AIM: To determine whether people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) initiating glucose sensor monitoring experience greater improvements in HbA1c when provided with education on carbohydrate counting and flexible insulin dosing than those who do not receive nutrition education. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our retrospective observational study included 329 people with T1D initiating glucose sensor monitoring between 2015 and 2021. The participants were divided into two groups: one group attended at least one structured educational session with a registered dietitian (n = 126), while the other group did not receive structured education (n = 203). After 12 months of glucose sensor initiation, we compared glycaemic outcomes and CGM metrics between the two groups. RESULTS: At glucose sensor initiation, both groups with and without education had similar HbA1c levels (7.64% [60.0 mmol/mol] vs. 7.66% [60.2 mmol/mol]). After twelve months, the education group demonstrated greater improvement in glycemic outcomes (HbA1c 7.17% [54.9mmol/mol] vs. 7.37% [57.1 mmol/mol], p < 0.05) and spent significantly more time in the target range than did the group without structured education (68.8% vs. 64.1%, p < 0.05). We observed an inverse correlation between the number of completed educational sessions and HbA1c after 12 months, as well as between the number of educational sessions and the change in HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS: People with T1D who initiated glucose sensor monitoring alongside nutrition education showed greater improvements in HbA1c and increased time spent in the target glucose range compared to individuals who did not receive structured education. TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06264271.
- MeSH
- diabetes mellitus 1. typu * krev MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- glykovaný hemoglobin * analýza metabolismus MeSH
- hypoglykemika aplikace a dávkování MeSH
- inzulin aplikace a dávkování MeSH
- krevní glukóza * analýza metabolismus MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- regulace glykemie MeSH
- retrospektivní studie MeSH
- selfmonitoring glykemie * MeSH
- vzdělávání pacientů jako téma * MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- pozorovací studie MeSH
Systémy pro automatické podávání inzulinu (AID) představují velký pokrok v léčbě diabetu mellitu 1. typu. Podávání inzulinu automatizují integrací kontinuálního monitorování glukózy, řídicího algoritmu a činností inzulinové pumpy. Přes jejich pokročilost je nutno ve specifických situacích nastavení přizpůsobit, a to buď využitím zvláštních funkcí, nebo i ruční úpravou dávkování. Článek podává přehled o možnostech úprav v dávkování inzulinu pro případy interkurentního onemocnění, pro konzumaci alkoholu a zvýšenou fyzickou aktivitu pro 4 v Česku dostupné certifikované systémy automatického podávání inzulinu.
Automated insulin delivery systems (AID) represent a major advance in the treatment of type 1 diabetes. These systems automate insulin delivery by integrating continuous glucose monitoring, control algorithms and insulin pump actions. Despite their advances, there is a need to adjust the settings in specific situations, either by using special features or even by manually adjusting the dose. The article provides an overview of the possibilities of adjustments in the insulin dosing for intercurrent disease, alcohol consumption and increased physical activity for four certified automatic insulin delivery systems available in the Czech Republic.
AIM: To compare open-source AndroidAPS (AAPS) and commercially available Control-IQ (CIQ) automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in a prospective, open-label, single-arm clinical trial. METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes who had been using AAPS by their own decision entered the first 3-month AAPS phase then were switched to CIQ for 3 months. The results of this treatment were compared with those after the 3-month AAPS phase. The primary endpoint was the change in time in range (% TIR; 70-80 mg/dL). RESULTS: Twenty-five people with diabetes (mean age 34.32 ± 11.07 years; HbA1c 6.4% ± 3%) participated in this study. CIQ was comparable with AAPS in achieving TIR (85.72% ± 7.64% vs. 84.24% ± 8.46%; P = .12). Similarly, there were no differences in percentage time above range (> 180 and > 250 mg/dL), mean sensor glucose (130.3 ± 13.9 vs. 128.3 ± 16.9 mg/dL; P = .21) or HbA1c (6.3% ± 2.1% vs. 6.4% ± 3.1%; P = .59). Percentage time below range (< 70 and < 54 mg/dL) was significantly lower using CIQ than AAPS. Even although participants were mostly satisfied with CIQ (63.6% mostly agreed, 9.1% strongly agreed), they did not plan to switch to CIQ. CONCLUSIONS: The CODIAC study is the first prospective study investigating the switch between open-source and commercially available AID systems. CIQ and AAPS were comparable in achieving TIR. However, hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with CIQ.
- MeSH
- diabetes mellitus 1. typu * farmakoterapie MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- glykovaný hemoglobin MeSH
- hypoglykemika terapeutické užití MeSH
- inzulin terapeutické užití MeSH
- inzulinové infuzní systémy MeSH
- inzuliny * MeSH
- krevní glukóza MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladý dospělý MeSH
- prospektivní studie MeSH
- selfmonitoring glykemie metody MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladý dospělý MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
