4.4 Article

Sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy: Results of the first randomized treat-to-target study

期刊

DIABETES TECHNOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 377-383

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/dia.2008.0068

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medtronic, Inc

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The objective of the study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of a device that combines an insulin pump with real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), compared to using an insulin pump with standard blood glucose monitoring systems. Methods: This 6-month, randomized, multicenter, treat-to-target study enrolled 146 subjects treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion between the ages of 12 and 72 years with type 1 diabetes and initial A1C levels of >= 7.5%. Subjects were randomized to pump therapy with real-time CGM (sensor group [SG]) or to pump therapy and self-monitoring of blood glucose only (control group [CG]). Clinical effectiveness and safety were evaluated. Results: A1C levels decreased (P < 0.001) from baseline (8.44 +/- 0.70%) in both groups (SG, -0.71 +/- 0.71%; CG, -0.56 +/- 0.072%); however, between-group differences did not achieve significance. SG subjects showed no change in mean hypoglycemia area under the curve (AUC), whereas CG subjects showed an increase (P = 0.001) in hypoglycemia AUC during the blinded periods of the study. The between-group difference in hypoglycemia AUC was significant (P < 0.0002). Greater than 60% sensor utilization was associated with A1C reduction (P = 0.0456). Fourteen severe hypoglycemic events occurred (11 in the SG group and three in the CG group, P = 0.04). Conclusions: A1C reduction was no different between the two groups. Subjects in the CG group had increased hypoglycemia AUC and number of events during blinded CGM use; however, there was no increase in hypoglycemia AUC or number of events in the SG group. Subjects with greater sensor utilization showed a greater improvement in A1C levels.

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

4.4
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