Comparing Patch vs Pen Bolus Insulin Delivery in Type 2 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics and Profiles.

MedStar author(s):
Citation: Journal of Diabetes Science & Technology. :19322968211016513, 2021 May 19PMID: 34008442Institution: MedStar Health Research InstituteForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: IN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXEDYear: 2021ISSN:
  • 1932-2968
Name of journal: Journal of diabetes science and technologyAbstract: CONCLUSIONS: CGM confirmed that the patch or pen can be used to safely initiate and optimize basal-bolus therapy using a simple insulin adjustment algorithm with SMBG. Preference data suggest that use of the patch vs pen may enhance treatment adherence.METHODS: Study participants (patch, n = 49; pen, n = 48) wore a CGM device in masked setting during the baseline period and prior to week 24. Glycemic control was assessed using international consensus guidelines for percentage of Time In Range (%TIR: >70% at 70-180 mg/dL), Time Below Range (%TBR: <4% at <70 mg/dL; <1% at <54 mg/dL), and Time Above Range (%TAR: <25% at >180 mg/dL; <5% at >250 mg/dL).OBJECTIVE: CeQur Simplicity TM (CeQur, Marlborough, MA) is a 3-day insulin delivery patch designed to meet mealtime insulin requirements. A recently reported 48-week, randomized, multicenter, interventional trial compared efficacy, safety and self-reported outcomes in 278 adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin therapy who initiated and managed mealtime insulin therapy with a patch pump versus insulin pen. We assessed changes in key glycemic metrics among a subset of patients who wore a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device.RESULTS: Both the patch and pen groups achieved recommended targets in %TIR (74.1% +/- 18.7%, 75.2 +/- 16.1%, respectively) and marked reductions in %TAR >180 mg/dL (21.1% +/- 19.9%, 19.7% +/- 17.5%, respectively) but with increased %TBR <70 mg/dL (4.7% +/- 5.2%, 5.1 +/- 5.8, respectively), all P < .0001. No significant between-group differences in glycemic improvements or adverse events were observed.All authors: Aroda VR, Bergenstal RM, Brazg RL, Dreon DM, Frias JP, Johnson ML, Kruger DF, Levy BL, Molitch ME, Mullen DM, Peyrot M, Richter S, Rosenstock J, Serusclat P, Vance C, Weinstock RSFiscal year: FY2021Digital Object Identifier: Date added to catalog: 2021-06-28
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article 34008442 Available 34008442

CONCLUSIONS: CGM confirmed that the patch or pen can be used to safely initiate and optimize basal-bolus therapy using a simple insulin adjustment algorithm with SMBG. Preference data suggest that use of the patch vs pen may enhance treatment adherence.

METHODS: Study participants (patch, n = 49; pen, n = 48) wore a CGM device in masked setting during the baseline period and prior to week 24. Glycemic control was assessed using international consensus guidelines for percentage of Time In Range (%TIR: >70% at 70-180 mg/dL), Time Below Range (%TBR: <4% at <70 mg/dL; <1% at <54 mg/dL), and Time Above Range (%TAR: <25% at >180 mg/dL; <5% at >250 mg/dL).

OBJECTIVE: CeQur Simplicity TM (CeQur, Marlborough, MA) is a 3-day insulin delivery patch designed to meet mealtime insulin requirements. A recently reported 48-week, randomized, multicenter, interventional trial compared efficacy, safety and self-reported outcomes in 278 adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin therapy who initiated and managed mealtime insulin therapy with a patch pump versus insulin pen. We assessed changes in key glycemic metrics among a subset of patients who wore a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device.

RESULTS: Both the patch and pen groups achieved recommended targets in %TIR (74.1% +/- 18.7%, 75.2 +/- 16.1%, respectively) and marked reductions in %TAR >180 mg/dL (21.1% +/- 19.9%, 19.7% +/- 17.5%, respectively) but with increased %TBR <70 mg/dL (4.7% +/- 5.2%, 5.1 +/- 5.8, respectively), all P < .0001. No significant between-group differences in glycemic improvements or adverse events were observed.

English

Powered by Koha