Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

24 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Advanced Technology in the Management of Diabetes: Which Comes First-Continuous Glucose Monitor or Insulin Pump?

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE OF REVIEW:In this article, we consider advanced technologies for the management of diabetes. RECENT FINDINGS:Specifically, we pose the question of which should come first: an insulin pump (CSII) or a continuous glucose monitor (CGM)? Historical perspective on both insulin delivery and glucose measurement is provided. Recently published clinical trials are reviewed. Practical issues including quality of life, patient education, and out-of-pocket cost are discussed. Based on available evidence and clinical experience, we favor CGM as a first-line technology recommendation for the treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D).

SUBMITTER: Martin CT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6597598 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

Advanced Technology in the Management of Diabetes: Which Comes First-Continuous Glucose Monitor or Insulin Pump?

Martin Christopher T CT Criego Amy B AB Carlson Anders L AL Bergenstal Richard M RM

Current diabetes reports 20190627 8

<h4>Purpose of review</h4>In this article, we consider advanced technologies for the management of diabetes.<h4>Recent findings</h4>Specifically, we pose the question of which should come first: an insulin pump (CSII) or a continuous glucose monitor (CGM)? Historical perspective on both insulin delivery and glucose measurement is provided. Recently published clinical trials are reviewed. Practical issues including quality of life, patient education, and out-of-pocket cost are discussed. Based on ...[more]

PMID: 31250124

Similar Datasets

Insulin Pump and Continuous Glucose Monitor Initiation in Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are commonly used by patients with diabetes mellitus in the outpatient setting. The efficacy and safety of initiating inpatient insulin pumps and CGM in the nonintensive care unit setting is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS:In a prospective pilot study, inpatients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to receive standard subcutaneous basal-bolus insulin and blinded CGM (group 1, n = 5), insulin pump and blinded CGM (group 2, n = 6), or insulin pump and nonblinded CGM (group 3, n = 5). Feasibility, glycemic control, and patient satisfaction were evaluated among groups. RESULTS:Group 1 had lower mean capillary glucose levels, 144.5 ± 19.5 mg/dL, compared with groups 2 and 3, 191.5 ± 52.3 and 182.7 ± 59.9 mg/dL (P1 vs. 2+3 = 0.05). CGM detected 19 hypoglycemic episodes (glucose <70 mg/dL) among all treatment groups, compared with 12 episodes detected by capillary testing, although not statistically significant. No significant differences were found for the total daily dose of insulin or percentage of time spent below target glucose range (<90 mg/dL), in target glucose range (90-180 mg/dL), or above target glucose range (>180 mg/dL). On the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire-Change, group 3 reported increased hyperglycemia and decreased hypoglycemia frequency compared with the other two groups, although the differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS:Insulin pump and CGM initiation are feasible during hospitalization, although they are labor intensive. Although insulin pump initiation may not lead to improved glycemic control, there is a trend toward CGM detecting a greater number of hypoglycemic episodes. Larger studies are needed to determine whether use of this technology can lower inpatient morbidity and mortality.

| S-EPMC5770096 | biostudies-literature

New-generation diabetes management: glucose sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy.

Project description:Diabetes is one of the most common chronic disorders with an increasing incidence worldwide. Technologic advances in the field of diabetes have provided new tools for clinicians to manage this challenging disease. For example, the development of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion systems have allowed for refinement in the delivery of insulin, while continuous glucose monitors provide patients and clinicians with a better understanding of the minute to minute glucose variability, leading to the titration of insulin delivery based on this variability when applicable. Merging of these devices has resulted in sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy, which became a major building block upon which the artificial pancreas (closed-loop systems) can be developed. This article summarizes the evolution of sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy until present day and its future applications in new-generation diabetes management.

| S-EPMC3177536 | biostudies-literature

A New Analysis Tool for Continuous Glucose Monitor Data.

Project description:BackgroundWith the development of continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMS), detailed glycemic data are now available for analysis. Yet analysis of this data-rich information can be formidable. The power of CGMS-derived data lies in its characterization of glycemic variability. In contrast, many standard glycemic measures like hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and self-monitored blood glucose inadequately describe glycemic variability and run the risk of bias toward overreporting hyperglycemia. Methods that adjust for this bias are often overlooked in clinical research due to difficulty of computation and lack of accessible analysis tools.MethodsIn response, we have developed a new R package rGV, which calculates a suite of 16 glycemic variability metrics when provided a single individual's CGM data. rGV is versatile and robust; it is capable of handling data of many formats from many sensor types. We also created a companion R Shiny web app that provides these glycemic variability analysis tools without prior knowledge of R coding. We analyzed the statistical reliability of all the glycemic variability metrics included in rGV and illustrate the clinical utility of rGV by analyzing CGM data from three studies.ResultsIn subjects without diabetes, greater glycemic variability was associated with higher HbA1c values. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), we found that high glucose is the primary driver of glycemic variability. In patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM), we found that naltrexone use may potentially reduce glycemic variability.ConclusionsWe present a new R package and accompanying web app to facilitate quick and easy computation of a suite of glycemic variability metrics.

| S-EPMC9631526 | biostudies-literature

Continuous Glucose Monitor Use and Accuracy in Hospitalized Patients.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC4991600 | biostudies-literature

Hypoglycemia Prevention and User Acceptance of an Insulin Pump System with Predictive Low Glucose Management.

Project description:BackgroundThe MiniMed 640G sensor-augmented insulin pump system (Medtronic, Inc., Northridge, CA) can automatically suspend insulin delivery in advance of predicted hypoglycemia and restart it upon recovery. The aims of this analysis were to determine the rate at which predicted hypoglycemia was avoided with this strategy, as well as to assess user acceptance of the system and its insulin management features.Subjects and methodsForty subjects with type 1 diabetes used the system for 4 weeks. We retrospectively evaluated performance of the system, using downloaded pump and sensor data, and evaluated user acceptance via questionnaires.ResultsThere were 2,322 suspend before low events (2.1 per subject-day). The mean (± SD) duration of pump suspension events was 56.4 ± 9.6 min, and the mean subsequent sensor glucose (SG) nadir was 71.8 ± 5.2 mg/dL. SG values following 1,930 (83.1%) of the predictive suspensions did not reach the preset low limit. Nadir SG values of ≤50 and ≤60 mg/dL were seen in 207 (8.9%) and 356 (15.3%) of the predictive suspensions, respectively. Blood glucose (BG) and SG values before and during the study were comparable (P > 0.05). The mean absolute relative difference between paired SG and BG values was 10.9 ± 13.8%. Subjects felt confident using the system, agreed that it helped protect them from hypoglycemia, and wished to continue using it.ConclusionsAutomatic insulin pump suspension as implemented in the MiniMed 640G system can help patients avoid hypoglycemia, without significantly increasing hyperglycemia.

| S-EPMC4870649 | biostudies-literature

Insulin pump therapy and glucose control during Ramadan fasting in an adolescent with type 1 diabetes: from an open-loop sensor-augmented pump therapy with predictive low-glucose management to an advanced hybrid closed-loop system.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC9944769 | biostudies-literature

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor Glucose Levels and Insulin Pump Infusion Set Wear-Time During Treatment with Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart: A Post Hoc Analysis of Onset 5.

Project description:Background: In the onset 5 trial, fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) was noninferior to insulin aspart (IAsp) for change from baseline glycated hemoglobin at 16 weeks, when used in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion by participants with type 1 diabetes. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to investigate whether infusion set wear-time was associated with changes in sensor glucose, measured using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Materials and Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of onset 5 data. Mean infusion set wear-time and duration of CGM-wearing period were assessed. Mean CGM sensor glucose 24 h before and 24 h after were used to calculate the before-after difference (CGM sensor glucose drift). Results: Mean infusion set wear-time was 2.9 and 3.0 days in the faster aspart and IAsp arms, respectively. At 16 weeks, the average duration of the CGM wearing period was 13.7 and 13.8 days, respectively. Mean CGM sensor glucose before versus after an infusion set change, at week 16, was 10.14 versus 9.39 mmol/L with faster aspart and 9.48 versus 9.47 mmol/L with IAsp. The estimated treatment difference in CGM sensor glucose drift at 16 weeks for faster aspart versus IAsp was +0.72 mmol/L (95% confidence interval: 0.48-0.96, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Mean infusion set wear-time and duration of CGM-wearing period were similar for faster aspart and IAsp. A significantly greater upward drift in CGM sensor glucose values measured during an infusion set wearing period was observed with faster aspart versus IAsp. Clinical trial registration: NCT02825251.

| S-EPMC8783624 | biostudies-literature

Cost-effectiveness of Initiating an Insulin Pump in T1D Adults Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring Compared with Multiple Daily Insulin Injections: The DIAMOND Randomized Trial.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The economic impact of both continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin pumps (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) have been evaluated separately. However, the cost-effectiveness of adding CSII to existing CGM users has not yet been assessed. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to evaluate the societal cost-effectiveness of CSII versus continuing multiple daily injections (MDI) in adults with T1D already using CGM. METHODS:In the second phase of the DIAMOND trial, 75 adults using CGM were randomized to either CGM+CSII or CGM+MDI (control) and surveyed at baseline and 28 weeks. We performed within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and estimated lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) via a modified Sheffield T1D model. RESULTS:Within the trial, the CGM+CSII group had a significant reduction in quality of life from baseline (-0.02 ± 0.05 difference in difference [DiD]) compared with controls. Total per-person 28-week costs were $8,272 (CGM+CSII) versus $5,623 (CGM+MDI); the difference in costs was primarily attributable to pump use ($2,644). Pump users reduced insulin intake (-12.8 units DiD) but increased the use of daily number of test strips (+1.2 DiD). Pump users also increased time with glucose in range of 70 to 180 mg/dL but had a higher HbA1c (+0.13 DiD) and more nonsevere hypoglycemic events. In the lifetime CEA, CGM+CSII would increase total costs by $112,045 DiD, decrease QALYs by 0.71, and decrease life expectancy by 0.48 years. CONCLUSIONS:Based on this single trial, initiating an insulin pump in adults with T1D already using CGM was associated with higher costs and reduced quality of life. Additional evidence regarding the clinical effects of adopting combinations of new technologies from trials and real-world populations is needed to confirm these findings.

| S-EPMC6226055 | biostudies-literature

Patient experiences of continuous glucose monitoring and sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy for diabetes: A systematic review of qualitative studies.

Project description:AimsBlood glucose control is central to the management of diabetes, and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves glycemic control. We aimed to describe the perspectives of people with diabetes using CGM.Materials and methodsWe performed a systematic review of qualitative studies.ResultsFifty-four studies involving 1845 participants were included. Six themes were identified: gaining control and convenience (reducing pain and time, safeguarding against complications, achieving stricter glucose levels, and sharing responsibility with family); motivating self-management (fostering ownership, and increasing awareness of glycemic control); providing reassurance and freedom (attaining peace of mind, and restoring social participation); developing confidence (encouraged by the endorsement of others, gaining operational skills, customizing settings for ease of use, and trust in the device); burdened with device complexities (bewildered by unfamiliar technology, reluctant to rely on algorithms, overwhelmed by data, frustrated with malfunctioning and inaccuracy, distressed by alerts, and bulkiness of machines interfering with lifestyle); and excluded by barriers to access (constrained by cost, lack of suppliers).ConclusionsCGM can improve self-management and confidence in patients managing diabetes. However, the technical issues, uncertainty in readings, and cost may limit the uptake. Education and training from the health professionals may help to reduce the practical and psychological burden for better patient outcomes.

| S-EPMC10755613 | biostudies-literature

Differences in Glucose Readings Between Right Arm and Left Arm Using a Continuous Glucose Monitor.

Project description:ObjectiveContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices are used for evaluating real-time glucose levels to optimize diabetes management. There is limited information, however, on whether readings differ when a device is placed on the right versus the left arm. This study evaluated the mean difference in glucose levels between the right and left arm and the effect of unilateral arm exercise on this difference. The effect of an intermittent fasting diet on body fat percentage was also evaluated.Research design and methodsIn a prospective trial, 46 adult volunteers self-selected into the intermittent fasting (IF; N = 23) or free-living (FL; N = 23) diet group and were randomized into a unilateral arm exercise group. Volunteers had CGM sensors placed simultaneously on both arms for 12-14 days.ResultsThe mean glucose level in the right arm was significantly higher than the left arm by 3.7 mg/dL (P < .001), and this result was unaffected by diet or arm exercise. Glucose levels were in euglycemic range for 75.2% of the time in the right arm and 67.5% in the left arm (P < .001). The change from baseline in body fat percentage between the IF and FL diet groups was not significant.ConclusionsMeasured glucose level and time in euglycemic range differ per placement of the CGM device, and the implications of this difference should be considered in clinical practice and research.

| S-EPMC9445346 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data