Cargando…
Preferences of Type 1 Diabetic Patients on Devices for Islet Transplantation
Transplantation of pancreatic islets within a biomaterial device is currently under investigation in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Patients’ preferences on such implants could guide the designs of next-generation implantable devices; however, such informat...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7784499/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33023311 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963689720952343 |
Sumario: | Transplantation of pancreatic islets within a biomaterial device is currently under investigation in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Patients’ preferences on such implants could guide the designs of next-generation implantable devices; however, such information is not currently available. We surveyed the preferences of 482 patients with T1D on the size, shape, visibility, and transplantation site of islet containing implants. More than 83% of participants were willing to receive autologous stem cells, and there was no significant association between implant fabricated by one’s own stem cell with gender (χ (2) (1, n = 468) = 0.28; P = 0.6) or with age (χ (2) (4, n = 468) = 2.92; P = 0.6). Preferred location for islet transplantation within devices was under the skin (52.7%). 48.3% preferred microscopic disks, and 32.3% preferred a thin device (like a credit card). Moreover, 58.4% preferred the implant to be as small as possible, 25.4% did not care about visibility, and 16.2% preferred their implants not to be visible. Among female participants, 81% cared about the implant visibility, whereas this number was 64% for male respondents (χ (2) test (1, n = 468) = 16.34; P < 0.0001). 22% of those younger than 50 years of age and 30% of those older than 50 did not care about the visibility of implant (χ (2) test (4, n = 468) = 23.69; P < 0.0001). These results suggest that subcutaneous sites and micron-sized devices are preferred choices among patients with T1D who participated in our survey. |
---|