Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2021
Comparing Patch vs Pen Bolus Insulin Delivery in Type 2 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics and Profiles.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bergenstal Richard M, Johnson Mary L, Aroda Vanita R, Brazg Ronald L, Dreon Darlene M, Frias Juan P, Kruger Davida F, Molitch Mark E, Mullen Deborah M, Peyrot Mark, Richter Sara, Rosenstock Julio, Serusclat Pierre, Vance Carl, Weinstock Ruth S, Levy Brian L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: CeQur Simplicity™ (CeQur, Marlborough, MA) is a 3-day insulin delivery patch designed to meet mealtime insulin requirements. A recently reported 48-week, randomized, multicenter, interventional trial compared efficacy, safety and self-reported outcomes in 278 adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin therapy who initiated and managed mealtime insulin therapy with a patch pump versus insulin pen. We assessed changes in key glycemic metrics among a subset of patients who wore a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device.
METHODS: Study participants (patch, n = 49; pen, n = 48) wore a CGM device in masked setting during the baseline period and prior to week 24. Glycemic control was assessed using international consensus guidelines for percentage of Time In Range (%TIR: >70% at 70-180 mg/dL), Time Below Range (%TBR: <4% at <70 mg/dL; <1% at <54 mg/dL), and Time Above Range (%TAR: <25% at >180 mg/dL; <5% at >250 mg/dL).
RESULTS: Both the patch and pen groups achieved recommended targets in %TIR (74.1% ± 18.7%, 75.2 ± 16.1%, respectively) and marked reductions in %TAR >180 mg/dL (21.1% ± 19.9%, 19.7% ± 17.5%, respectively) but with increased %TBR <70 mg/dL (4.7% ± 5.2%, 5.1 ± 5.8, respectively), all P < .0001. No significant between-group differences in glycemic improvements or adverse events were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: CGM confirmed that the patch or pen can be used to safely initiate and optimize basal-bolus therapy using a simple insulin adjustment algorithm with SMBG. Preference data suggest that use of the patch vs pen may enhance treatment adherence.
METHODS: Study participants (patch, n = 49; pen, n = 48) wore a CGM device in masked setting during the baseline period and prior to week 24. Glycemic control was assessed using international consensus guidelines for percentage of Time In Range (%TIR: >70% at 70-180 mg/dL), Time Below Range (%TBR: <4% at <70 mg/dL; <1% at <54 mg/dL), and Time Above Range (%TAR: <25% at >180 mg/dL; <5% at >250 mg/dL).
RESULTS: Both the patch and pen groups achieved recommended targets in %TIR (74.1% ± 18.7%, 75.2 ± 16.1%, respectively) and marked reductions in %TAR >180 mg/dL (21.1% ± 19.9%, 19.7% ± 17.5%, respectively) but with increased %TBR <70 mg/dL (4.7% ± 5.2%, 5.1 ± 5.8, respectively), all P < .0001. No significant between-group differences in glycemic improvements or adverse events were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: CGM confirmed that the patch or pen can be used to safely initiate and optimize basal-bolus therapy using a simple insulin adjustment algorithm with SMBG. Preference data suggest that use of the patch vs pen may enhance treatment adherence.