RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Analysis of the impact on severe hypoglycaemia and direct costs of the introduction of the FreeStyle Libre sensor in paediatric population with type 1 Diabetes Mellitus. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ambispective single-centre study to assess the impact on severe hypoglycaemia and direct costs, focusing on consumption of materials, in paediatric population with type 1 Diabetes Mellitus before and after introduction of the FreeStyle Libre 1 sensor. RESULTS: A significant decrease was found in episodes of severe hypoglycaemia, with 4.2 episodes of severe hypoglycaemia per 100 patients under follow-up versus 0.25 episodes per 100 patients a year after introduction of the system. This represents a cost difference for severe hypoglycaemia, estimated at €6559.52 before introduction and €409.97 after introduction of the FreeStyle Libre sensor. We found a decrease in the daily consumption of capillary blood glucose strips, which translates as a decrease in the cost of materials and helps mitigate the cost of the sensor. The cost in materials for the patient with FreeStyle Libre was €185.13 per patient and year higher than conventional control with capillary blood glucose strips.

Asunto(s)

Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Hipoglucemia , Niño , Humanos , Glucemia , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Costos de la Atención en Salud

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Good metabolic control of Type 1 diabetes (T1D) leads to a reduction in complications. The only validated parameter for establishing the degree of control is glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). We examined the relationship between HbA1c and a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort prospective study with 191 pediatric patients with T1D was conducted. Time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR), coefficient of variation (CV), number of capillary blood glucose tests, and HbA1c before sensor insertion and at one year of use were collected. RESULTS: Patients were classified into five groups according to HbA1c at one year of using CGM. They performed fewer capillary blood glucose test at one year using CGM (-6 +/- 2, p < 0.0001). We found statistically significant differences in TIR between categories. Although groups with HbA1c < 6.5% and HbA1c 6.5-7% had the highest TIR (62.214 and 50.462%), their values were highly below optimal control according to CGM consensus. Groups with TBR < 5% were those with HbA1c between 6.5% and 8%. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, groups classified as well-controlled by guidelines were not consistent with good control according to the CGM consensus criteria. HbA1c should not be considered as the only parameter for metabolic control. CGM parameters allow individualized targets.