无管 AID 系统与带 CGM 的泵疗法相比,在治疗血糖不达标的成人 1 型糖尿病中的疗效和安全性:随机、平行组临床试验。

Diabetes care Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI:10.2337/dc24-1550
Eric Renard, Ruth S Weinstock, Grazia Aleppo, Bruce W Bode, Sue A Brown, Kristin Castorino, Irl B Hirsch, Mark S Kipnes, Lori M Laffel, Rayhan A Lal, Alfred Penfornis, Jean-Pierre Riveline, Viral N Shah, Charles Thivolet, Trang T Ly
{"title":"无管 AID 系统与带 CGM 的泵疗法相比,在治疗血糖不达标的成人 1 型糖尿病中的疗效和安全性:随机、平行组临床试验。","authors":"Eric Renard, Ruth S Weinstock, Grazia Aleppo, Bruce W Bode, Sue A Brown, Kristin Castorino, Irl B Hirsch, Mark S Kipnes, Lori M Laffel, Rayhan A Lal, Alfred Penfornis, Jean-Pierre Riveline, Viral N Shah, Charles Thivolet, Trang T Ly","doi":"10.2337/dc24-1550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the efficacy and safety of the tubeless Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery (AID) system compared with pump therapy with a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) in adults with type 1 diabetes with suboptimal glycemic outcomes.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>In this 13-week multicenter, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial performed in the U.S. and France, adults aged 18-70 years with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c 7-11% (53-97 mmol/mol) were randomly assigned (2:1) to intervention (tubeless AID) or control (pump therapy with CGM) following a 2-week standard therapy period. The primary outcome was a treatment group comparison of time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) during the trial period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 194 participants were randomized, with 132 assigned to the intervention and 62 to the control. TIR during the trial was 4.2h/day higher in the intervention compared with the control group (mean difference 17.5% [95% CI 14.0%, 21.1%]; P < 0.0001). The intervention group had a greater reduction in HbA1c from baseline compared with the control group (mean ± SD -1.24 ± 0.75% [-13.6 ± 8.2 mmol/mol] vs. -0.68 ± 0.93% [-7.4 ± 10.2 mmol/mol], respectively; P < 0.0001), accompanied by a significantly lower time <70 mg/dL (1.18 ± 0.86% vs. 1.75 ± 1.68%; P = 0.005) and >180 mg/dL (37.6 ± 11.4% vs. 54.5 ± 15.4%; P < 0.0001). All primary and secondary outcomes were met. No instances of diabetes-related ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred in the intervention group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Use of the tubeless AID system led to improved glycemic outcomes compared with pump therapy with CGM among adults with type 1 diabetes, underscoring the clinical benefit of AID and bolstering recommendations to establish AID systems as preferred therapy for this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":93979,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes care","volume":" ","pages":"2248-2257"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11655411/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and Safety of a Tubeless AID System Compared With Pump Therapy With CGM in the Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes in Adults With Suboptimal Glycemia: A Randomized, Parallel-Group Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Eric Renard, Ruth S Weinstock, Grazia Aleppo, Bruce W Bode, Sue A Brown, Kristin Castorino, Irl B Hirsch, Mark S Kipnes, Lori M Laffel, Rayhan A Lal, Alfred Penfornis, Jean-Pierre Riveline, Viral N Shah, Charles Thivolet, Trang T Ly\",\"doi\":\"10.2337/dc24-1550\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the efficacy and safety of the tubeless Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery (AID) system compared with pump therapy with a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) in adults with type 1 diabetes with suboptimal glycemic outcomes.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>In this 13-week multicenter, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial performed in the U.S. and France, adults aged 18-70 years with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c 7-11% (53-97 mmol/mol) were randomly assigned (2:1) to intervention (tubeless AID) or control (pump therapy with CGM) following a 2-week standard therapy period. The primary outcome was a treatment group comparison of time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) during the trial period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 194 participants were randomized, with 132 assigned to the intervention and 62 to the control. TIR during the trial was 4.2h/day higher in the intervention compared with the control group (mean difference 17.5% [95% CI 14.0%, 21.1%]; P < 0.0001). The intervention group had a greater reduction in HbA1c from baseline compared with the control group (mean ± SD -1.24 ± 0.75% [-13.6 ± 8.2 mmol/mol] vs. -0.68 ± 0.93% [-7.4 ± 10.2 mmol/mol], respectively; P < 0.0001), accompanied by a significantly lower time <70 mg/dL (1.18 ± 0.86% vs. 1.75 ± 1.68%; P = 0.005) and >180 mg/dL (37.6 ± 11.4% vs. 54.5 ± 15.4%; P < 0.0001). All primary and secondary outcomes were met. No instances of diabetes-related ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred in the intervention group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Use of the tubeless AID system led to improved glycemic outcomes compared with pump therapy with CGM among adults with type 1 diabetes, underscoring the clinical benefit of AID and bolstering recommendations to establish AID systems as preferred therapy for this population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93979,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diabetes care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2248-2257\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11655411/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diabetes care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2337/dc24-1550\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2337/dc24-1550","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的研究设计和方法:在美国和法国进行的这项为期 13 周的多中心平行分组随机对照试验中,年龄在 18-70 岁之间、患有 1 型糖尿病且 HbA1c 为 7-11% 的成人参加了试验:在美国和法国进行的这项为期 13 周的多中心、平行组、随机对照试验中,年龄在 18-70 岁之间、HbA1c 为 7-11% (53-97 mmol/mol)的 1 型糖尿病成人被随机分配(2:1)到干预组(无管 AID)或对照组(带 CGM 的泵疗法),然后接受为期 2 周的标准治疗。主要结果是治疗组在试验期间的血糖控制在范围内(TIR)(70-180 mg/dL)的时间比较:共有 194 人参加了随机试验,其中 132 人被分配到干预组,62 人被分配到对照组。与对照组相比,干预组在试验期间的 TIR 高出 4.2 小时/天(平均差异为 17.5% [95% CI 14.0%, 21.1%];P < 0.0001)。与对照组相比,干预组的 HbA1c 从基线降低幅度更大(分别为平均值 ± SD -1.24 ± 0.75% [-13.6 ± 8.2 mmol/mol] 与 -0.68 ± 0.93% [-7.4 ± 10.2 mmol/mol];P < 0.0001),同时 180 mg/dL 的时间显著降低(37.6 ± 11.4% 与 54.5 ± 15.4%;P < 0.0001)。所有主要和次要结果均符合要求。干预组未发生与糖尿病相关的酮症酸中毒或严重低血糖:结论:与使用 CGM 的泵疗法相比,使用无管 AID 系统可改善 1 型糖尿病成人患者的血糖结果,强调了 AID 的临床益处,并加强了将 AID 系统作为该人群首选疗法的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy and Safety of a Tubeless AID System Compared With Pump Therapy With CGM in the Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes in Adults With Suboptimal Glycemia: A Randomized, Parallel-Group Clinical Trial.

Objective: To examine the efficacy and safety of the tubeless Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery (AID) system compared with pump therapy with a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) in adults with type 1 diabetes with suboptimal glycemic outcomes.

Research design and methods: In this 13-week multicenter, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial performed in the U.S. and France, adults aged 18-70 years with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c 7-11% (53-97 mmol/mol) were randomly assigned (2:1) to intervention (tubeless AID) or control (pump therapy with CGM) following a 2-week standard therapy period. The primary outcome was a treatment group comparison of time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) during the trial period.

Results: A total of 194 participants were randomized, with 132 assigned to the intervention and 62 to the control. TIR during the trial was 4.2h/day higher in the intervention compared with the control group (mean difference 17.5% [95% CI 14.0%, 21.1%]; P < 0.0001). The intervention group had a greater reduction in HbA1c from baseline compared with the control group (mean ± SD -1.24 ± 0.75% [-13.6 ± 8.2 mmol/mol] vs. -0.68 ± 0.93% [-7.4 ± 10.2 mmol/mol], respectively; P < 0.0001), accompanied by a significantly lower time <70 mg/dL (1.18 ± 0.86% vs. 1.75 ± 1.68%; P = 0.005) and >180 mg/dL (37.6 ± 11.4% vs. 54.5 ± 15.4%; P < 0.0001). All primary and secondary outcomes were met. No instances of diabetes-related ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred in the intervention group.

Conclusions: Use of the tubeless AID system led to improved glycemic outcomes compared with pump therapy with CGM among adults with type 1 diabetes, underscoring the clinical benefit of AID and bolstering recommendations to establish AID systems as preferred therapy for this population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
29.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信