Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
BMJ Open ; 14(2): e078171, 2024 Feb 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38382954

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Multiple automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have become commercially available following randomised controlled trials demonstrating benefits in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, their real-world utility may be undermined by user-associated burdens, including the need to carbohydrate count and deliver manual insulin boluses. There is an important need for a 'fully automated closed loop' (FCL) AID system, without manual mealtime boluses. The (Closed Loop Open SourcE In Type 1 diabetes) trial is a randomised trial comparing an FCL AID system to the same system used as a hybrid closed loop (HCL) in people with T1D, in an outpatient setting over an extended time frame. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Randomised, open-label, parallel, non-inferiority trial comparing the Android Artificial Pancreas System (AAPS) AID algorithm used as FCL to the same algorithm used as HCL. Seventy-five participants aged 18-70 will be randomised (1:1) to one of two treatment arms for 12 weeks: (a) FCL-participants will be advised not to bolus for meals and (b) HCL-participants will use the AAPS AID algorithm as HCL with announced meals. The primary outcome is the percentage of time in target sensor glucose range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L). Secondary outcomes include other glycaemic metrics, safety, psychosocial factors, platform performance and user dietary factors. Twenty FCL arm participants will participate in a 4-week extension phase comparing glycaemic and dietary outcomes using NovoRapid (insulin aspart) to Fiasp (insulin aspart and niacinamide). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals are by the Alfred Health Ethics Committee (615/22) (Australia) and Health and Disability Ethics Committees (2022 FULL 13832) (New Zealand). Each participant will provide written informed consent. Data protection and confidentiality will be ensured. Study results will be disseminated by publications, conferences and patient advocacy groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ACTRN12622001400752 and ACTRN12622001401741.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Pâncreas Artificial , Adulto , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Insulina Aspart/uso terapêutico , Sistemas de Infusão de Insulina , Insulina/uso terapêutico , Glicemia , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
2.
J Diabetes Sci Technol ; : 19322968231153882, 2023 Feb 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36788715

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: There is increasing use of open-source artificial pancreas systems (APS) in the management of Type 1 diabetes. Our aim was to assess the safety and efficacy of the automated insulin delivery system AndroidAPS (AAPS), compared with stand-alone pump therapy in people with type 1 diabetes. The primary outcome was the difference in the percentage of time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL). Secondary aims included mean sensor glucose value and percent continuous glucose monitor (CGM) time below range (TBR, <70 mg/dL). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This open-label single-center randomized crossover study (ANZCTR, Australian New Zealand clinical trial registry, ANZCTR-ACTRN12620001191987) comprised 20 participants with type 1 diabetes on established pump therapy, assigned to either stand-alone insulin pump therapy or the open-source AAPS hybrid closed-loop system for four weeks, with crossover to the alternate arm for the following four weeks. The CGM outcome parameters were measured by seven-day CGM at baseline and the final week of each four-week study arm. RESULTS: Twenty participants were recruited (60% women), aged 45.8 ± 15.9 years, with mean diabetes duration of 23.9 ± 13.2 years, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.5% ± 0.5% (58 ± 6 mmol/mol) and mean TIR 62.3% ± 12.9%. The change in TIR from baseline for AAPS compared with stand-alone pump therapy was 18.6% (11.4-25.9), (P < .001), TIR 76.6% ± 11.7%, 58.0% ± 15.6%, for AAPS and stand-alone pump, respectively. Time glucose <54 mg/dL was not increased (mean = -2.0%, P = .191). No serious adverse events or episodes of severe hypoglycemia were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical trial of the open-source AAPS hybrid closed-loop system performed in an at-home setting demonstrated comparable safety to stand-alone pump therapy. The glycemic outcomes of AAPS were superior with improved TIR, and there was no significant difference in TBR compared with stand-alone pump therapy.

3.
Intern Med J ; 48(11): 1400-1404, 2018 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30387315

RESUMO

Access to proprietary closed-loop insulin pump systems is limited. The use of Do-It-Yourself closed-loop systems in Australia is growing. A 2017 Facebook group survey indicated that 20 individuals were actively looping with another 38 yet to commence despite the lack of regulatory body approval. Improved glycaemic control with less hypoglycaemia and better sleep were the main benefits. Local health professionals need to be aware of this technology.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/administração & dosagem , Bombas de Infusão Implantáveis , Sistemas de Infusão de Insulina , Insulina/administração & dosagem , Adolescente , Adulto , Austrália , Automonitorização da Glicemia , Criança , Estudos de Coortes , Aprovação de Equipamentos/legislação & jurisprudência , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/psicologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Qualidade de Vida , Inquéritos e Questionários , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...