Cargando…

Intermittent Scanning Glucose Monitoring or Predicted Low Suspend Pump Treatment: Does It Impact Time in Glucose Target and Treatment Preference? The QUEST Randomized Crossover Study

OBJECTIVE: To 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 (®)). MET...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schierloh, Ulrike, Aguayo, Gloria A., Schritz, Anna, Fichelle, Muriel, De Melo Dias, Cindy, Vaillant, Michel T., Cohen, Ohad, Gies, Inge, de Beaufort, Carine
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9193969/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35712259
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.870916
_version_ 1784726602136944640
author Schierloh, Ulrike
Aguayo, Gloria A.
Schritz, Anna
Fichelle, Muriel
De Melo Dias, Cindy
Vaillant, Michel T.
Cohen, Ohad
Gies, Inge
de Beaufort, Carine
author_facet Schierloh, Ulrike
Aguayo, Gloria A.
Schritz, Anna
Fichelle, Muriel
De Melo Dias, Cindy
Vaillant, Michel T.
Cohen, Ohad
Gies, Inge
de Beaufort, Carine
author_sort Schierloh, Ulrike
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To 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 (®)). METHODS: In 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), <3 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(®)). RESULTS: 31 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. CONCLUSIONS: In 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9193969
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91939692022-06-15 Intermittent Scanning Glucose Monitoring or Predicted Low Suspend Pump Treatment: Does It Impact Time in Glucose Target and Treatment Preference? The QUEST Randomized Crossover Study Schierloh, Ulrike Aguayo, Gloria A. Schritz, Anna Fichelle, Muriel De Melo Dias, Cindy Vaillant, Michel T. Cohen, Ohad Gies, Inge de Beaufort, Carine Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Endocrinology OBJECTIVE: To 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 (®)). METHODS: In 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), <3 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(®)). RESULTS: 31 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. CONCLUSIONS: In 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. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-05-31 /pmc/articles/PMC9193969/ /pubmed/35712259 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.870916 Text en Copyright © 2022 Schierloh, Aguayo, Schritz, Fichelle, De Melo Dias, Vaillant, Cohen, Gies and de Beaufort https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Endocrinology
Schierloh, Ulrike
Aguayo, Gloria A.
Schritz, Anna
Fichelle, Muriel
De Melo Dias, Cindy
Vaillant, Michel T.
Cohen, Ohad
Gies, Inge
de Beaufort, Carine
Intermittent Scanning Glucose Monitoring or Predicted Low Suspend Pump Treatment: Does It Impact Time in Glucose Target and Treatment Preference? The QUEST Randomized Crossover Study
title Intermittent Scanning Glucose Monitoring or Predicted Low Suspend Pump Treatment: Does It Impact Time in Glucose Target and Treatment Preference? The QUEST Randomized Crossover Study
title_full Intermittent Scanning Glucose Monitoring or Predicted Low Suspend Pump Treatment: Does It Impact Time in Glucose Target and Treatment Preference? The QUEST Randomized Crossover Study
title_fullStr Intermittent Scanning Glucose Monitoring or Predicted Low Suspend Pump Treatment: Does It Impact Time in Glucose Target and Treatment Preference? The QUEST Randomized Crossover Study
title_full_unstemmed Intermittent Scanning Glucose Monitoring or Predicted Low Suspend Pump Treatment: Does It Impact Time in Glucose Target and Treatment Preference? The QUEST Randomized Crossover Study
title_short Intermittent Scanning Glucose Monitoring or Predicted Low Suspend Pump Treatment: Does It Impact Time in Glucose Target and Treatment Preference? The QUEST Randomized Crossover Study
title_sort intermittent scanning glucose monitoring or predicted low suspend pump treatment: does it impact time in glucose target and treatment preference? the quest randomized crossover study
topic Endocrinology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9193969/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35712259
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.870916
work_keys_str_mv AT schierlohulrike intermittentscanningglucosemonitoringorpredictedlowsuspendpumptreatmentdoesitimpacttimeinglucosetargetandtreatmentpreferencethequestrandomizedcrossoverstudy
AT aguayogloriaa intermittentscanningglucosemonitoringorpredictedlowsuspendpumptreatmentdoesitimpacttimeinglucosetargetandtreatmentpreferencethequestrandomizedcrossoverstudy
AT schritzanna intermittentscanningglucosemonitoringorpredictedlowsuspendpumptreatmentdoesitimpacttimeinglucosetargetandtreatmentpreferencethequestrandomizedcrossoverstudy
AT fichellemuriel intermittentscanningglucosemonitoringorpredictedlowsuspendpumptreatmentdoesitimpacttimeinglucosetargetandtreatmentpreferencethequestrandomizedcrossoverstudy
AT demelodiascindy intermittentscanningglucosemonitoringorpredictedlowsuspendpumptreatmentdoesitimpacttimeinglucosetargetandtreatmentpreferencethequestrandomizedcrossoverstudy
AT vaillantmichelt intermittentscanningglucosemonitoringorpredictedlowsuspendpumptreatmentdoesitimpacttimeinglucosetargetandtreatmentpreferencethequestrandomizedcrossoverstudy
AT cohenohad intermittentscanningglucosemonitoringorpredictedlowsuspendpumptreatmentdoesitimpacttimeinglucosetargetandtreatmentpreferencethequestrandomizedcrossoverstudy
AT giesinge intermittentscanningglucosemonitoringorpredictedlowsuspendpumptreatmentdoesitimpacttimeinglucosetargetandtreatmentpreferencethequestrandomizedcrossoverstudy
AT debeaufortcarine intermittentscanningglucosemonitoringorpredictedlowsuspendpumptreatmentdoesitimpacttimeinglucosetargetandtreatmentpreferencethequestrandomizedcrossoverstudy