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.

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":"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}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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。
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。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
29.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Arterial Stiffness Is Related to Diabetes-Associated Microvascular Complications: The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study. Association Between Self-Monitored Blood Glucose and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes and Medicaid Insurance. Flying With Type 1 Diabetes as Commercial Airline Pilots in the U.S.: The Sky Is the Limit for People With Type 1 Diabetes. Islet Transplantation Versus Standard of Care for Type 1 Diabetes Complicated by Severe Hypoglycemia From the Collaborative Islet Transplant Registry and the T1D Exchange Registry. Longitudinal Determination of Diabetes Complications and Other Clinical Variables as Risk Factors for Diabetic Ketoacidosis in Type 1 Diabetes.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1