BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care (Aug 2023)

Implementation of flash glucose monitoring in four pediatric diabetes clinics: controlled before and after study to produce real-world evidence of patient benefit

  • William Hollingworth,
  • Jenny Ingram,
  • Rebecca Kandiyali,
  • Hazel Taylor,
  • Julian Hamilton-Shield,
  • Elizabeth Thomas,
  • Charlie Kenward,
  • Nicol West,
  • Freyja Cullen,
  • David Mcgregor,
  • Becky Smith

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2023-003561
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 11, no. 4

Abstract

Read online

Aims To assess the real-world evidence for flash glucose monitoring (Abbott FreeStyle Libre) for children with type 1 diabetes in terms of glucose control, secondary healthcare resources and costs.Research design and methods We conducted a controlled before and after study (approximately 12 months before and after) using routinely collected health record data on children who start using flash monitors and a control population of children with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Our population-based sample of eligible individuals using flash monitoring (n=114) and controls (n=80) aged between 4 and 18 years was drawn from four paediatric diabetes clinics (secondary care) in the South West England. Outcome measures included: glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), frequency of BG tests; frequency of sensor scans; time in recommended glucose range; short-term complications (hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis and related illness resulting in investigation) and secondary care costs.Results After adjustment for age, time since diagnosis, deprivation and the test modality (point of care or laboratory), the mean HbA1c reading for controls was 61.2 (mmol/mol) for the period before and 63.9 after. For individuals using flash monitoring, the adjusted mean HbA1c reading was 64.6 for the period before implementation and 63.8 after. Rates of short-term complications were low across all groups in the study. Whereas the ‘after’ flash monitoring group had substantially higher incremental costs (+£703 vs the flash monitoring ‘before’ comparison and +£841 vs contemporaneous SMBG controls), these cost differences were driven by primary care prescribing (sensor costs).Conclusions There was some indication that flash monitoring might help young people improve the control of their diabetes but for our sample, the difference between finger-prick testing and flash monitoring was not clinically significant (HbA1c improvement <5 mmol/mol). Given the pace of technological change within diabetes, research efforts should now facilitate the real-time analysis of long-term routine data on flash and continuous glucose monitors.