Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025
Despite lower haemoglobin A1c with second-generation automated insulin delivery systems, mental burden remains high for all adults with type 1 diabetes: A BETTER registry analysis.
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.
Wu Zekai, Alexandre-Heymann Laure, Lebbar Maha, Talbo Meryem K, Bandini Aude, Chahal Tamanna, Grou Caroline, Messier Virginie, Boudreau Valérie, Brazeau Anne-Sophie, Rabasa-Lhoret Rémi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We aim to compare second-generation automated insulin delivery systems (AIDs) with other treatment modalities regarding both glucose management outcomes and person-reported outcomes/experiences (PROs/PREs, measured by the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey, Hypoglycemic Confidence Scale, Hyperglycemia Avoidance Scale, Diabetes Distress Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Well-being Scale, and treatment satisfaction) among adults with type 1 diabetes.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian BETTER type 1 diabetes registry. Adult participants were divided into five groups: second-generation AIDs, first-generation AIDs, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) + pump, CGM + multiple daily injections (MDI), and non-CGM using MDI or pump. Generalized linear models were used to assess differences between the second-generation AID group and each of the other groups, with p < 0.05 considered significant.
RESULTS: Among 1731 participants (69.2% females), mean age was 45.3 ± 15.3 years with 24.7 ± 16.0 years of diabetes. The second-generation AID group had the highest proportion of achieving target haemoglobin A1c ≤ 7% (58.1%) compared to 40.6% in the first-generation AID group, 40.5% in the Pump + CGM group, 37.3% in the MDI + CGM group, and 32.3% in the non-CGM group, even after adjustment for multiple imbalanced characteristics (p < 0.001). While second-generation AID users reported higher treatment satisfaction, no other differences in measures of PROs/PREs were found between second-generation AID and other groups. Elevated diabetes distress (55%) and poor sleep quality (63%) remained common across all treatment groups, and even among those who had reached the optimal HbA1c target (48% and 60%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: In real-world settings, second-generation AIDs were associated with lower haemoglobin A1c and higher treatment satisfaction but not better PROs/PREs. Mental burden remained high despite the use of advanced diabetes technologies and optimal glucose management.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian BETTER type 1 diabetes registry. Adult participants were divided into five groups: second-generation AIDs, first-generation AIDs, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) + pump, CGM + multiple daily injections (MDI), and non-CGM using MDI or pump. Generalized linear models were used to assess differences between the second-generation AID group and each of the other groups, with p < 0.05 considered significant.
RESULTS: Among 1731 participants (69.2% females), mean age was 45.3 ± 15.3 years with 24.7 ± 16.0 years of diabetes. The second-generation AID group had the highest proportion of achieving target haemoglobin A1c ≤ 7% (58.1%) compared to 40.6% in the first-generation AID group, 40.5% in the Pump + CGM group, 37.3% in the MDI + CGM group, and 32.3% in the non-CGM group, even after adjustment for multiple imbalanced characteristics (p < 0.001). While second-generation AID users reported higher treatment satisfaction, no other differences in measures of PROs/PREs were found between second-generation AID and other groups. Elevated diabetes distress (55%) and poor sleep quality (63%) remained common across all treatment groups, and even among those who had reached the optimal HbA1c target (48% and 60%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: In real-world settings, second-generation AIDs were associated with lower haemoglobin A1c and higher treatment satisfaction but not better PROs/PREs. Mental burden remained high despite the use of advanced diabetes technologies and optimal glucose management.