Search

Background and Aims: The use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has become standard practice in people with type 1 diabetes. The evaluation of user satisfaction is crucial. The Glucose Monitoring Experiences questionnaire (GME-Q) includes 23 items with a 5-point Likert scale to produce a total satisfaction score and three subscale scores. The study aimed to translate the GME-Q from English into Spanish and to validate its use in Spanish-speaking CGM users with type 1 diabetes., Methods: The linguistic translation and validation process of the GME-Q was established. T1D CGM users were asked to complete the produced Spanish version of the GME-Q and interviewed about difficulties or misunderstandings. Total satisfaction, effectiveness, convenience and intrusiveness subscales and internal consistency reliability were computed., Results: Forward and backward translations and cognitive debriefing produced a final version of the GME-Q in Spanish. Ninety-eight subjects with type 1 diabetes were selected (age: 40 ± 12 years, 63% females, Hb1c: 7.2 ± 0.9% (55 ± 10 mmol/l), pump users: 78%, CGM use: 3.7 ± 2.6 years). The completion rate was 99% and the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.8. The total satisfaction score was 3.9 ± 0.4 (effectiveness: 4.1 ± 0.6, convenience: 3.8 ± 0.6, intrusiveness: 2.2 ± 0.7)., Conclusion: The GME-Q was translated into Spanish and validated for Spanish-speaking CGM users with type 1 diabetes.

Background and Aims: Several treatment modalities are available for type 1 diabetes (T1D), including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and flash glucose monitoring (FGM) with MDI, sensor-augmented pumps with predictive low-glucose suspend function (SAP-PLGS) and hybrid closed-loop systems (HCL). The aim of the study was to evaluate the real-world benefits obtained with these treatment modalities., Methods and Results: A cross-sectional study was performed, selecting 4 groups of T1D subjects, regarding their treatment modalities, paired by age, sex and diabetes duration. A comparison was performed, concerning time in different glucose ranges in 2-week sensor downloads. Estimated HbA1c, glycaemic variability measures and sensor use were also compared. 302 T1D people were included (age: 39 ± 12 years, 47% male, diabetes duration: 21 ± 10 years, estimated HbA1c: 7.28 ± 0.84% (56 ± 9 mmol/mol), baseline HbA1c: 7.4 ± 1.0% (57 ± 11 mmol/mol), length of use of the device 8 [3-21] months). Group 1 (CGM + MDI) and 2 (FGM + MDI) showed no differences in time in different glucose ranges. Group 4 (HCL) showed a higher time 70-180 mg/dl and a lower time in hypoglycaemia than group 3 (SAP-PLGS). Group 1 and 2 showed lower time 70-180 mg/dl, higher time in hyperglycaemia and higher glycaemic variability measures than group 3. Group 4 was superior to groups 1 and 2 in all the outcomes., Conclusion: Real-life achievements in glycaemic control and glycaemic variability are described. HCL offer the maximum benefit in terms of time in range and hypoglycaemia protection, compared to CGM + MDI, FGM + MDI and SAP-PLGS., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Italian Diabetes Society, the Italian Society for the Study of Atherosclerosis, the Italian Society of Human Nutrition and the Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)