{"title":"Does faster aspart improve time in range in children with type 1 diabetes with glycaemia close to target on insulin pump therapy?","authors":"Kowalczyk-Korcz Emilia, Dymińska Magdalena, Groele Lidia, Szypowska Agnieszka","doi":"10.1111/dme.70330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate whether faster insulin aspart (FIA) improves time in range (TIR) compared with standard insulin aspart (SIA) in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes achieving glycaemia close to target treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This prospective, open-label, randomized, 1:1 crossover trial included participants aged 6–17 years with T1D duration of ≥1 year, CSII use ≥3 months, CGM use ≥1 month, and HbA1c 64 mmol/mol (<8%). After a 2-week run-in period, they then crossed over to the alternate insulin for another 4 weeks. All participants used the same CGM system. Assessments were performed at the end of each treatment phase. The primary endpoint was the between-treatment difference in TIR (3.9–10.0 mmol/L, 70–180 mg/dL).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Seventy-seven children were enrolled (mean T1D duration approximately 7 years; 66% male; mean HbA1c 53 mmol/mol, 7%). Mean TIR was 68.5% (SD 12.3%) with SIA and 67.6% (SD 12.1%) with FIA, with no statistically significant difference (mean difference −0.9%; 95% CI –2.60 to 0.86; <i>P</i> = 0.322). Similar patterns were observed for additional glycaemic metrics. Time in tight range was also similar between treatments: 46.3% for SIA versus 45.4% for FIA (<i>P</i> = 0.674).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>In this randomised crossover study of children and adolescents with T1D achieving glycaemia close to target on CSII, switching from SIA to FIA does not improve TIR. The absence of improvement across CGM-derived metrics suggests that FIA does not meaningfully enhance glycaemic outcomes in this clinical setting.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":11251,"journal":{"name":"Diabetic Medicine","volume":"43 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dme.70330","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dme.70330","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims
To evaluate whether faster insulin aspart (FIA) improves time in range (TIR) compared with standard insulin aspart (SIA) in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes achieving glycaemia close to target treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).
Methods
This prospective, open-label, randomized, 1:1 crossover trial included participants aged 6–17 years with T1D duration of ≥1 year, CSII use ≥3 months, CGM use ≥1 month, and HbA1c 64 mmol/mol (<8%). After a 2-week run-in period, they then crossed over to the alternate insulin for another 4 weeks. All participants used the same CGM system. Assessments were performed at the end of each treatment phase. The primary endpoint was the between-treatment difference in TIR (3.9–10.0 mmol/L, 70–180 mg/dL).
Results
Seventy-seven children were enrolled (mean T1D duration approximately 7 years; 66% male; mean HbA1c 53 mmol/mol, 7%). Mean TIR was 68.5% (SD 12.3%) with SIA and 67.6% (SD 12.1%) with FIA, with no statistically significant difference (mean difference −0.9%; 95% CI –2.60 to 0.86; P = 0.322). Similar patterns were observed for additional glycaemic metrics. Time in tight range was also similar between treatments: 46.3% for SIA versus 45.4% for FIA (P = 0.674).
Conclusions
In this randomised crossover study of children and adolescents with T1D achieving glycaemia close to target on CSII, switching from SIA to FIA does not improve TIR. The absence of improvement across CGM-derived metrics suggests that FIA does not meaningfully enhance glycaemic outcomes in this clinical setting.
期刊介绍:
Diabetic Medicine, the official journal of Diabetes UK, is published monthly simultaneously, in print and online editions.
The journal publishes a range of key information on all clinical aspects of diabetes mellitus, ranging from human genetic studies through clinical physiology and trials to diabetes epidemiology. We do not publish original animal or cell culture studies unless they are part of a study of clinical diabetes involving humans. Categories of publication include research articles, reviews, editorials, commentaries, and correspondence. All material is peer-reviewed.
We aim to disseminate knowledge about diabetes research with the goal of improving the management of people with diabetes. The journal therefore seeks to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas between clinicians and researchers worldwide. Topics covered are of importance to all healthcare professionals working with people with diabetes, whether in primary care or specialist services.
Surplus generated from the sale of Diabetic Medicine is used by Diabetes UK to know diabetes better and fight diabetes more effectively on behalf of all people affected by and at risk of diabetes as well as their families and carers.”