4.6 Article

Predictors of Insulin Regimens and Impact on Outcomes in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes: The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 155, 期 2, 页码 183-189

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.01.063

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01RR001271, M01 RR08084, M01RR00037, M01 RR01070, M01 RR00069] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCCDPHP CDC HHS [U01 DP000247, U01 DP000246, U01 DP000245, U01 DP000244, U01 DP000248, U01 DP000254, U01 DP000250] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To describe the insulin regimens used to treat type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in youth in the United States, to explore factors related to insulin regimen, and to describe the associations between insulin regimen and clinical outcomes, particularly glycemic control. Study design A total of 2743 subjects participated in the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study, an observational population-based study of youth diagnosed with T1DM, conducted at 6 centers. Data collected during a study visit included clinical and sociodemographic information, body mass index, laboratory measures, and insulin regimen. Results Sociodemographic characteristics were associated with insulin regimen. Insulin pump therapy was more frequently used by older youth, females, non-Hispanic whites, and families with higher income and education (P = .02 for females, P < .001 for others). Insulin pump use was associated with the lowest hemoglobin A1C levels in all age groups. A1C levels were >7.5% in >70% of adolescents, regardless of regimen. Conclusions Youth using insulin pumps had the lowest A1C; A1C was unacceptably high in adolescents. There is a need to more fully assess and understand factors associated with insulin regimens recommended by providers and the influence of race/ethnicity, education, and socioeconomic status on these treatment recommendations and to develop more effective treatment strategies, particularly for adolescents. (J Pediatr 2009; 155:183-9).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据