Accuracy of a CGM Sensor in Pediatric Subjects With Type 1 Diabetes. Comparison of Three Insertion Sites: Arm, Abdomen, and Gluteus

Patients with diabetes, especially pediatric ones, sometimes use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensor in different positions from the approved ones. Here we compare the accuracy of Dexcom\uae G5 CGM sensor in three different sites: abdomen, gluteus (both approved) and arm (off-label)

Mapping Protein Structure Changes with Cysteine Labeling Kinetics by Mass Spectrometry

Currently we observe a gap between theory and practices of patient engagement. If both scholars and health practitioners do agree on the urgency to realize patient engagement, no shared guidelines exist so far to orient clinical practice. Despite a supportive policy context, progress to achieve greater patient engagement is patchy and slow and often concentrated at the level of policy regulation without dialoguing with practitioners from the clinical field as well as patients and families. Though individual clinicians, care teams and health organizations may be interested and deeply committed to engage patients and family members in the medical course, they may lack clarity about how to achieve this goal. This contributes to a wide "system" inertia-really difficult to be overcome-and put at risk any form of innovation in this filed. As a result, patient engagement risk today to be a buzz words, rather than a real guidance for practice. To make the field clearer, we promoted an Italian Consensus Conference on Patient Engagement (ICCPE) in order to set the ground for drafting recommendations for the provision of effective patient engagement interventions. The ICCPE will conclude in June 2017. This document reports on the preliminary phases of this process. In the paper, we advise the importance of "fertilizing a patient engagement ecosystem": an oversimplifying approach to patient engagement promotion appears the result of a common illusion. Patient "disengagement" is a symptom that needs a more holistic and complex approach to solve its underlined causes. Preliminary principles to promote a patient engagement ecosystem are provided in the paper

First Use of Model Predictive Control in Outpatient Wearable Artificial Pancreas

n/

Day and night closed-loop control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a comparison of two closed-loop algorithms driving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus patient self-management.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two validated closed-loop (CL) algorithms versus patient self-control with CSII in terms of glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was a multicenter, randomized, three-way crossover, open-label trial in 48 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus for at least 6 months, treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Blood glucose was controlled for 23 h by the algorithm of the Universities of Pavia and Padova with a Safety Supervision Module developed at the Universities of Virginia and California at Santa Barbara (international artificial pancreas [iAP]), by the algorithm of University of Cambridge (CAM), or by patients themselves in open loop (OL) during three hospital admissions including meals and exercise. The main analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Main outcome measures included time spent in target (glucose levels between 3.9 and 8.0 mmol/L or between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L after meals). RESULTS: Time spent in the target range was similar in CL and OL: 62.6% for OL, 59.2% for iAP, and 58.3% for CAM. While mean glucose level was significantly lower in OL (7.19, 8.15, and 8.26 mmol/L, respectively) (overall P = 0.001), percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) was almost threefold reduced during CL (6.4%, 2.1%, and 2.0%) (overall P = 0.001) with less time ≤2.8 mmol/L (overall P = 0.038). There were no significant differences in outcomes between algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: Both CAM and iAP algorithms provide safe glycemic control

Patient-reported outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes in global real-world clinical practice: The SAGE study

AimsTo conduct a secondary analysis of the SAGE study to evaluate the association between glycaemic control and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) across different age groups and regions.Materials and methodsSAGE was a multinational, cross-sectional, observational study in adults with T1DM. Data were collected at a single visit, analysed according to predefined age groups (26-44, 45-64, and ≥65 years), and reported across different regions. PRO questionnaires were applied to assess hypoglycaemia fear (Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-II), diabetes-related distress (Problem Areas In Diabetes questionnaire), insulin treatment satisfaction (Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire), and diabetes-specific quality of life (QoL; Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life). Multivariable analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) target achievement (less than 7% and individualised targets) with PRO scores.ResultsThe PRO scores showed relatively low levels of diabetes-related emotional distress and fear of hypoglycaemia, moderate to high treatment satisfaction, and low diabetes-related impact on QoL. Results were generally comparable across age groups with some regional variability. Achievement of the HbA1c less than 7% target was associated with less worry about hypoglycaemia, lower diabetes-related emotional distress, higher insulin treatment satisfaction, and higher QoL. Achievement of individualised HbA1c targets was associated with lower diabetes-related emotional distress and higher insulin treatment satisfaction.ConclusionsBetter glycaemic control was most closely associated with low emotional distress due to diabetes and high patient-reported insulin treatment satisfaction

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

IF 2009; 2.762, secondo quartile,ultimo autore, punti