Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Soins ; 68(881): 10-12, 2023 Dec.
Artículo en Francés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38070973

RESUMEN

The closed-loop insulin therapy system has become an indispensable tool in the management of type 1 diabetes. This technological feat improves glycemic control while reducing the mental burden on patients. In an exploratory study, we sought to determine whether older patients, who may be less familiar with new technologies, derive the same benefits as others. Is a lack of digital skills an obstacle to improving patients' daily lives?


Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Insulina , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Insulina/uso terapéutico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamiento farmacológico , Glucemia , Sistemas de Infusión de Insulina , Tecnología , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico
2.
Diabetes Technol Ther ; 19(11): 623-632, 2017 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29058477

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Lipohypertrophy (LH) is highly prevalent and is potentially harmful to insulin-injecting patients. METHODS: In this study, we assessed the impact of injection technique (IT) education, including use of a 4-mm pen needle on insulin-treated patients with clinically observed LH in a randomized, controlled, prospective multicenter study in France with follow-up of 6 months. Intensive education and between-visit reinforcement were given to the intervention group. Control patients received similar messages at study outset. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients were recruited (age 52.1 ± 15.7 years; men 70.7%; body mass index >30 kg/m2: 34.2%; type 1: 53.7%; years with diabetes mellitus: 18.1 ± 10.5), of which 109 patients were included in the final analysis. The intervention group (n = 53) showed a significant decrease of total daily dose of insulin (average at baseline: 54.1 IU) at 3 months (T-3) and 6 months (T-6), reaching just over 5 IU versus baseline (P = 0.035). Corresponding, although not significant, decreases occurred in controls (n = 56); between-group differences were not significant. There were significant decreases in HbA1c (up to 0.5%) at T-3 and T-6 in both groups, with no significant differences between groups. A significant number of intervention patients improved their IT habits; about half achieved ideal IT habits by T-3 versus a quarter of control patients. By T-6, 2/3 of intervention patients achieved either ideal or acceptable IT habits, while only 1/3 of control patients did. CONCLUSIONS: Our intervention was effective in both study arms, however, to a greater degree and more rapidly in the intervention group. Widespread application of this intervention could be highly cost-effective.


Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipoglucemiantes/administración & dosificación , Inyecciones Subcutáneas/efectos adversos , Insulina/administración & dosificación , Lipodistrofia/prevención & control , Adulto , Anciano , Glucemia , Femenino , Francia , Humanos , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Inyecciones Subcutáneas/métodos , Insulina/uso terapéutico , Lipodistrofia/etiología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Educación del Paciente como Asunto , Estudios Prospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento
4.
J Diabetes Sci Technol ; 1(1): 3-7, 2007 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19888373

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Insulin treated diabetic patients often do not adjust their insulin doses. We developed a method to provide a quantitative and qualitative assessment of this behavior. METHODS: Fourteen patients provided logbook pages of their self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) data and insulin doses. We compared the actual decisions of patients in real-life to what they would decide on the same SMBG, as an a posteriori exercise. We also compared these decisions and those proposed by 6 diabetologists on the same sets of data to the recommendations made by HumaLink, an automated insulin dosage system. RESULTS: 1) Patients in real-life modified their insulin doses least often. However, given a chance to make these decisions a posteriori, they modified their insulin doses more often. HumaLink proposed changes even more often, and diabetologists were the most aggressive in changing insulin doses. 2) The decisions proposed by the patients in real-life or a posteriori and by the diabetologists were compared to the recommendations made by HumaLink, using a decisions analysis grid (DAG). For these three groups, full disagreement with HumaLink (patient or physician increases while HumaLink decreases and the opposite) was observed for less than 5% of the cases. 3) By comparison to HumaLink, patient decisions seemed guided by the desire to avoid hypoglycemia. By contrast, decisions by diabetologists seemed often to be guided by the desire to avoid hyperglycemia. CONCLUSION: These methods provide an objective evaluation of insulin dose adjustments by patients with diabetes and may be useful to assess the effectiveness of educational programs.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA