Cargando…

Real-Life Management and Effectiveness of Insulin Pump with or Without Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION: To describe and compare the routine use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients with and without continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in routine clinical practice and its relationship with glycemic outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective observation...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Viñals, Clara, Quirós, Carmen, Giménez, Marga, Conget, Ignacio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6531534/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30900146
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13300-019-0599-1
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: To describe and compare the routine use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients with and without continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in routine clinical practice and its relationship with glycemic outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective observational case–control study collecting routine use of CSII and CGM in T1D patients between January 2016 and December 2016. Patients with T1D using sensor augmented pump (SAP) were matched by sex and disease duration in a 1:3 ratio with those treated only with CSII. Patients used a Paradigm Veo or 640G Medtronic-Minimed(®) insulin pump with or without a glucose sensor (Enlite, Medtronic-Minimed(®)) for at least 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 160 subjects with T1D were included, 40 using SAP and 120 on CSII (age 47 ± 12 years, 88 women, diabetes duration 29 ± 9.0 years, 10 ± 4.7 years on CSII, HbA(1C) 7.6 ± 0.8%). Those in SAP therapy used the sensor 63% of time, performed less self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG)/day (3.3 ± 1.9 vs. 4.5 ± 2.0; p < 0.01), more bolus/day (6.2 ± 3.6 vs. 4.8 ± 1.6; p < 0.05), more basal insulin segment/day (6.5 ± 2.1 vs. 5.9 ± 1.5; p < 0.05), and more suspension time of the pump (97 ± 93 vs. 9.6 ± 20 min/day; p < 0.0001). Regarding metabolic control, SAP therapy patients had lower HbA(1c) (7.4 ± 0.7 vs. 7.7 ± 0.9%; p = 0.068), lower average SMBG value (151 ± 32 vs. 163 ± 30 mg/dL; p < 0.05), a lower percentage of SMBG values greater than 180 mg/dL (30 ± 19 vs. 37 ± 16%; p < 0.05) with no differences in SMBG values less than 70 mg/dL (12 ± 8.0 vs. 9.8 ± 9.8%; p = 0.33) compared with patients on CSII. There were no differences in bolus wizard targets or in insulin/carbohydrate ratios per day. CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, SAP therapy is associated with more self-adjustments of insulin therapy when compared to CSII alone. This could result in an improvement in glucose control.