Effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems with Data Transmission in Children with Type 1 Diabetes: A Three-Year Remote Follow-Up Study

AIM. To evaluate the effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems with data transmission in children with type 1 diabetes and to assess their impact on key glycemic control parameters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. This study included glucose datasets obtained from CGM systems with data transmission in children aged 4–17 years with type 1 diabetes who were connected to a physician’s professional cloud account between September 2021 and November 2024. The effectiveness of CGM use was assessed 1, 2, and 3 years after the initiation of CGM provision. The following parameters were analyzed: sensor activity during the preceding 2 weeks, time in range (TIR) ≥70%, and TIR <50%. Effective CGM use was defined as sensor activity ≥60%.

RESULTS. Among all children with type 1 diabetes, the number of patients provided with CGM systems and connected to the professional cloud account was 716/1713 (41.8%) in year 1, 1339/1838 (72.9%) in year 2, and 1264/1949 (64.9%) in year 3. The proportion of children who used CGM inadequately (sensor activity <60%) did not change significantly over the 3-year period of remote follow-up and was 27.2%, 28.0%, and 26.7%, respectively (p=0.684). Among active CGM users (sensor activity ≥60%), the proportion of children with TIR ≥70% increased significantly by the end of year 3 compared with year 2 and reached 33.1%. The proportion of patients with TIR <50% increased significantly from 27.1% to 38.1% by year 2, then decreased significantly, but remained relatively high by the end of year 3 (30.9%).

CONCLUSION. Three-year remote follow-up of children with type 1 diabetes provided with CGM systems demonstrated inadequate CGM use in more than one quarter of patients regardless of age. This limited adequate interpretation of glycemic data by the treating physician and adjustment of insulin therapy and may have adversely affected glycemic control in the overall pediatric population with type 1 diabetes. Despite a significant increase in the proportion of active CGM users with TIR ≥70% by the end of year 3, a substantial proportion of children remained at risk of diabetes decompensation (30.9%).

1. Adler AI, Coleman RL, Leal J, et al. Post-trial monitoring of a randomised controlled trial of intensive glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes extended from 10 years to 24 years (UKPDS 91). Lancet. 2024;404(10448):145–155. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00537-3

2. Laptev DN, Emelyanov AO, Andrianova EA, et al. The use of Flash glucose monitoring in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus in real clinical practice. Diabetes Mellitus. 2021;24(6):504–510. (In Russ.)] doi: https://doi.org/10.14341/DM12817

3. Laffel LM, Kanapka LG, Beck RW, et al. Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Adolescents and Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2020;323(23):2388–2396. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.6940

4. Thabit H, Prabhu JN, Mubita W, et al. Use of Factory-Calibrated Real-time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Improves Time in Target and HbA1c in a Multiethnic Cohort of Adolescents and Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: The MILLENNIALS Study. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(10):2537–2543. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-0736

5. Laptev DN, Bezlepkina OB, Demina ES, et al. Evaluation of FreeStyle Libre in pediatric t1dm: improved glycemic control, reduction in diabetic ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycemia. Problems of Endocrinology. 2022;68(3):86–92. (In Russ.)] doi: https://doi.org/10.14341/probl12877

6. Sadeghi D. Improving Adherence to Treatment in Patients With Diabetes: Practical Strategies. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab. 2024;7(4):e00512. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/edm2.512

7. Dedov II, Shestakova MV, Vikulova OK, et al. Epidemiology and key clinical and therapeutic indicators of diabetes mellitus in Russian Federation according to the World Health Organization’s strategy goals. Diabetes Mellitus. 2025;28(1):4–17. (In Russ.)] doi: https://doi.org/10.14341/DM13292

8. Laptev DN. Type 1 diabetes in children: adulthood ahead. Diabetes Mellitus. 2025;28(1):18–25. (In Russ.)] doi: https://doi.org/10.14341/DM13252

9. Foster NC, Beck RW, Miller KM, et al. State of Type 1 Diabetes Management and Outcomes from the T1D Exchange in 2016–2018. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(2):66–72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2018.0384

10. Hermann JM, Miller KM, Hofer SE, et al. The Transatlantic HbA1c gap: differences in glycaemic control across the lifespan between people included in the US T1D Exchange Registry and those included in the German/Austrian DPV registry. Diabet Med. 2020;37(5):848–855. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.14148

11. Šumník Z, Pavlíková M, Pomahačová R, et al. Use of continuous glucose monitoring and its association with type 1 diabetes control in children over the first 3 years of reimbursement approval: Population data from the ČENDA registry. Pediatr Diabetes. 2021;22(3):439–447. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/pedi.13184

12. Telo GH, Volkening LK, Butler DA, Laffel LM. Salient characteristics of youth with type 1 diabetes initiating continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17(6):373–378. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2014.0290

13. Tilden DR, French B, Datye KA, Jaser SS. Disparities in Continuous Glucose Monitor Use Between Children With Type 1 Diabetes Living in Urban and Rural Areas. Diabetes Care. 2024;47(3):346–352. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc23-1564

14. Khadilkar A, Oza C. Glycaemic Control in Youth and Young Adults: Challenges and Solutions. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2022;15:121–129. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/DMSO.S304347

15. Monaghan M, Bryant BL, Inverso H, et al. Young Children with Type 1 Diabetes: Recent Advances in Behavioral Research. Curr Diab Rep. 2022;22(6):247–256. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-022-01465-0