show abstract

Practicalities of Flash-monitoring systems utilization in the questionnaire survey of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) are recommended to perform self-control 6–10 times a day to maintain optimal blood glucose levels. Currently, there are various devices, such as glucometers, systems for continuous blood glucose monitoring and flash monitoring (FMS). In real clinical practice patients can combine the use of various devices and face with problems of their exploitation.AIM: To investigate the peculiarities of FMS utilization by children and adolescents with T1DM using questionnaire survey.MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 06.2020 till 05.2021, a survey of patients with T1DM was conducted as part of a single-center, observational, one-stage, uncontrolled study. The questionnaire contained questions regarding the number of measurements, circumstances and adverse reactions when using the devices.RESULTS: We questioned 80 patients (47 girls and 33 boys) aged 11.7 (9.0; 14.0) years with DM1 for 4.9 (2.0; 7.0) years, HbA1c level 8.2 (6.8; 9.0)) which were in pediatric endocrinology department of the University Children’s Clinical Hospital.The majority of patients (86.3%) scan the sensor more than 10 times a day; 25% of FMS-users measure blood glucose with glucometer not every day.The majority of patients (51,3%) prefer to use FMS instead of glucometer in all circumstances. Patients face with errors using FMS more often than using glucometers — OR 3.4 (95% CI 1.7–6.8). Non-significant reaction to adhesive material disturbed 50.0% participants; one patient (1.3%) had to refuse FMS due to allergic reaction.Among possible reasons to refuse FMS patients often name error, skin sealing, high price, inflammation, inconvenience to wear a device.Additional measures for fixing FMS device are always used by 36,3% of patients, sometimes — 18,8%, in some situations (going in for sports, swimming, travelling, in case of unsticking at the end of term) — 15,0%.CONCLUSION: Quarter of FMS users double-check glycaemia values rarer than recommended. Patients face with error using FMS more often than using glucometer. Local reaction to adhesive material does not influence FMS utilization. The majority of patients use additional measures for fixing FMS devices.

show abstract

The ‘flash’ adhesive study: a randomized crossover trial using an additional adhesive patch to prolong freestyle libre sensor life among youth with type 1 diabetes mellitus

Cited by 3 publications

References 26 publications

User experiences during the transition to calibration-free sensors with remote monitoring while using automated insulin delivery - a qualitative study.

User experiences during the transition to calibration-free sensors with remote monitoring while using automated insulin delivery - a qualitative study.

User experiences during the transition to calibration-free sensors with remote monitoring while using automated insulin delivery - a qualitative study

Practicalities of Flash-monitoring systems utilization in the questionnaire survey of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About