Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusions vs. Multiple Daily Injections of Insulin in Hospitalized Patients: Glycemic Trends in the First 24 Hours of Admission

Background:Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) is a common diabetes treatment modality. Glycemic outcomes of patients using CSII in the first 24 hours of hospitalization have not been well studied. This timeframe is of particular importance because insulin pump settings are programmed to achieve tight outpatient glycemic targets which could result in hypoglycemia when patients are hospitalized.Methods:This retrospective cohort study evaluated 216 hospitalized adult patients using CSII and 216 age-matched controls treated with multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin. Patients using CSII did not make changes to pump settings in the first 24 hours of admission. Blood glucose (BG) values within the first 24 hours of admission were collected. The primary outcome was frequency of hypoglycemia (BG < 70 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes were frequency of severe hypoglycemia (BG < 40 mg/dL) and hyperglycemia (BG ≥ 180 mg/dL).Results:There were significantly fewer events of hypoglycemia [incident rate ratio (IRR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42–0.88, p = 0.007] and hyperglycemia (IRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65–0.96, p = 0.02) in the CSII group compared to the MDI group. There was a trend toward fewer events of severe hypoglycemia in the CSII group (IRR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02–0.93, p = 0.06).Conclusions:Patients using CSII experienced fewer events of both hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia in the first 24 hours of hospital admission than those treated with MDI. Our study demonstrates that CSII use is safe and effective for the treatment of diabetes within the first 24 hours of hospital admission.     

Diabetes Technologies and Hospital Care: Comparison of Insulin Pump Therapy (Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion) to Alternative Methods for Perioperative Glycemic Management in Patients with Planned Postoperative Admissions

Background

Patients with diabetes who use insulin pumps [continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII)] undergo surgeries that require postoperative hospital admission. There are no defined guidelines for CSII perioperative use.

Methods

This retrospective single-institution study identified type 1 and type 2 diabetes subjects by electronically searching 2005–2010 anesthesia preoperative assessments for “pump.” Surgical cases (n = 92) were grouped according to intraoperative insulin delivery method: (a) CSII continuation of basal rate with/without correctional insulin bolus(es) (n = 53); (b) conversion to intravenous insulin infusion (n = 20); and (c) CSII suspension with/without correctional insulin bolus(es) (n = 19). These groups were compared on mean intraoperative blood glucose (BG) and category of most extreme intraoperative BG.

Results

Differences were found on baseline characteristics of diabetes duration (p = .010), anesthesia time (p = .011), proportions receiving general anesthesia (p = .013), and preoperative BG (p = .033). The conversion group had the longest diabetes duration and anesthesia time; it had a higher proportion of general anesthesia recipients and a higher mean preoperative BG than the continuation group. There was no significant difference in mean BG/surgical case between continuation (163.5 ± 58.5 mg/dl), conversion (152.3 ± 28.9 mg/dl), and suspension groups (188.3 ± 44.9 mg/dl; p = .128). The suspension group experienced a greater percentage of cases (84.2%) with one or more intraoperative BG > 179 mg/dl than continuation (45.3%) and conversion (40%) groups Figure 1 groupings (p = .034).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Comparison of insulin delivery methods to percentage of surgical cases with intraoperative hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. Chi-square = 13.43, p = .034; continuation group, n = 53; conversion group, n = 20; suspension group, n = 19. All groupings were mutually exclusive. Intraoperative BG is defined as all BG measurements performed in the operating room and the first postoperative anesthesia care unit measurement

Conclusions

In this limited sample, preliminary findings are consistent with similar intraoperative glycemic control between CSII continuation and CSII conversion to intravenous insulin infusions. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion suspension had a greater rate of hyperglycemia. Preoperative differences between insulin delivery groups complicate interpretations of findings.     

Assessing Quality of Life for New Diabetes Treatments and Technologies: A Simple Patient-Centered Score

Background

A simple quality of life measure is needed for use in diabetes, particularly for the assessment of new treatments and technologies. We devised and validated a patient-centered quality of life (PCQoL) measure that should be applicable to routine clinical practice or trial of therapies.

Methods

People with diabetes completed a two-part, PCQoL questionnaire where they nominated five aspects of general- and diabetes-related life judged most important for their overall quality of life and rated each for current level of satisfaction. Scores derived from the questionnaire were compared with a reference measure—the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial diabetes quality of life (DQoL) score. Both were repeated after 1 month. The participants were 72 diabetic patients (60% with type 1 diabetes); 29 people with type 1 diabetes were treated by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and 14 were treated by multiple daily insulin injections (MDI).

Results

Patients most often cited family and relationships or fear of complications and hypoglycemia as important facets of quality of life for them. The PCQoL measure was highly correlated with the reference DQoL measure (r = 0.73, p < 0.0001), had high repeatability (r = 91, p < 0.0001), and could be completed in less than 5 minutes. The test was sensitive enough to detect a better quality of life in CSII-treated patients vs MDI-treated patients.

Conclusion

The PCQoL measure is simple, quick, valid, and suitable for routine use in diabetes or trials of new treatments.     

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) 30 years later: still the best option for insulin therapy

Thirty years after its introduction, the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) keeps increasing, especially among children and adolescents. The technique, when used properly, is safe and effective. Compared with traditional NPH‐based multiple daily injections (MDI), CSII provides a small but clinically important reduction of HbA_1c levels, diminishes blood glucose variability, decreases severe hypoglycaemic episodes and offers a better way to cope with the dawn phenomenon. Insulin analogues have improved the treatment of diabetes, eroding part of the place previously occupied by CSII, but CSII still remains the first option for patients experiencing severe hypoglycaemic episodes, high HbA_1c values or marked glucose variability while being treated with optimized MDI. Furthermore CSII is better than MDI considering the effects on quality of life and the possibility to adjust insulin administration according to physical activity or food intake. CSII may be limited by cost. Present estimates suggest that CSII may be cost‐effective just for patients experiencing a marked improvement in HbA_1c or a decrease in severe hypoglycaemic episodes, but the effects on quality of life are difficult to measure. CSII does not merely imply wearing an external device; it requires a multidisciplinary team, intensive patient education and continuous follow up. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

CSII转换为两种MDI方式治疗2型糖尿病的疗效及胰岛素剂量比较

目的2型糖尿病患者经过短期连续皮下胰岛素注射（CSII）强化治疗使血糖平稳后,分别转换为生物合成人胰岛素N联合生物合成人胰岛素R、甘精胰岛素联合门冬胰岛素多次皮下注射（MDI）,比较两种MDI治疗时血糖的变化情况及胰岛素的用量。方法112例2型糖尿病患者应用CSII治疗血糖平稳后,改为生物合成人胰岛素N及生物合成人胰岛素R皮下注射（A组）,86例2型糖尿病患者应用CSII治疗血糖平稳后,改为甘精胰岛素及门冬胰岛素皮下注射（B组）,观察A、B两组治疗时的日内血糖波动情况、胰岛素用量及低血糖的发生率。结果两组患者经CSII治疗转换为MDI治疗后均能有效控制血糖,B组血糖波动较A组平稳,每日胰岛素用量较A组更少[（0．62±0．28）U／kg],低血糖发生率更低。结论两种MDI方法均能有效控制血糖,甘精胰岛素联合门冬胰岛素皮下注射降糖更加安全、有效：     

Determinants of glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes during intensified therapy with multiple daily insulin injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion: importance of blood glucose variability

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: We investigated the factors that determine the best glycaemic control on multiple daily insulin (MDI) injections and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), and the hypothesis that blood glucose variability is a major determinant of control and that the resultant HbA(1c) on MDI correlates with the improvement achieved by CSII. We studied 30 type 1 diabetic subjects already receiving MDI. Renewed attempts to improve control on MDI were made for a median of five months, and then the subjects were switched to CSII. The variability of within-day and between-day blood glucose concentrations was calculated from blood glucose self-monitoring data. RESULTS: HbA(1c) during MDI varied from 5.7 to 11.7% (mean +/- SD, 8.5 +/- 1.4%). Within- and between-day blood glucose variability correlated with HbA(1c) on MDI (r = 0.59, p < 0.001; r = 0.48, p < 0.03). Within-day variability remained an independent predictor of HbA(1c) on MDI. Mean HbA(1c) improved with CSII (to 7.3 +/- 0.9%, p < 0.001), but reduction in HbA(1c) was variable and was related to the HbA(1c) on MDI (r = 0.79, p < 0.001) and within-day variability (r = 0.56, p < 0.01). Similar results were observed for subjects treated only with glargine-based MDI. CONCLUSIONS: The best glycaemic control achievable on MDI is related to blood glucose variability-those with the largest swings in blood glucose retaining the highest HbA(1c). The improvement in control achieved by CSII is related to HbA(1c) and blood glucose variability on MDI. Pump therapy is most effective in those worst controlled on MDI.     

Severe hypoglycaemia and glycaemic control in Type 1 diabetes: meta‐analysis of multiple daily insulin injections compared with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion

Aims Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) is a recommended treatment for reducing severe hypoglycaemia in Type 1 diabetes, but the change in hypoglycaemia compared with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) is unclear. We therefore conducted a meta‐analysis comparing severe hypoglycaemia and glycaemic control during CSII and MDI. Methods Databases and literature (1996–2006) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and before/after studies of ≥ 6 months’ duration CSII and with severe hypoglycaemia frequency > 10 episodes/100 patient years on MDI. Results In 22 studies (21 reports), severe hypoglycaemia during MDI was related to diabetes duration (P = 0.038) and was greater in adults than children (100 vs. 36 events/100 patient years, P = 0.036). Severe hypoglycaemia was reduced during CSII compared with MDI, with a rate ratio of 2.89 (95% CI 1.45 to 5.76) for RCTs and 4.34 (2.87 to 6.56) for before/after studies [rate ratio 4.19 (2.86 to 6.13) for all studies]. The reduction was greatest in those with the highest initial severe hypoglycaemia rates on MDI (P < 0.001). The mean difference in glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) between treatments was less for RCTs [0.21% (0.13–0.30%)] than in before/after studies [0.72% (0.55–0.90%)] but strongly related to the initial HbA_1c on MDI (P < 0.001). Conclusions The severe hypoglycaemia rate in Type 1 diabetes was markedly less during CSII than MDI, with the greatest reduction in those with most severe hypoglycaemia on MDI and those with the longest duration of diabetes. The biggest improvement in HbA_1c was in those with the highest HbA_1c on MDI.     

Cross-sectional Survey and Retrospective Analysis of a Large Cohort of Adults With Type 1 Diabetes With Long-Term Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Treatment

Background. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) is an established modality for intensive insulin treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D), but long-term data concerning satisfaction, CSII function use, safety, and efficacy in real-life conditions are scarce. Methods. We analyzed a cohort of adult patients with T1D treated with CSII for more than 1 year in a single diabetes center. We performed a cross-sectional survey in 2010 (tolerance/satisfaction and behavior forms) and a retrospective analysis of medical records (including HbA1c level, hospitalization, and catheter infections). The primary objective was to assess long-term tolerance/satisfaction, and secondary objectives were safety and efficacy. Results. There were 295 patients analyzed. After a median duration of CSII use of 5 years, overall satisfaction was high for about 90% of patients. Mean CSII-related discomfort scores were low for work, recreation, and sleep and moderate for sport and sexual activity (2.5 ± 1.9, 2.6 ± 1.8, 2.6 ± 2.1, 3.4 ± 2.3, and 4.0 ± 2.9 of 10, respectively). Despite a high level of diabetes education, only one third of patients were using advanced CSII functions. During long-term follow-up, the safety of CSII treatment was good; the hospitalization rate was 0.18 patients/year, and catheter infections were scarce. The HbA1c level dropped about −0.5% independently from CSII duration (P < .05). Conclusions. In this adult cohort, satisfaction and tolerance, together with safety, of CSII were maintained at long-term follow up. The sole basic functions of CSII were currently used by patients. A 0.5% decrease in the HbA1c level was maintained during the study period.     

A Pilot Study of Flat and Circadian Insulin Infusion Rates in Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes (FIRST1D)

Background:Initiation of continuous subcutaneous insulin therapy (CSII) in type 1 diabetes requires conversion of a basal insulin dose into a continuous infusion regimen. There are limited data to guide the optimal insulin profile to rapidly achieve target glucose and minimize healthcare professional input. The aim of this pilot study was to compare circadian and flat insulin infusion rates in CSII naïve adults with type 1 diabetes.Methods:Adults with type 1 diabetes commencing CSII were recruited. Participants were randomized to circadian or flat basal profile calculated from the total daily dose. Basal rate testing was undertaken on days 7, 14 and 28 and basal rates were adjusted. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in absolute change in insulin basal rate over 24 hours following three rounds of basal testing. Secondary outcomes included the number of basal rate changes and the time blocks.Results:Seventeen participants (mean age 33.3 (SD 8.6) years) were recruited. There was no significant difference in absolute change in insulin basal rates between groups (P = .85). The circadian group experienced significant variation in the number of changes made with the most changes in the morning and evening (P = .005). The circadian group received a greater reduction in total insulin (−14.1 (interquartile range (IQR) −22.5-12.95) units) than the flat group (−7.48 (IQR −11.90-1.23) units) (P = .021).Conclusion:The initial insulin profile does not impact on the magnitude of basal rate changes during optimization. The circadian profile requires changes at specific time points. Further development of the circadian profile may be the optimal strategy.     

Efficacy of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in Type 1 diabetes: a 2-year perspective using the established criteria for funding from a National Health Service.

AIM: To determine the 2-year efficacy of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) following the current established criteria for funding of a National Health Service. METHODS: Longitudinal, prospective, observational unicentre study. Included in the study were 153 Type 1 diabetes (T1D) subjects, previously treated with multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin, in whom CSII was started in accordance with the criteria for reimbursement of the Catalan National Health Service. At baseline, we recorded data on age, gender, duration of the disease, body mass index (BMI), insulin dose and indications for CSII. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) and the frequency of hypoglycaemic events were used to assess glycaemic control. Quality of life was assessed using three different self-report questionnaires. After 24 months, these same items were remeasured in all subjects. Serious adverse events and injection-site complications were also recorded. RESULTS: In 96% of subjects, CSII indication included less than optimal glycaemic control using MDI. HbA(1c) fell from 7.9 +/- 1.3 to 7.3 +/- 1.1% (P < or = 0.001) after 24 months of CSII. Insulin requirements were significantly lower at the end of follow-up (0.55 +/- 0.21 U/kg body weight) in comparison with before use of CSII (0.70 +/- 0.20, P < or = 0.001). BMI increased from 24.0 +/- 3.1 to 24.4 +/- 3.2 kg/m(2) after 24 months (P < or = 0.025). The rate of episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis per year remained unchanged. Mild and severe hypoglycaemic episodes were significantly reduced. The scores in all subsets of the Diabetes Quality-of-Life (DQoL) questionnaire significantly improved after 24 months of CSII. CONCLUSIONS: CSII, commenced according to the criteria for a nationally funded clinical programme, improves glycaemic control and quality-of-life outcomes with fewer hypoglycaemic episodes in T1D subjects previously conventionally treated with MDI.     

A reduction in severe hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes in a randomized crossover study of continuous intraperitoneal compared with subcutaneous insulin infusion

Aim: Continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion (CIPII) with the DiaPort system using regular insulin was compared to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) using insulin Lispro, to investigate the frequency of hypoglycemia, blood glucose control, quality of life, and safety.
Methods: In this open, randomized, controlled, cross-over, multinational, 12-month study, 60 type 1 diabetic patients with frequent hypoglycemia and/or HbA1c > 7.0% with CSII were randomized to CIPII or CSII. The aim was to obtain the best possible blood glucose while avoiding hypoglycemia.
Results: The frequency of any hypoglycemia was similar (CIPII 118.2 (SD 82.6) events / patient year, CSII 115.8 (SD 75.7) p = 0.910). The incidence of severe hypoglycemia with CSII was more than twice the one with CIPII (CIPII 34.8 events / 100 patient years, CSII 86.1, p = 0.013). HbA1c, mean blood glucose, and glucose fluctuations were not statistically different. Treatment-related severe complications occurred mainly during CIPII: port infections (0.47 events / patient year), abdominal pain (0.21 events / patient year), insulin underdelivery (0.14 events / patient year). Weight gain was greater with CSII (+ 1.5 kg vs. − 0.1 kg, p = 0.013), quality of life better with CIPII.
Conclusions: In type 1 diabetes CIPII with DiaPort reduces the number of severe episodes of hypoglycemia and improves quality of life with no weight gain. Because of complications, indications for CIPII must be strictly controlled. CIPII with DiaPort is an alternative therapy when CSII is not fully successful and provides an easy method of intraperitoneal therapy.     

Glycemic Variability and Its Impact on Quality of Life in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes

Background:

There is evidence suggesting that glycemic variability reduces quality of life (QoL) in people with type 2 diabetes, but this association has not been explored in type 1 diabetes. We aimed to assess whether glycemic variability has an impact on QoL in adults with established type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII).

Methods:

Participants wore a blinded continuous glucose monitor for up to 5 days and completed the diabetes quality of life (DQOL) questionnaire. Glycemic variability measures were calculated using the EasyGV version 9.0 software. A correlation analysis was performed to assess whether there was a relationship between glycemic variability and measures of QoL.

Results:

In all, 57 participants with type 1 diabetes (51% male, 65% on CSII, 35% on MDI, mean [SD] age 41 [13] years, duration of diabetes 21 [12] years, HbA1c 63 [12] mmol/mol [7.9% (1.1)], body mass index 25.2 [4.0] kg/m²) were included in the analysis. No significant associations between glycemic variability and DQOL total or subscale scores were demonstrated. The glycemic variability was significantly higher for MDI participants compared to CSII participants (P < .05 for all glycemic variability measures), but no significant difference in QoL between the 2 treatment modality groups was observed.

Conclusions:

Treatment with CSII is associated with lower glycemic variability compared to MDI. Despite this, and contrary to findings in type 2 diabetes, this study did not find an association between glycemic variability and QoL in adults with relatively well-controlled type 1 diabetes, irrespective of whether they are on MDI or CSII.     

Twenty-Four Hour Fasting (Basal Rate) Tests to Achieve Custom-Tailored,Hour-by-Hour Basal Insulin Infusion Rates in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Using Insulin Pumps (CSII)

Background:Twenty-four hour fasting periods are being used to scrutinize basal insulin infusion rates for pump-treated patients with type 1 diabetes.Methods:Data from 339 consecutive in-patients with adult type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy undergoing a 24-hour fast as a basal rate test were retrospectively analyzed. Hourly programmed basal insulin infusion rates and plasma glucose concentrations within, below, or above arbitrarily defined target ranges were assessed for periods of the day of special interest (eg, 01:00-07:00 am, “dawn” period, 04:00-07:00 pm, and “dusk” period). Statistics: χ²-tests, paired t-tests were used.Results:Basal rates (mean: 0.90 ± 0.02 IU/h) showed circadian variations with peaks corresponding to “dawn” (1.07 ± 0.02 IU/h from 01:00 to 07:00 am) and, less prominently, “dusk” (0.95 ± 0.02 IU/h from 03:00 to 07:00 pm). Individual mean plasma glucose concentrations averaged 6.6 ± 0.1 mmol/L, with 53.1% in the predefined “strict” (4.4-7.2 mmol/L) target range. Interestingly, during the “dawn” period, plasma glucose was significantly higher (by 0.5 ± 0.1 mmol/L [95% confidence interval: 0.3-0.8 mmol/L; P < .0001]) and the odds ratio for hypoglycemia was significantly lower compared to the reference period.Interpretation:Twenty-four hour fasting periods as basal rate tests frequently unravel periods with inappropriate basal insulin infusion rates potentially responsible for fasting hyper- or hypoglycemia. Notably, the higher basal insulin infusion rate found during the “dawn” period seems to be justified and may need to be accentuated.     

Quality of life and treatment satisfaction in adults with Type 1 diabetes: a comparison between continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and multiple daily injections

Aims The aim of this case–control study was to compare quality of life (QoL) and treatment satisfaction in adults with Type 1 diabetes (T1DM) treated with either continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) or multiple daily injections (MDI). Methods Consecutive patients aged between 18 and 55 years, and attending diabetes clinics for a routine visit, completed the Diabetes‐Specific Quality‐of‐Life Scale (DSQOLS), the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) and the SF‐36 Health Survey (SF‐36). Case (CSII) and control subjects (MDI) were recruited in a 1 : 2 ratio. Results Overall, 1341 individuals were enrolled by 62 diabetes clinics; 481 were cases and 860 control subjects. Cases had a longer diabetes duration and were more likely to have eye and renal complications. Age, school education, occupation and HbA_1c were similar. Of control subjects, 90% followed glargine‐based MDI regimens and 10% used NPH‐based MDI regimens. On multivariate analysis, after adjusting for socioeconomic and clinical characteristics, scores in the following areas of the DSQOLS were higher in cases than control subjects: diet restrictions (β = 5.96; P < 0.0001), daily hassles (β = 3.57; P = 0.01) and fears about hypoglycaemia (β = 3.88; P = 0.006). Treatment with CSII was also associated with a markedly higher DTSQ score (β = 4.13; P < 0.0001) compared with MDI. Results were similar when CSII was compared separately with glargine‐ or NPH‐based MDI regimens. Conclusions This large, non‐randomized, case–control study suggests quality of life gains deriving from greater lifestyle flexibility, less fear of hypoglycaemia, and higher treatment satisfaction, when CSII is compared with either glargine‐based or NPH‐based MDI regimens.     

Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Treated with Insulin Pumps Need Widely Heterogeneous Basal Rate Profiles Ranging from Negligible to Pronounced Diurnal Variability

Background:Pump-treated patients with type 1 diabetes have widely differing basal insulin infusion profiles. We analyzed consequences of such heterogeneity for glycemic control under fasting conditions.Methods:Data from 339 adult patients with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy undergoing a 24-hour fast (basal rate test) were retrospectively analyzed. Hourly programmed basal insulin infusion rates and plasma glucose concentrations as well as their proportions within, below, or above arbitrarily defined target ranges were assessed for specific periods of the day (eg, 1-7 hours, “dawn” period, 16-19 hours, “dusk” period, reference period 20-1 hours/10-14 hours), by tertiles of a predefined “dawn” index (mean basal insulin infusion rate during the “dawn” divided by the reference periods).Results:The “dawn” index varied interindividually from 0.7 to 4.4. Basal insulin infusion profiles exhibited substantial differences (P = .011), especially overnight. Despite higher insulin infusion rates at 4 and 6.45 hours, patients with the most pronounced “dawn” phenomenon exhibited higher plasma glucose concentrations at those time points (P < .012). Patients with a marked “dawn” phenomenon exhibited a lower probability for low (<4.4 mmol/L) and a higher probability of high values (>7.2 mmol/L) during the dawn period (all P values <.01).Conclusions:We observe substantial interindividual heterogeneity in the “dawn” phenomenon. However, widely different empirically derived basal insulin infusion profiles appear appropriate for individual patients, as indicated by similar plasma glucose concentrations, mainly in the target range, during a 24-hour fasting period.     

Pregnancy outcome and glycemic control in women with type 1 diabetes: A retrospective comparison between CSII and MDI treatment

AimPresent study was aimed to evaluate glycemic control and maternal–fetal outcome in pregnant type 1 diabetic patient treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) or multiple daily injections of insulin (MDI).Patients and methodsA retrospective observational study included thirty-four pregnant type 1 diabetic patients. Patients were divided into two group, CSII treated group (n = 14) and MDI treated group (n = 20). The HbA1c level and maternal–fetal outcome were evaluated in both the treatment group. Outcome parameters such as glycemic control (HbA1c), hypoglycemic events, time and mode of delivery and labor results (abortion, premature labor, perinatal mortality, neonatal weight, Apgar score, neonatal hypoglycaemia, presence of congenital abnormalities) were analyzed.ResultsPregnancy outcome and glycemic control in pregnant type 1 diabetic patients treated with CSII and MDI were evaluated and compared. Two groups were compared for their epidemiological parameters, although patients on CSII treatment had longer duration of diabetes compared to MDI treated group. Reduction in HbA1c level was higher in CSII treated patients at first (CSII: 0.9% vs MDI: 0.46%), second (CSII: 1.58% vs MDI: 0.78%) and third trimester (CSII: 1.74% vs MDI: 1.09%) of pregnancy compared to MDI treated patients. Duration of pregnancy and new born baby weight were founded similar in both group. Moreover, the rate of abortion, preterm labor, cesarean section and hypoglycemia in new born were founded less in CSII treated group compared to MDI treated group and Apgar score was significantly (p < 0.05) higher in CSII treated group compared to MDI treated group.ConclusionResults of present study revealed that the CSII gives better glycemic control and pregnancy outcome in pregnant type 1 diabetic patients compared to MDI treatment. CSII also decreases the daily insulin requirement compared MDI.     

Factors associated with improved glycemic control following continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with bolus‐basal insulin regimens: An analysis from the OpT2mise randomized trial

This analysis investigated factors associated with the decrease in HbA1c in patients receiving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in the OpT2mise randomized trial. In this study, patients with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c >8% following multiple daily injections (MDI) optimization were randomized to receive CSII (n = 168) or MDI (n = 163) for 6 months. Patient‐related and treatment‐related factors associated with decreased HbA1c in the CSII arm were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses. CSII produced a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c than MDI, and the treatment difference increased with baseline HbA1c. In the CSII arm, the only factors significantly associated with decreased HbA1c were higher baseline HbA1c (P < .001), geographical region (P < .001), higher educational level (P = .012), higher total cholesterol level (P = .002), lower variability of baseline glucose values on continuous glucose monitoring (P < .001) and the decrease in average fasting self‐monitored blood glucose at 6 months (P < .001). These findings suggest that CSII offers an option to improve glycemic control in a broad range of patients with type 2 diabetes in whom control cannot be achieved with MDI. OpT2mise ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01182493 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ).     

Dynamic Insulin on Board: Incorporation of Circadian Insulin Sensitivity Variation

Background:

Insulin-on-board (IOB) estimation is used in modern insulin therapy with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) as well as different automatic glucose-regulating strategies (i.e., artificial pancreas products) to prevent insulin stacking that may lead to hypoglycemia. However, most of the IOB calculations are static IOB (sIOB): they are based only on approximated insulin decay and do not take into account diurnal changes in insulin sensitivity.

Methods:

A dynamic IOB (dIOB) that takes into account diurnal insulin sensitivity variation is suggested in this work and used to adjust the sIOB estimations. The dIOB function is used to correct the dosage of insulin boluses in light of this circadian variation.

Results:

Basal–bolus as applied by pump users and model predictive control therapy with and without dIOB were evaluated using the University of Virginia/Padova metabolic simulator. Three protocols with four meals of 1 g carbohydrate/kg body weight were evaluated: a nominal scenario and two robustness scenarios, one in which insulin sensitivity was 15% greater than estimated and the other where the lunch is 30% less than announced. In the nominal and robustness scenarios, respectively, the dIOB led to 6% and 24% and 40% less hypoglycemia episodes than approaches without IOB. The new approach was also compared with the sIOB to evaluate the improvements with respect to the previous approach.

Conclusions:

Improved glucose regulation was demonstrated using the dIOB where circadian insulin sensitivity is used to adjust IOB estimation. Use of diurnal variations of insulin sensitivity appears to promote effective and safe insulin therapy using CSII or artificial pancreas. Clinical trials are warranted to determine whether nocturnal hypoglycemia can be reduced using the dIOB approach.     

Comparison of the effects of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and NPH-based multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) on glycaemic control and quality of life: results of the 5-nations trial.

AIMS: The goal of the study was to determine whether continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) differs from a multiple daily injection (MDI) regimen based on neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH) as basal insulin with respect to glycaemic control and quality of life in people with Type 1 diabetes. METHODS: The 5-Nations trial was a randomized, controlled, crossover trial conducted in 11 European centres. Two hundred and seventy-two patients were treated with CSII or MDI during a 2-month run-in period followed by a 6-month treatment period, respectively. The quality of glycaemic control was assessed by HbA(1c), blood glucose values, and the frequency of hypoglycaemic events. For the evaluation of the quality of life, three different self-report questionnaires have been assessed. RESULTS: CSII treatment resulted in lower HbA(1c) (7.45 vs. 7.67%, P < 0.001), mean blood glucose level (8.6 vs. 9.4 mmol/l, P < 0.001) and less fluctuation in blood glucose levels than MDI (+/- 3.9 vs. +/- 4.3 mmol/l, P < 0.001). There was a marked reduction in the frequency of hypoglycaemic events using CSII compared with MDI, with an incidence ratio of 1.12 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-1.17] and 2.61 (95% CI: 1.59-4.29) for mild and severe hypoglycaemia, respectively. The overall score of the diabetes quality of life questionnaire was higher for CSII (P < 0.001), and an improvement in pump users' perception of mental health was detected when using the SF-12 questionnaire (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: CSII usage offers significant benefits over NPH-based MDI for individuals with Type 1 diabetes, with improvement in all significant metabolic parameters as well as in patients' quality of life. Additional studies are needed to compare CSII with glargine- and detemir-based MDI.