Cited by 0Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and Education

Continuous glucose monitoring with geriatric principles in older adults with type 1 diabetes and hypoglycemia: a randomized controlled trial

Open access
N Munshi, Medha, Slyne, Christine, Adam, Atif, Conery, Colin, Oladunjoye, Adeolu, Neuwahl, Simon, Wypij, David, Toschi, Elena·2024

Preprint — published as 10.2337/dc24-1069

Abstract

Objective: Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) use in older adults with Type-1 Diabetes (T1D) has shown benefits. However, the impact of CGM use, coupled with simplified treatment regimens and personalized glycemic goals that are better suited for older patients with multiple comorbidities and hypoglycemia, is not known. Research Design and Methods: Older adults (≥65 years) with T1D with hypoglycemia (≥2 episodes of hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL for ≥20 minutes over 2 weeks) who were CGM-naïve or CGM-users were randomized to intervention and control groups. The intervention consisted of the combined use of CGM with geriatric principles (adjusting goals based on overall health, and simplification of regimens based on CGM patterns and clinical characteristics) over a 6-month period. Control group received usual care by their endocrinologist. The primary endpoint was change in time <70 mg/dL from baseline to 6-months. Cost-effectiveness was calculated using a healthcare sector perspective. Results: We randomized 131 participants(age 71±5 years; 21% ≥75 years) to intervention (n=68; CGM-users=33) or control (n=63; CGM-users=40) groups. The median change in hypoglycemia from baseline to 6-months was –2·6% in the intervention group and –0.3% in the control group(median difference –2.3%,95%Cl [–3.7%,–1.3%];P<0.001). This improvement was seen in both CGM-naïve(–2.8%,[–5.6%,–0.8%]) and CGM-users (–1.2%,[–2.7%,–0.1%]). The HbA1C did not differ between the groups (7.5% vs 7.3%). The interventi…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/figshare.26940601

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • CGM devices are acceptable to people of all age-groups, including older individuals with type 1 diabetes or insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes.

    “Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices have been shown to be effective at improving glycemic management and acceptable to people of all age-groups, including older individuals with type 1 diabetes (44–48) or insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes (49,50).”

    From 13. Older Adults: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2026 (2026) · cites this paper as [48]

  • CGM devices have been shown to be effective at improving glycemic management.

    “Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices have been shown to be effective at improving glycemic management and acceptable to people of all age-groups, including older individuals with type 1 diabetes (44–48) or insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes (49,50).”

    From 13. Older Adults: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2026 (2026) · cites this paper as [48]

Authors
N Munshi, M., Slyne, C., Adam, A., Conery, C., Oladunjoye, A., Neuwahl, S., Wypij, D., & Toschi, E.
Published
2024-09-26
OpenAlex
W4402898793
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
other
Language
en
Open access
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
continuous glucose monitoring, type 1 diabetes, older adults, hypoglycemia, hypoglycemia prevention, treatment regimen simplification, HbA1c, cost-effectiveness, comorbidities

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