Nicolò Diego Borella1 · Antonio Ferramosca2 · Giona Castagna1 · Silvia Ippolito1 · Sara Ceresoli2 · Antonio Taverna1 · Beatrice Sonzogni2 · Roberto Trevisan1,3 · Giuseppe Lepore1
Received: 6 March 2024 / Accepted: 15 October 2024 / Published online: 22 November 2024 © The Author(s) 2024
Abstract
Context Advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) systems currently represent the most advanced modality of insulin therapy.
Aim To compare the night-time (from 00 to 07 a.m.) effectiveness in achieving recommended glycemic targets of three dif-ferent AHCL systems in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D).
Methods We retrospectively evaluated 55 adults with T1D (mean age 41±16 years, male 40%, diabetes duration 19.4±11.4 years, BMI 24.1±4.1 kg/m2 ) with similar glycemic control (GMI 7.0–7.4%). Twenty-two participants were using the Minimed 780G system, 18 the Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ system and 15 the DBLG1 system. Continuous glucose monitoring derived metrics and insulin requirement of 14 consecutive nights were
Results All three groups achieved the recommended mean TIR>70%, mean TBR<4%, and mean CV<36% with a similar insulin requirement (Minimed 780G system: TIR 73.9±11.2%, TBR 0.9±1.2%, CV 29±6.7%; Tandem t:slim X2 with Con-trol-IQ system: TIR 74.1±11.1%, TBR 1.1±1.0%, CV 34.5±6.6%; DBLG1 System TIR 71.7±11.3%, TBR 1.4±3.7%, CV 32.4±7.1%). Tight TIR% (70–140 mg/dl) was significantly higher (p<0.01) in the Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ group (51.5±9.8%) when compared to Minimed 780G group (42.1±13.7%) and DBLG1 System (40.1±10.5%). In all three groups the insulin infusion similarly decreased from midnight to 05.00 am and then increased.
Conclusions All the three AHCL systems achieved the recommended TIR, TBR and CV without difference in insulin requirement. The Tandem Control-IQ system obtained a higher tight TIR.
Oliver Kuss1,2,3 · Michael Roden3,4,5 · Sabrina Schlesinger1,3 · Annika Hoyer6
Received: 27 May 2024 / Accepted: 23 November 2024 / Published online: 12 December 2024 © The Author(s) 2024
Aims Two prerequisites must be met for the precision treatment approach to be beneficial for treated individuals. First, there must be treatment heterogeneity; second, in case of treatment heterogeneity, clinical predictors to identify people who would benefit from one treatment more than from others must be available. There is an established meta-regression approach to assess these two prerequisites that relies on measuring the variability of a clinical outcome after treatment in placebo-controlled randomised trials. We recently applied this approach to the treatment of type 2 diabetes for the clinical outcomes of glycaemic control and body weight and repeat it for the clinical outcome of all-cause mortality.
Methods We performed a meta-regression analysis using digitalized individual participant information on time to death from 10 large cardiovascular outcome trials (7563 deaths from 99,746 participants) on DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and SGLT-2 inhibitors with respect to the variability of all-cause mortality and its potential predictors after treatment.
Results The adjusted difference in log(SD) values of time to death between the verum and placebo arms was −0.036 (95%- CI: −0.059; −0.013), showing larger variability of time to death in the placebo arms. No clinical predictors were found to explain treatment heterogeneity.
Conclusions This analysis suggests that the potential of the precision treatment approach in type 2 diabetes is low, at least with regard to improvement of all-cause mortality in population with high cardiovascular risk. This extends our previous findings for the clinical outcomes of glycaemic control and body weight.
Keywords Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors · Glucagon-like peptide 1 · HbA1c · Meta-regression · Precision medicine · Sodium–glucose transporter 2 inhibitors · Type 2 diabetes mellitus
原创: 十六点五 中山二院糖尿病足中心
(4)糖尿病足的感染,不但是局部的问题,而且还是全身的问题,一方面,糖尿病人全身抵抗力的下降,葡萄糖对重要脏器的损害,造成糖尿病足的感染即难控制又对全身脏器的功能影响大,很容易导致心衰、肾衰等,或者加重有关脏器的损伤;
糖尿病足部的慢性溃疡是否存在感染,好像应该是没有多少疑问的,但在所谓的“神经性溃疡”的表面是否存在有临床意义的感染,一直有争议。
对于外周血管病变的介入治疗,较IWGDF指南较有关OFFLOADING的细节描述,有关介入治疗的部分实在是比较粗慥,目前糖尿病外周血管病变介入治疗的热点问题大部分都没有涉及
对于糖尿病外周血管病变的治疗,2019年版IWGDF指南讲的比较少,无论是内科治疗还是介入治疗,这版的指南都讲得比较少(其实之前版本的IWGDF指南有关血管病变方面的内容更少),而国内糖尿病足指南,提到有关糖尿病外周血管病变治疗,一般都会用比较大的篇幅谈到其内科治疗。
伤口世界平台生态圈,以“关爱人间所有伤口患者”为愿景,连接、整合和拓展线上和线下的管理慢性伤口的资源,倡导远程、就近和居家管理慢性伤口,解决伤口专家的碎片化时间的价值创造、诊疗经验的裂变复制、和患者的就近、居家和低成本管理慢性伤口的问题。
2019广东省医疗行业协会伤口管理分会年会
扫一扫了解详情:
任何关于疾病的建议都不能替代执业医师的面对面诊断。所有门诊时间仅供参考,最终以医院当日公布为准。
网友、医生言论仅代表其个人观点,不代表本站同意其说法,请谨慎参阅,本站不承担由此引起的法律责任。