Dergiler / The Journal of Pediatric Research / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3

The Effect of Diabetes Camp on Glycemic Variability in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

Sayfa
303–308
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

As a result, using FGMS had a positive effect on diabetes management and the control of hypoglycemia periods during the diabetes camp.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Aim: Glycemic variability can be affected in diabetes camps as a result of sports, social activities and nutrition.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The aim assessment of glycemic variability and time in range by use of the flash glucose monitoring system (FGMS) in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:As a result, using FGMS had a positive effect on diabetes management and the control of hypoglycemia periods during the diabetes camp.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2018 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Aim: Glycemic variability can be affected in diabetes camps as a result of sports, social activities and nutrition. Close glucose monitoring is necessary to reduce glycemic variability, especially hypoglycemia. The aim assessment of glycemic variability and time in range by use of the flash glucose monitoring system (FGMS) in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Materials and Methods: Thirty-three children and adolescents between 10-18 years of age who participated in the 2018 diabetes camp of Ege University were included. Their glycemic variability indexes were recorded. Results: The mean age and duration of diabetes mellitus in the study group was 13.3±0.5 and 4.9±0.7 years respectively. Twelve (43%) of the participants were boys and 16 (57%) were girls. Ten (35.7%) of the participants used continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) pump therapy while 18 (64.3%) used multiple dose insulin therapy. When the participants were evaluated according to time in range (TIR), the duration of TIR increased, and level 1 and level 2 hyperglycemia decreased during the camp. Participants using CSII had spent more time in level 2 hypoglycemia before camp, but during and after the camp, similar values were reached for both groups. Before the camp, participants with good metabolic control had a longer duration of hypoglycemia than those participants with poor metabolic control. During and after the camp, level 1 and level 2 hypoglycemia periods were similar between the two groups. Conclusion: In diabetes camp, healthy diet, regular exercise, and close glycemic control improve glycemic variability. By using FGMS, normoglycemia periods can be increased without increasing hypoglycemic attacks. As a result, using FGMS had a positive effect on diabetes management and the control of hypoglycemia periods during the diabetes camp.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ATA, A., ARI, G., IŞIKLAR, H., DEMİR, G., ALTINOK, Y. A., ERSOY, B., ÖZEN, S., DARCAN, Ş., GÖKŞEN, D. (2021). The Effect of Diabetes Camp on Glycemic Variability in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus. The Journal of Pediatric Research, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3, 303–308. https://ajindex.com/articles/362729

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (12)

  1. Mayer-Davis EJ, Kahkoska AR, Jefferies C, et al. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: definition, epidemiology, and classification of diabetes in children and adolescents. Pediatr Diabetes 2018; 19:7-19
  2. Wagner J, Malchoff C, Abbott G. Invasiveness as a barrier to self-monitoring of blood glucose in diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2005; 7:612-9
  3. Rodbard D. Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of successes, challenges, and opportunities. Diabetes Technol Ther 2016; 18(Suppl 2):S2-13. doi: 10.1089/dia.2015.0417. 4. Ólafsdóttir AF, Attvall S, Sandgren U, et al. A clinical trial of the accuracy and treatment experience of the flash glucose monitor freestyle libre in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017; 19:164-72
  4. Bailey T, Bode BW, Christiansen MP, Klaff LJ, Alva S. the performance and usability of a factory-calibrated flash glucose monitoring system. Diabetes Technol Ther 2015; 17:787-94
  5. Heinemann L, Freckmann G. CGM versus FGM; or, continuous glucose monitoring ıs not flash glucose monitoring. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2015; 9:947-50
  6. Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, et al. Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range. Diabetes Care 2019; 42:1593-603
  7. Miller KM, Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, et al. Evidence of a strong association between frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose and hemoglobin a1c Levels in t1d exchange clinic registry participants. Diabetes Care 2013; 36:2009-14
  8. Mancini G, Berioli M, Santi E, et al. Flash glucose monitoring: a review of the literature with a special focus on type 1 diabetes. Nutrients 2018; 10:992
  9. Francois ME, Cosgrove SD, Walker NM, Lucas SJ, Black KE. Physiological responses to a five-day adventure race: Continuous blood glucose, hemodynamics and metabolites the 2012 GODZone field-study. J Exerc Sci Fit 2018; 16:78-82
  10. Van Dijk J-W, Manders RJF, Canfora EE, et al. Exercise and 24-h glycemic control: equal effects for all type 2 diabetes patients? Med Sci Sports Exerc 2013; 45:628-35
  11. Kennedy A, Narendran P, Andrews RC, Daley A, Greenfield SM. Attitudes and barriers to exercise in adults with a recent diagnosis of type 1 diabetes: a qualitative study of participants in the Exercise for Type 1 Diabetes (EXTOD) study. BMJ Open 2018; 8:e017813. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017813
  12. Choleau C, Aubert C, Cahané M, Reach G. High day-to-day glucose variability: a