Abstract
Background and aims: To ease the burden of type 1 diabetes (T1D), multiple diabetic devices for insulin delivery and measurement of glucose levels have been developed during the last decades. The aim of this study was to compare glycemic related outcomes for three types of insulin delivery devices in patients with T1D, using continuous glucose monitor (CGM).
Materials and methods: In February 2022, an electronic questionnaire was send to all adult patients with T1D treated in an outpatient clinic in the Region of Southern Denmark. Data collection is ongoing and data are prelimenary. The questionnaire included questions about time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR), time above range (TAB), events of hypoglycemia during the last year (hypos), diabetes related distress (DD) and fear of hypoglycemia (FoH). Patients were divided into three groups based on which type of insulin delivery device was used. Users of 1) insulin pen (IPe), 2) insulin pump (excluding hybrid closed loop) (IPu), and 3) hybrid closed loop (HCL). DD and Foh were measured by The Problem Areas in Diabetes 5-item scale (PAID-5) and The 11-item Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-II (HFS-II). PAID-5 and HFS-II both provide sum scores. The total score for PAID-5 ranges from 0-20 and for HFS-II 0-44 points, with higher scores indicating higher DD or FoH. TIR, TAR and TBR were read by the patient from their device, and reported in the questionnaire. To test for differences between groups, ANOVA analyses and an equality-of-median test were performed. ANOVA analyses were adjusted for age, sex, and diabetes duration above or below 3 years. Additionally, analysis for HFS-II and PAID-5 were also adjusted for presence of hypos during the final year.
Results: Of 5840 participants who received the questionnaire, 1484 CGM users (25%) have to date responded (IPe =1094; IPu=250; HCL =134). Mean (SD) age was 55 (15) years, mean diabetes duration was 27 (16) years, and 45% were women. TIR was reported by 998 participants. Mean was lowest for IPe and highest for HCL (IPe: 61% (20), n=752); IPu: 64% (23), n=156; HCLl: 75% (13), n=90). TIR was highest for HCL and lowest for IPe (IPe vs. HCL (p
Conclusion: Patients with T1D using HCL experienced significantly better glycemic control based on TIR, TAR and TBR, compared to pen and pump users. Users of both kinds of pumps had significantly better TIR and TAR compared to pen users. Furthermore, they experienced significantly less hypoglycemic events than pen users. Scores for HFS-II and PAID did not differ between the groups.
Materials and methods: In February 2022, an electronic questionnaire was send to all adult patients with T1D treated in an outpatient clinic in the Region of Southern Denmark. Data collection is ongoing and data are prelimenary. The questionnaire included questions about time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR), time above range (TAB), events of hypoglycemia during the last year (hypos), diabetes related distress (DD) and fear of hypoglycemia (FoH). Patients were divided into three groups based on which type of insulin delivery device was used. Users of 1) insulin pen (IPe), 2) insulin pump (excluding hybrid closed loop) (IPu), and 3) hybrid closed loop (HCL). DD and Foh were measured by The Problem Areas in Diabetes 5-item scale (PAID-5) and The 11-item Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-II (HFS-II). PAID-5 and HFS-II both provide sum scores. The total score for PAID-5 ranges from 0-20 and for HFS-II 0-44 points, with higher scores indicating higher DD or FoH. TIR, TAR and TBR were read by the patient from their device, and reported in the questionnaire. To test for differences between groups, ANOVA analyses and an equality-of-median test were performed. ANOVA analyses were adjusted for age, sex, and diabetes duration above or below 3 years. Additionally, analysis for HFS-II and PAID-5 were also adjusted for presence of hypos during the final year.
Results: Of 5840 participants who received the questionnaire, 1484 CGM users (25%) have to date responded (IPe =1094; IPu=250; HCL =134). Mean (SD) age was 55 (15) years, mean diabetes duration was 27 (16) years, and 45% were women. TIR was reported by 998 participants. Mean was lowest for IPe and highest for HCL (IPe: 61% (20), n=752); IPu: 64% (23), n=156; HCLl: 75% (13), n=90). TIR was highest for HCL and lowest for IPe (IPe vs. HCL (p
Conclusion: Patients with T1D using HCL experienced significantly better glycemic control based on TIR, TAR and TBR, compared to pen and pump users. Users of both kinds of pumps had significantly better TIR and TAR compared to pen users. Furthermore, they experienced significantly less hypoglycemic events than pen users. Scores for HFS-II and PAID did not differ between the groups.
| Originalsprog | Dansk |
|---|---|
| Artikelnummer | 646 |
| Tidsskrift | Diabetologia |
| Vol/bind | 65 |
| Udgave nummer | Suppl. 1 |
| Sider (fra-til) | 332-333 |
| ISSN | 0012-186X |
| Status | Udgivet - 3. sep. 2022 |
| Begivenhed | 58th Annual Meeting European Association for the study of Diabetes - Stockholm, Sverige Varighed: 19. sep. 2022 → 23. sep. 2022 |
Konference
| Konference | 58th Annual Meeting European Association for the study of Diabetes |
|---|---|
| Land/Område | Sverige |
| By | Stockholm |
| Periode | 19/09/2022 → 23/09/2022 |