Q124737350 Dotaz Zobrazit nápovědu

Přesná shoda Sémantické

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.

MeSH
diabetes mellitus 1. typu farmakoterapie MeSH
inzulin aplikace a dávkování terapeutické užití MeSH
inzulinové infuzní systémy * MeSH
lidé MeSH
pití alkoholu MeSH
pohybová aktivita MeSH
selfmonitoring glykemie MeSH
Check Tag
lidé MeSH
Publikační typ
přehledy MeSH

Článek

Comparison of Control-IQ and open-source AndroidAPS automated insulin delivery systems in adults with type 1 diabetes: The CODIAC study

Diabetes, obesity and metabolism. 2024 ; 26 (1) : 78-84. [pub] 20230925

Diabetes Obes Metab
ISSN 1463-1326
Medvik
Zdroj

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.