ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE Continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion (CIPII) with an implantable pump has been available for the past 25 years. CIPII, with its specific pharmacodynamic properties, may be a viable treatment alternative to improve glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes for whom other therapies have failed. There have been few studies in which CIPII was compared with subcutaneous insulin treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes with poor glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In an open-label, prospective, crossover, randomized, 16-month study, the effects of CIPII and subcutaneous insulin were compared in 24 patients. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of hypoglycemia. Secondary outcome measures were A1C, and glucose profile, including time in euglycemia, as measured by continuous glucose monitoring. RESULTS The incidence of grade 1 hypoglycemic events was 4.0 +/- 2.6 per week with subcutaneous insulin compared with 3.5 +/- 2.3 per week during CIPII (P = 0.13). The absolute mean difference in A1C with CIPII compared with subcutaneous treatment was -0.76% (95% CI -1.41 to -0.11) (P = 0.03). Baseline time spent in euglycemia was 45.2 +/- 12.6% and increased 10.9% (4.6-17.3) with CIPII compared with subcutaneous treatment (absolute value; P = 0.003). There were no differences in the occurrence rate for severe hypoglycemic events, daily insulin use, or BMI. No pump or catheter malfunction was observed during the study. CONCLUSIONS Although we did not observe a significant reduction in hypoglycemic events, improved glycemic control was achieved with the use of CIPII. We saw a 0.8% decrease in A1C and an 11% increase in the time spent in euglycemia.
Subject(s)
Blood Glucose/metabolism , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/drug therapy , Injections, Subcutaneous , Insulin Infusion Systems , Insulin/administration & dosage , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Blood Glucose/drug effects , C-Peptide/blood , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/blood , Glycated Hemoglobin/metabolism , Humans , Hypoglycemia/chemically induced , Hypoglycemia/epidemiology , Incidence , Insulin/adverse effects , Insulin/therapeutic use , Middle Aged , Patient Selection , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy measures of the random glucose test and the 50-g glucose challenge test as screening tests for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, pregnant women without preexisting diabetes in two perinatal centers in the Netherlands underwent a random glucose test and a 50-g glucose challenge test between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation. If one of the screening tests exceeded predefined threshold values, the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed within 1 week. Furthermore, the OGTT was performed in a random sample of women in whom both screening tests were normal. GDM was considered present when the OGTT (reference test) exceeded predefined threshold values. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the performance of the two screening tests. The results were corrected for verification bias. RESULTS: We included 1,301 women. The OGTT was performed in 322 women. After correction for verification bias, the random glucose test showed an area under the ROC curve of 0.69 (95% CI 0.61-0.78), whereas the glucose challenge test had an area under the curve of 0.88 (0.83-0.93). There was a significant difference in area under the curve of the two tests of 0.19 (0.11-0.27) in favor of the 50-g glucose challenge test. CONCLUSIONS: In screening for GDM, the 50-g glucose challenge test is more useful than the random glucose test.
