Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Bases de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Assunto da revista
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
N Engl J Med ; 371(4): 313-325, 2014 Jul 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24931572

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of automated glycemic management have not been tested in multiday studies under unrestricted outpatient conditions. METHODS: In two random-order, crossover studies with similar but distinct designs, we compared glycemic control with a wearable, bihormonal, automated, "bionic" pancreas (bionic-pancreas period) with glycemic control with an insulin pump (control period) for 5 days in 20 adults and 32 adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. The automatically adaptive algorithm of the bionic pancreas received data from a continuous glucose monitor to control subcutaneous delivery of insulin and glucagon. RESULTS: Among the adults, the mean plasma glucose level over the 5-day bionic-pancreas period was 138 mg per deciliter (7.7 mmol per liter), and the mean percentage of time with a low glucose level (<70 mg per deciliter [3.9 mmol per liter]) was 4.8%. After 1 day of automatic adaptation by the bionic pancreas, the mean (±SD) glucose level on continuous monitoring was lower than the mean level during the control period (133±13 vs. 159±30 mg per deciliter [7.4±0.7 vs. 8.8±1.7 mmol per liter], P<0.001) and the percentage of time with a low glucose reading was lower (4.1% vs. 7.3%, P=0.01). Among the adolescents, the mean plasma glucose level was also lower during the bionic-pancreas period than during the control period (138±18 vs. 157±27 mg per deciliter [7.7±1.0 vs. 8.7±1.5 mmol per liter], P=0.004), but the percentage of time with a low plasma glucose reading was similar during the two periods (6.1% and 7.6%, respectively; P=0.23). The mean frequency of interventions for hypoglycemia among the adolescents was lower during the bionic-pancreas period than during the control period (one per 1.6 days vs. one per 0.8 days, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with an insulin pump, a wearable, automated, bihormonal, bionic pancreas improved mean glycemic levels, with less frequent hypoglycemic episodes, among both adults and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01762059 and NCT01833988.).


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/terapia , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Insulina/uso terapêutico , Pâncreas Artificial , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Biônica , Glicemia/metabolismo , Criança , Estudos Cross-Over , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Feminino , Humanos , Hipoglicemia/etiologia , Sistemas de Infusão de Insulina , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Monitorização Fisiológica , Pâncreas Artificial/efeitos adversos , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto Jovem
2.
J Diabetes Sci Technol ; 11(6): 1132-1137, 2017 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28459159

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The physiologic delay in glucose diffusion from the blood to the interstitial fluid and instrumental factors contribute to the delay between changes in plasma glucose (PG) and measurements made by continuous glucose monitors (CGMs). This study compared the duration of this delay for three CGMs. METHODS: A total of 24 healthy adolescent and adult subjects with type 1 diabetes wore three CGM devices simultaneously for 48 hours: Dexcom G4 Platinum, Abbott Navigator, and Medtronic Enlite. The time delay between PG and CGM-estimated plasma glucose (CGMG) was estimated by comparing time-shifted CGMG with reference PG taken every 15 minutes. RESULTS: The delay estimated by our approach was larger for the Navigator than for the G4 Platinum in adolescents (7.7 ± 1.1 versus 5.6 ± 0.9 min, P = .0396) and adults (10.9 ± 1.1 versus 8.1 ± 0.7 min, P = .0107). The delay was nominally longer for the Navigator than for the Enlite in both the adolescent (7.7 ± 1.1 versus 4.3 ± 1.0 min, P = .0728) and adult (10.9 ± 1.1 versus 8.3 ± 0.9 min, P = .111) populations, but these differences were not statistically significant. There was no difference in the delay between G4 Platinum and Enlite. Adolescents had shorter delays than adults for all three devices. There was a significant correlation between longer delay and increasing age for the G4 Platinum and Navigator. CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in the estimated PG to CGMG time delays between CGM devices in the same subjects. The delay between PG and CGMG is smaller for adolescents than for adults. The PG-to-CGMG time delay is influenced by both instrument and host factors.


Assuntos
Automonitorização da Glicemia/instrumentação , Glicemia/metabolismo , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/diagnóstico , Transdutores , Adolescente , Adulto , Fatores Etários , Idoso , Biomarcadores/sangue , Glicemia/efeitos dos fármacos , Criança , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/sangue , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Desenho de Equipamento , Líquido Extracelular/metabolismo , Feminino , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/administração & dosagem , Insulina/administração & dosagem , Sistemas de Infusão de Insulina , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pâncreas Artificial , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Fatores de Tempo
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA