Intermittent Scanning Glucose Monitoring or Predicted Low Suspend Pump Treatment
| Autor: | Ulrike Schierloh, Gloria A. Aguayo, Anna Schritz, Muriel Fichelle, Cindy De Melo Dias, Michel T. Vaillant, Ohad Cohen, Inge Gies, Carine de Beaufort |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Clinical sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Growth and Development, Pediatrics |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2022 |
| Předmět: |
Blood Glucose
Cross-Over Studies Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring Endocrinology Diabetes and Metabolism Diabetes Mellitus Type 1/drug therapy Infant Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use Hypoglycemia Diabetes Mellitus Type 1 Insulin/therapeutic use Hypoglycemic Agents Insulin Humans Female Pediatrics Perinatology and Child Health glucose Child |
| DOI: | 10.3389/fendo.2022.870916 |
| Popis: | ObjectiveTo compare glycemic control and treatment preference in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using sensor augmented pump (SAP) with predictive low glucose suspend (SmartGuard®) or pump with independent intermittent scanning continuous glucose monitoring (iscCGM, Freestyle libre ®).MethodsIn this open label, cross-over study, children 6 to 14 years of age, treated with insulin pump for at least 6 months, were randomized to insulin pump and iscCGM (A) or SAP with SmartGuard® (B) for 5 weeks followed by 5 additional weeks. The difference in percentages of time in glucose target (TIT), (3.9 – 8.0 mmol/l), 8 and 10 mmol/l, were analyzed using linear mixed models during the final week of each arm and were measured by blinded CGM (IPro2®).Results31 children (15 girls) finished the study. With sensor compliance > 60%, no difference in TIT was found, TIT: A 37.86%; 95% CI [33.21; 42.51]; B 37.20%; 95% CI [32.59; 41.82]; < 3 mmol/l A 2.27% 95% CI [0.71; 3.84] B 1.42% 95% CI [-0.13; 2.97]; > 8 mmol/l A 0.60% 95% CI [0.56, 0.67]; B 0.63% [0.56; 0.70]. One year after the study all participants were on CGM compared to 80.7% prior to the study, with a shift of 13/25 participants from iscCGM to SAP.ConclusionsIn this study, no significant difference in glycemic control was found whether treated with SAP (SmartGuard®) or pump with iscCGM. The decision of all families to continue with CGM after the study suggests a positive impact, with preference for SmartGuard®.Clinical Trial Registration[clinicaltrials.gov], identifier NCT03103867. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|