...
首页> 外文期刊>Diabetes technology & therapeutics >Comparison of a novel insulin bolus-patch with pen/syringe injection to deliver mealtime insulin for efficacy, preference, and quality of life in adults with diabetes: a randomized, crossover, multicenter study.
【24h】

Comparison of a novel insulin bolus-patch with pen/syringe injection to deliver mealtime insulin for efficacy, preference, and quality of life in adults with diabetes: a randomized, crossover, multicenter study.

机译:新型胰岛素推注贴剂与笔/注射器注射以提供进餐时胰岛素的疗效,偏爱性和生活质量的比较:一项随机,交叉,多中心研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy, safety, device satisfaction, and quality of life (QOL) in people with diabetes using an insulin bolus-patch versus current devices (pen/syringe) to deliver mealtime insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Thirty-eight subjects with diabetes (26 with type 1 and 12 with type 2) were randomized to bolus-patch or current injection device (55% pen and 45% syringe) to deliver mealtime insulin in a multicenter, 6-week crossover study. Efficacy was assessed by equivalence in mean daily seven-point blood glucose (MDBG). Safety assessments included severe hypoglycemia episodes, adverse device effects (ADEs), and adverse events (AEs). Device satisfaction was determined by the validated Insulin Delivery System Rating Questionnaire (IDSRQ) and QOL by the validated Diabetes Specific QOL Scale (DSQOLS). RESULTS: Using bolus-patch, MDBG (mean+/-SE) was equivalent to that using pen/syringe (8.61+/-0.28 vs. 9.02+/-0.26 mmol/L; P=0.098). SD of the seven-point blood glucose measurements was lower using bolus-patch (3.18+/-0.18 vs. 3.63+/-0.17 mmol/L; P=0.004), as was the coefficient of variation (CV) (37.2+/-1.7 vs. 40.3+/-1.7%; P=0.046). Hemoglobin A1c, 1,5-anhydroglucitol, fructosamine, and insulin use were similar between groups. There were no severe hypoglycemia episodes or serious ADEs. Between-device AEs were comparable. Subjects scored better on six of seven subscales on the DSQOLS and five of six subscales on the IDSRQ while using bolus-patch versus pen/syringe. At study completion, 76% of subjects would choose to switch to bolus-patch (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of mealtime insulin with bolus-patch compared with pen/syringe resulted in equivalent MDBG, lower SD and CV of seven-point blood glucose measurements, good safety, significant device satisfaction, and improved QOL.
机译:目的:本研究比较了使用胰岛素推注贴剂与当前设备(钢笔/注射器)递送进餐时胰岛素的糖尿病患者的疗效,安全性,设备满意度和生活质量(QOL)。研究设计和方法:38位糖尿病患者(26位1型糖尿病和12位2型糖尿病)被随机分配给大剂量贴剂或电流注射装置(55%的笔和45%的注射器),以在多中心提供就餐时的胰岛素,6周交叉研究。通过等效的平均每日七点血糖(MDBG)评估疗效。安全性评估包括严重的低血糖发作,不良设备影响(ADE)和不良事件(AE)。设备满意度由经过验证的胰岛素输送系统评级问卷(IDSRQ)和QOL(由经过验证的糖尿病特异性QOL量表(DSQOLS))确定。结果:使用大剂量贴剂时,MDBG(平均值+/- SE)与使用笔/注射器的结果相同(8.61 +/- 0.28 vs. 9.02 +/- 0.26 mmol / L; P = 0.098)。使用大剂量贴剂时,七点血糖测量值的SD较低(3.18 +/- 0.18 vs. 3.63 +/- 0.17 mmol / L; P = 0.004),变异系数(CV)也较低(37.2 + / -1.7对40.3 +/- 1.7%; P = 0.046)。两组之间的血红蛋白A1c,1,5-脱水葡萄糖醇,果糖胺和胰岛素的使用情况相似。没有严重的低血糖发作或严重的ADE。设备之间的AE相当。使用推注-贴片与笔/注射器相比,受试者在DSQOLS的七个子量表中的六个子量表和IDSRQ的六个子量表中的五个得分更高。研究完成后,有76%的受试者会选择改用推注贴片(P = 0.001)。结论:与笔式/注射器式相比,餐前胰岛素推注式胰岛素治疗可产生等效的MDBG,降低七点血糖测量值的SD和CV,安全性高,设备满意度高以及QOL改善。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号