Limits...
Evaluation of an algorithm to guide patients with type 1 diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion on how to respond to real-time continuous glucose levels: a randomized controlled trial.

Jenkins AJ, Krishnamurthy B, Best JD, Cameron FJ, Colman PG, Farish S, Hamblin PS, O'Connell MA, Rodda C, Rowley K, Teede H, O'Neal DN - Diabetes Care (2010)

Bottom Line: Secondary outcomes were differences in A1C, low (<or=3.9 mmol/l) glucose CGM time, and glycemic variability.The change in target glucose time did not differ between groups.Upon RT-CGM cessation, A1C returned to baseline.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, St Vincent's Hospital, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate an algorithm guiding responses of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII)-treated type 1 diabetic patients using real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM).

Research design and methods: Sixty CSII-treated type 1 diabetic participants (aged 13-70 years, including adult and adolescent subgroups, with A1C

Results: In phase 1, after withdrawals 29 of 30 subjects were left in group A and 28 of 30 subjects were left in group B. The change in target glucose time did not differ between groups. A1C fell (mean 7.9% [95% CI 7.7-8.2to 7.6% [7.2-8.0]; P < 0.03) in group A but not in group B (7.8% [7.5-8.1] to 7.7 [7.3-8.0]; NS) with no difference between groups. More subjects in group A achieved A1C

Conclusions: Early but not late algorithm provision to type 1 diabetic patients using CSII/RT-CGM did not increase the target glucose time but increased achievement of A1C

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

A1C at baseline, 16 weeks, and 32 weeks according to study group in all participants (A), adult participants (B), and adolescent participants (C) who returned for the 32-week visit. D: Number of interactions with handsets providing “reactive” guidelines on how to respond to real-time glucose levels. *P < 0.05, compared with baseline for the 16-week data and compared with 16 weeks for the 32-week data. **P < 0.0001, 16 weeks compared with baseline.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2875432&req=5

Figure 2: A1C at baseline, 16 weeks, and 32 weeks according to study group in all participants (A), adult participants (B), and adolescent participants (C) who returned for the 32-week visit. D: Number of interactions with handsets providing “reactive” guidelines on how to respond to real-time glucose levels. *P < 0.05, compared with baseline for the 16-week data and compared with 16 weeks for the 32-week data. **P < 0.0001, 16 weeks compared with baseline.

Mentions: There were no statistically significant differences in target glucose time changes in group A or B nor any difference by algorithm assignment. A1C decreased in group A (P = 0.03) but not in group B (Fig. 2A). A1C change did not vary significantly by algorithm assignment. More participants in group A than in group B achieved A1C ≤7.0% (P = 0.015). In both groups, MAGE and low glucose time did not change significantly (Table 2).


Evaluation of an algorithm to guide patients with type 1 diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion on how to respond to real-time continuous glucose levels: a randomized controlled trial.

Jenkins AJ, Krishnamurthy B, Best JD, Cameron FJ, Colman PG, Farish S, Hamblin PS, O'Connell MA, Rodda C, Rowley K, Teede H, O'Neal DN - Diabetes Care (2010)

A1C at baseline, 16 weeks, and 32 weeks according to study group in all participants (A), adult participants (B), and adolescent participants (C) who returned for the 32-week visit. D: Number of interactions with handsets providing “reactive” guidelines on how to respond to real-time glucose levels. *P < 0.05, compared with baseline for the 16-week data and compared with 16 weeks for the 32-week data. **P < 0.0001, 16 weeks compared with baseline.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2875432&req=5

Figure 2: A1C at baseline, 16 weeks, and 32 weeks according to study group in all participants (A), adult participants (B), and adolescent participants (C) who returned for the 32-week visit. D: Number of interactions with handsets providing “reactive” guidelines on how to respond to real-time glucose levels. *P < 0.05, compared with baseline for the 16-week data and compared with 16 weeks for the 32-week data. **P < 0.0001, 16 weeks compared with baseline.
Mentions: There were no statistically significant differences in target glucose time changes in group A or B nor any difference by algorithm assignment. A1C decreased in group A (P = 0.03) but not in group B (Fig. 2A). A1C change did not vary significantly by algorithm assignment. More participants in group A than in group B achieved A1C ≤7.0% (P = 0.015). In both groups, MAGE and low glucose time did not change significantly (Table 2).

Bottom Line: Secondary outcomes were differences in A1C, low (<or=3.9 mmol/l) glucose CGM time, and glycemic variability.The change in target glucose time did not differ between groups.Upon RT-CGM cessation, A1C returned to baseline.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, St Vincent's Hospital, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate an algorithm guiding responses of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII)-treated type 1 diabetic patients using real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM).

Research design and methods: Sixty CSII-treated type 1 diabetic participants (aged 13-70 years, including adult and adolescent subgroups, with A1C

Results: In phase 1, after withdrawals 29 of 30 subjects were left in group A and 28 of 30 subjects were left in group B. The change in target glucose time did not differ between groups. A1C fell (mean 7.9% [95% CI 7.7-8.2to 7.6% [7.2-8.0]; P < 0.03) in group A but not in group B (7.8% [7.5-8.1] to 7.7 [7.3-8.0]; NS) with no difference between groups. More subjects in group A achieved A1C

Conclusions: Early but not late algorithm provision to type 1 diabetic patients using CSII/RT-CGM did not increase the target glucose time but increased achievement of A1C

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus