Glycemic outcomes with early initiation of continuous glucose monitoring system in recently diagnosed patients with type 1 diabetes
Abstract
Background We investigated the efficacy and safety of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) initiation within 1 year of type 1 diabetes (T1D) diagnosis among children, adolescents, and adults. Methods Differences in mean A1c (primary outcome) and diabetes-related emergency visits (secondary outcome) for 2.5 years between early CGM users and non-CGM users were studied among 396 newly diagnosed patients with T1D (94% children [age Results Gender, ethnicity, body mass index, and A1c at diagnosis were similar between the groups. Irrespective of insulin delivery methods, CGM users had a significantly greater improvement in glycemic control than non-CGM users at 1, 1.5, 2, and 2.5 years. For 2.5 years of follow-up, the multiple daily injection (MDI)+CGM group (n = 19) had 1.5% ± 0.2% lower A1c than the MDI only group (n = 225) (7.7% ± 0.2% vs. 9.2% ± 0.04%, P Conclusion Irrespective of insulin delivery system, early initiation of CGM within 1 year from T1D diagnosis was associated with better glucose control and fewer diabetes-related emergency visits.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Integration of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) into the treatment plan soon after diagnosis improves glycemic outcomes, decreases hypoglycemic events, and improves quality of life for individuals with type 1 diabetes.
“Integration of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) into the treatment plan soon after diagnosis improves glycemic outcomes, decreases hypoglycemic events, and improves quality of life for individuals with type 1 diabetes (18-23).”
From 9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [18]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 13 · Cited by 66
- Authors
- Mulinacci, G., Alonso, G. T., Snell-Bergeon, J. K., & Shah, V. N.
- Affiliations
- Vita-Salute San Raffaele University (IT)
- University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
- Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
- Corresponding author
- Shah, Viral N.
- Venue
- Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-01
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 6-10
- ISSN
- 1520-9156 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-8593
- OpenAlex
- W2906593630
- Cited by
- 66
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 4.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
- Keywords
- type 1 diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring, glycemic control, HbA1c, insulin pump therapy, multiple daily insulin injections, hypoglycemia, newly diagnosed diabetes, children and adolescents, diabetes self-management education
- MeSH terms
- Self-Management, Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Blood Glucose, Child, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Hypoglycemia, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Male, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
