Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Diabetes Technol Ther ; 23(6): 467-470, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33439754

ABSTRACT

Insulin pump training has traditionally been performed in-person. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated vast increases in the number of virtual pump trainings for Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump starts. A customized structured pump training curriculum specifically tailored to virtual learning was deployed in early 2020, and included (1) preparation for training with use of the t:simulator app, (2) use of the teach-back method during video training, and (3) automating data uploads for follow-up. Retrospective analysis from >23,000 pump training sessions performed from January 1, 2020 to July 28, 2020 showed sensor time-in-range for up to 6 months after training was 72% (60%-81%) for virtual training versus 67% (54%-78%) for in-person training. Higher user satisfaction (4.78 ± 0.52 vs. 4.64 ± 0.68; P < 0.01) and higher user confidence (4.61 ± 0.75 vs. 4.47 ± 0.0.85; P < 0.01) were reported after the virtual sessions. Virtual pump training was well received and proved safe and effective with the new virtual training curriculum.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus/drug therapy , Hypoglycemia/epidemiology , Hypoglycemic Agents/administration & dosage , Insulin Infusion Systems , Insulin/administration & dosage , Patient Education as Topic/methods , Telemedicine/methods , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , COVID-19 , Child , Curriculum , Diabetes Mellitus/metabolism , Educational Measurement , Feasibility Studies , Female , Glycated Hemoglobin/metabolism , Humans , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Infusion Pumps, Implantable , Insulin/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
2.
Diabetes Technol Ther ; 23(2): 120-127, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32846114

ABSTRACT

Background: The t:slim X2™ insulin pump with Control-IQ™ technology, an advanced hybrid closed-loop system, became available in the United States in early 2020. Real-world outcomes with use of this system have not yet been comprehensively reported. Methods: Individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) (≥14 years of age) who had ≥21 days of pump usage data were invited via email to participate. Participants completed psychosocial questionnaires (Technology Acceptance Scale [TAS], well-being index [WHO-5], and Diabetes Impact and Devices Satisfaction [DIDS] scale) at timepoint 1 (T1) (at least 3 weeks after starting Control-IQ technology) and the DIDS and WHO-5 at timepoint 2 (T2) (4 weeks from T1). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and glycemic outcomes were reviewed at each timepoint. Results: Overall, 9,085 potentially eligible individuals received the study invite. Of these, 3,116 consented and subsequently 1,435 participants completed questionnaires at both T1 and T2 and had corresponding glycemic data available on the t:connect® web application. Time in range was 78.2% (70.2%-85.1%) at T1 and 79.2% (70.3%-86.2%) at T2. PROs reflected high device-related satisfaction and reduced diabetes impact at T2. Factors contributing to high trust in the system included sensor accuracy, improved diabetes control, reduction in extreme blood glucose levels, and improved sleep quality. In addition, participants reported improved quality of life, ease of use, and efficient connectivity to the continuous glucose monitoring system as being valuable features of the system. Conclusions: Continued real-world use of the t:slim X2 pump with Control-IQ technology showed improvements in psychosocial outcomes and persistent achievement of recommended TIR glycemic outcomes in people with T1D.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 , Insulin Infusion Systems , Adolescent , Adult , Blood Glucose , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/drug therapy , Female , Humans , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Insulin/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Quality of Life , Technology , United States , Young Adult
3.
Diabetes Care ; 40(12): 1622-1630, 2017 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29162582

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To identify and define clinically meaningful type 1 diabetes outcomes beyond hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) based upon a review of the evidence, consensus from clinical experts, and input from researchers, people with type 1 diabetes, and industry. Priority outcomes include hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, time in range, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). While priority outcomes for type 1 and type 2 diabetes may overlap, type 1 diabetes was the focus of this work. RESEARCH AND METHODS: A Steering Committee-comprising representatives from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, JDRF International, The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the T1D Exchange-was the decision-making body for the Type 1 Diabetes Outcomes Program. Their work was informed by input from researchers, industry, and people with diabetes through Advisory Committees representing each stakeholder group. Stakeholder surveys were used to identify priority outcomes. The outcomes prioritized in the surveys were hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, time in range, DKA, and PROs. To develop consensus on the definitions of these outcomes, the Steering Committee relied on published evidence, their clinical expertise, and feedback from the Advisory Committees. RESULTS: The Steering Committee developed definitions for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, time in range, and DKA in type 1 diabetes. The definitions reflect their assessment of the outcome's short- and long-term clinical impact on people with type 1 diabetes. Knowledge gaps to be addressed by future research were identified. The Steering Committee discussed PROs and concluded that further type 1 diabetes-specific development is needed. CONCLUSIONS: The Steering Committee recommends use of the defined clinically meaningful outcomes beyond HbA1c in the research, development, and evaluation of type 1 diabetes therapies.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/blood , Endocrinologists/standards , Endocrinology/standards , Glycated Hemoglobin/standards , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/standards , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/blood , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/diagnosis , Diabetic Ketoacidosis/blood , Diabetic Ketoacidosis/diagnosis , Endocrinologists/education , Endocrinology/education , Humans , Hyperglycemia/blood , Hyperglycemia/diagnosis , Hypoglycemia/blood , Hypoglycemia/diagnosis , Societies, Medical , United States
6.
J Diabetes Sci Technol ; 9(6): 1192-9, 2015 Oct 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26468135

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Factors influencing glycemic variability in type 1 diabetes (T1D) may play a significant role in the refinement of closed loop insulin administration. Phase of menstrual cycle is one such factor that has been inadequately investigated. We propose that unique individual patterns can be constructed and used as parameters of closed loop systems. METHOD: Women with T1D on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and continuous glucose monitoring were studied for 3 consecutive menstrual cycles. Ovulation prediction kits and labs were used to confirm phase of menstrual cycle. Glycemic risks were assessed using the low- and high blood glucose indices (LBGI and HBGI). Insulin sensitivity (SI) was estimated using a Kalman filtering method from meal and insulin data. Overall change significance for glycemic risks was assessed by repeated measures ANOVA, with specific phases emphasized using contrasts. RESULTS: Ovulation was confirmed in 33/36 cycles studied in 12 subjects (age = 33.1 ± 7.0 years, BMI = 25.7 ± 2.9 kg/m(2), A1c = 6.8 ± 0.7%). Risk for hyperglycemia changed significantly during the cycle (P = .023), with HBGI increasing until early luteal phase and returning to initial levels thereafter. LBGI was steady in the follicular phase, decreasing thereafter but not significantly. SI was depressed during the luteal phase when compared to the early follicular phase (P ≤ .05). Total daily insulin, carbohydrates, or calories did not show any significant fluctuations. CONCLUSIONS: Women with T1D have glycemic variability changes that are specific to the individual and are linked to phase of cycle. An increased risk of hyperglycemia was observed during periovulation and early luteal phases compared to the early follicular phase; these changes appear to be associated with decreased insulin sensitivity during the luteal phase.


Subject(s)
Blood Glucose/drug effects , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/drug therapy , Hypoglycemic Agents/administration & dosage , Insulin/administration & dosage , Menstrual Cycle/blood , Adult , Biomarkers/blood , Blood Glucose/metabolism , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/blood , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/physiopathology , Equipment Design , Female , Humans , Hypoglycemic Agents/adverse effects , Infusions, Subcutaneous , Insulin/adverse effects , Insulin Infusion Systems , Insulin Resistance , Models, Biological , Pancreas, Artificial , Pilot Projects , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
7.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab ; 100(10): 3878-86, 2015 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26204135

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: Closed-loop control (CLC) relies on an individual's open-loop insulin pump settings to initialize the system. Optimizing open-loop settings before using CLC usually requires significant time and effort. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to investigate the effects of a one-time algorithmic adjustment of basal rate and insulin to carbohydrate ratio open-loop settings on the performance of CLC. DESIGN: This study reports a multicenter, outpatient, randomized, crossover clinical trial. PATIENTS: Thirty-seven adults with type 1 diabetes were enrolled at three clinical sites. INTERVENTIONS: Each subject's insulin pump settings were subject to a one-time algorithmic adjustment based on 1 week of open-loop (i.e., home care) data collection. Subjects then underwent two 27-hour periods of CLC in random order with either unchanged (control) or algorithmic adjusted basal rate and carbohydrate ratio settings (adjusted) used to initialize the zone-model predictive control artificial pancreas controller. Subject's followed their usual meal-plan and had an unannounced exercise session. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Time in the glucose range was 80-140 mg/dL, compared between both arms. RESULTS: Thirty-two subjects completed the protocol. Median time in CLC was 25.3 hours. The median time in the 80-140 mg/dl range was similar in both groups (39.7% control, 44.2% adjusted). Subjects in both arms of CLC showed minimal time spent less than 70 mg/dl (median 1.34% and 1.37%, respectively). There were no significant differences more than 140 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: A one-time algorithmic adjustment of open-loop settings did not alter glucose control in a relatively short duration outpatient closed-loop study. The CLC system proved very robust and adaptable, with minimal (<2%) time spent in the hypoglycemic range in either arm.


Subject(s)
Blood Glucose/drug effects , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/drug therapy , Hypoglycemic Agents/administration & dosage , Insulin Infusion Systems , Insulin/administration & dosage , Adult , Aged , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring , Cross-Over Studies , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/blood , Female , Humans , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Insulin/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
8.
J Diabetes Sci Technol ; 7(6): 1416-26, 2013 Nov 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24351168

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Recent in-hospital studies of artificial pancreas (AP) systems have shown promising results in improving glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. The next logical step in AP development is to conduct transitional outpatient clinical trials with a mobile system that is controlled by the patient. In this article, we present the user interface (UI) of the Diabetes Assistant (DiAs), an experimental smartphone-based mobile AP system, and describe the reactions of a round of focus groups to the UI. This work is an initial inquiry involving a relatively small number of potential users, many of whom had never seen an AP system before, and the results should be understood in that light. METHODS: We began by considering how the UI of an AP system could be designed to make use of the familiar touch-based graphical UI of a consumer smartphone. After developing a working prototype UI, we enlisted a human factors specialist to perform a heuristic expert analysis. Next we conducted a formative evaluation of the UI through a series of three focus groups with N = 13 potential end users as participants. The UI was modified based upon the results of these studies, and the resulting DiAs system was used in transitional outpatient AP studies of adults in the United States and Europe. RESULTS: The DiAs UI was modified based on focus group feedback from potential users. The DiAs was subsequently used in JDRF- and AP@Home-sponsored transitional outpatient AP studies in the United States and Europe by 40 subjects for 2400 h with no adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus are able to control an AP system successfully using a patient-centric UI on a commercial smartphone in a transitional outpatient environment.


Subject(s)
Cell Phone , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/therapy , Mobile Applications , Monitoring, Ambulatory/instrumentation , Pancreas, Artificial/trends , User-Computer Interface , Blood Glucose/metabolism , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/blood , Europe , Focus Groups , Humans , Insulin/administration & dosage , Insulin/therapeutic use , Monitoring, Ambulatory/methods , Surveys and Questionnaires , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...