4.7 Article

Incremental Value of Continuous Glucose Monitoring When Starting Pump Therapy in Patients With Poorly Controlled Type 1 Diabetes The RealTrend study

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 32, 期 12, 页码 2245-2250

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc09-0750

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medtronic France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - To compare the improvements in glycemic control associated with transitioning to insulin pump therapy in patients using continuous glucose monitoring versus Standard blood glucose self-monitoring. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - The RealTrend study was a 6-month, randomized, parallel-group, two-arm, open-label study of 132 adults and children with uncontrolled type I diabetes (A1C >= 8%) being treated with multiple daily injections. One group was fitted with the Medtronic MiniMed Paradigm REAL-Time system (PRT group), an insulin pump with integrated continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring (CGM) capability, with instructions to wear CGM sensors at least 70% of the time. Conventional insulin pump therapy was initiated in the Other group (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII] group). Outcome measures included A1C and glycemic variability. RESULTS - A total of 115 patients completed the study. Between baseline and trial end, A1C improved significantly in both groups (PRT group -0.81 +/- 1.09%, P < 0.001; CSII group -0.57 +/- 0.94%, P < 0.001), with no significant difference between groups. When the 91 patients who were fully protocol-compliant (including CGM sensor wear !:70% of the time) were considered, A1C improvement was significantly greater in the PRT group (P = 0.004) (PRT group -0.96 +/- 0.93%, P < 0.001; CSII group -0.55 +/- 0.93%, P < 0.001). Hyperglycemia parameters decreased in line with improvements in A 1 C with no impact on hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS - CGM-enabled insulin pump therapy improves glycemia more than conventional pump therapy during the first 6 months of pump use in patients who wear CGM sensors at least 70% of the time.

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

4.7
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