CGM – Yes and Yes!
Monday, August 4, 2014 - 08:30
What persuaded UK blogger Dave
Dave aka 'The Tangerine Diabetic' had some good reasons to consider CGM. He references his treatment in the UK, but we thought you might like to read his story.
This blog was originally posted in Feb 2014 by a third party – http://thetangerinediabetic.blogspot.jp.
Time for another update. It seems my blog is in a circle of updates at the moment but bear with me as this one contains exciting new news. Well exciting for me, maybe slightly less so for you! In November I was in a quandary about whether to dive in to the world of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM). Would I and should I? Whilst I desired CCG funding and not having to pay for it, it became clear that if I wanted one I would have to use my money to do it. As I said at the time I understood why this was the case and begrudgingly accepted the short-term cost reasoning.
My control with the CGM was as tight as I've ever seen it.
In between then and now I had an appointment with my consultant and as a preparation for this I managed to persuade my wonderful DSN to let me borrow one. This was also paired with a few nighttime issues so it had a clinical need too. My control with the CGM was as tight as I’ve ever seen it. I'll come to theories on the reasoning for this in a moment. As a comparison, my estimated HbA1c with the CGM on was 5.7%. This compares to the bloods taken at my appointment which showed 6.8%* for the previous few months. I understand (and have written) about how poor a measure the HbA1c test is but it does indicate the reduced number of highs and as it's the only measure available it’s the one figure that can be used to compare.
*As a side note, the 6.8% was the first I've ever had that begin with a 6, so I was very excited by this!
So I was lower, but why? As the sensor was a one-off, had I altered my behaviour to keep the lines in the lower parts of the graph? This has been a constant question in the back of my head. If I had a CGM for a longer period would my food behaviour return to a more 'normal' level and therefore provide a more accurate view of my BG levels? I think there would be that constant nagging in the background and the ability to tweak ratios and basals after seeing a long-running trend is, for me, highly valuable.
Was my behaviour also affected by knowing that Barney or Mr Rockwell were coming up and I was keen to be a 'good boy' when sat in front of them? Again this is a possibility but I need to understand how I’ll behave if I know that the only person seeing my graphs is me. I do think that my obsession with numbers will help me to maintain a lower average than I've been experiencing with blood testing alone. Could this be something I find out over time?
The deciding factor for me was the graphs seen during my pre-appointment sensor.
So did any of this help me to get closer to an answer as to whether buying a CGM and sensors would be good for me? In short, yes. The deciding factor for me was the graphs seen during my pre-appointment sensor. Compared to my scattergun of dots on the same graph from BGs in the weeks before that, the difference was significant.
There are also the benefits of my BG (15 minutes ago) being viewable at a quick glance. I’m involved with a junior football team and last week I had an annoying hypo that resulted in me asking the boys to change coloured bibs three times in five minutes and an exercise that was a little bit disorganised. To be fair to the boys, once I twigged what was happening and just told them to play a match whilst I chomped on Fruit Pastilles, they didn’t really notice. But I did and I felt strongly that I let the boys down. Being able to spot that trend earlier would be very helpful for me. Paired with a strong desire to get back out on the road doing long-distance running with a strong fear of hypos on the run. CGM wouldn’t stop the low but it would help me build a strategy much more easily than by testing frequently whilst speeding (OK, staggering) along.
However, there's still a significant issue of cost. Even with the free transmitter offer from Medtronic the £55 ($100) per week is still a huge chunk of money in anyone's wallet. I had long repetitive conversations with the wonderfully supportive Mrs Tangerine on this point and it came down to this. Do I think the sensor will improve my control? Yes. Will this consequently reduce the likelihood and impact of complications in the long run? Yes. If it was my son or daughter with the diabetes would I hesitate for a second? No. Can we afford or justify the cost full-time? No. Part-time? Just about. In her words "Just get it bloody ordered. You know you want it and it will be good for you and therefore good for all of us."
So that’s where I am now. Once '’ve had it running for a while I'll update on whether it’s worth the considerable cost. Thanks for reading.
What works for you is the most important thing for you.
** I'm very aware that CGM is not viewed by all as a useful tool and some believe they can achieve similar if not better control through MDI + blood testing or pump + blood testing. That is fine. Really. This world we live in is filled with different people and what works for me, both in my head and my body, is the most important factor for me. What works for you is the most important thing for you. I'm not wrong, you’re not wrong. We're just different. In a good way!
*** Slight addendum required after a callback from Medtronic today. Although the new improved Enlite™ Sensor was released on Monday I received the older version on Monday. Because it had left Medtronic's possession they are not allowing them to be returned and swapped, even though the seals on the box are unbroken. Obviously I am a bit disappointed by this but will hopefully get the chance to review the new version when I buy the second box. Hey ho.
The patient testimonial relates an account of an individual's response to the treatment. The individual's account of his response is genuine, typical and documented. However, the individual's response does not provide any indication, guide, warranty or guarantee as to the response other persons may have to the treatment. 1356–072014