Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 27(S1), P. S92 - S102
Published: March 1, 2025
Language: Английский
Diabetes Care, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 48(Supplement_1), P. S146 - S166
Published: Dec. 9, 2024
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) “Standards of Care in Diabetes” includes the ADA’s current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide components diabetes care, general treatment goals guidelines, tools evaluate quality care. Members ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating Standards annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description standards, statements, reports, well evidence-grading system full list Committee members, please refer Introduction Methodology. Readers who wish comment on invited do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.
Language: Английский
Citations
47
Diabetes Care, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 48(Supplement_1), P. S306 - S320
Published: Dec. 9, 2024
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide components diabetes care, general treatment goals guidelines, tools evaluate quality care. Members ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating Standards annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description standards, statements, reports, well evidence-grading system full list Committee members, please refer Introduction Methodology. Readers who wish comment on invited do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.
Language: Английский
Citations
25
Acta Diabetologica, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown
Published: Feb. 13, 2025
Language: Английский
Citations
2
Journal of Diabetes and its Complications, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 38(8), P. 108795 - 108795
Published: June 12, 2024
Aim The efficacy of hybrid closed-loop systems (HCLs) in managing glycemic control pregnant women with type 1 diabetes remains inadequately characterized. We evaluated the use Medtronic Minimed 780G HCLs.
Language: Английский
Citations
8
Acta Diabetologica, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown
Published: Jan. 10, 2025
Abstract Aims To assess the efficacy and safety of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems compared to standard care in managing glycaemic control during pregnancy women with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM). Methods We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, registries conference abstracts up June 2024 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) observational studies comparing AID pregnant T1DM. conducted random effects meta-analyses % 24-h time range 63–140 mg/dL (TIR), hyperglycaemia (> 140 mg/dl > 180 mg/dL), hypoglycaemia (< 63 < 54 total dose (units/kg/day), glycemic variability (%), changes HbA1c maternal fetal outcomes. Results Thirteen (450 participants) were included. significantly increased TIR (Mean difference, MD 7.01%, 95% CI 3.72–10.30) reduced (MD – 5.09%, 9.41 0.78 2.44%, 4.69 0.20, respectively). Additionally, was 1.66%, 2.73 0.58). Other outcomes did not differ significantly. Conclusion effectively improve T1DM by increasing reducing without any observed adverse short-term on
Language: Английский
Citations
1
Endocrine Practice, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown
Published: Jan. 1, 2025
Language: Английский
Citations
1
Eye, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown
Published: Feb. 20, 2025
Language: Английский
Citations
1
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown
Published: March 12, 2025
Background: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a phenotypically heterogeneous disease. The use of insulin required in significant portion people with T2D, despite recent developments antidiabetic medications. This study analyzes glycemic outcomes automated delivery (AID) users T2D different requirements. Methods: retrospective, real-world analysis including MiniMed 780G (MM780G) data uploaded to CareLink Personal (January 2020 April 2024). Four cohorts were identified based on phenotypes T2D: (A) total daily dose (TDD) ≥ 100 IU, (B) self-reported (C) and TDD (D) <100 IU. Glycemic assessed post-AID, pre-AID versus six-month longitudinal post-AID. Results: A 26 427 included this study, which 18 466 cohort A, 10 795 B, 834 C, 7 961 D. Mean time range (TIR) was 71.1% ± 12.2 for 75.1% ±14.1 72.2% 15.0 76.1% 13.6 below (TBR) <70 mg/dL ≤1% all cohorts. C using the recommended optimal settings (glucose target [GT] active [AIT] two hours) had greater TIR 78.7% 10.8. All increased ≥10% post-AID compared pre-AID. Conclusions: AID associated effective therapy outcomes, as indicated by over 70% TIR, appears be safe, demonstrated low TBR large real-life high or TDD.
Language: Английский
Citations
1
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown
Published: March 18, 2025
Introduction: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems improve glycemic control in people living with type 1 diabetes (PwT1D). AID is cost-effective versus other management approaches a range of country settings and populations. This cost-utility analysis adds an evaluation the MiniMedTM 780G system standard care (SoC) PwT1D baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level <8% not reaching targets, conducted from societal perspective The Netherlands. Methods: was run using IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, over 50 years. Costs were discounted at 3% per year, effects 1.5% year. Baseline cohort characteristics treatment sourced MiniMed arm prospective multicenter study. utility estimates taken Dutch databases published sources. Sensitivity analyses to address uncertainty. Results: improved life expectancy by 0.52 years quality-adjusted 0.99 life-years (QALYs) SoC. associated incremental combined cost EUR 28,635 due higher acquisition costs, which partially offset reduced direct costs for diabetes-related complications indirect less time off work. Based on ratio 29,836 QALY gained. Conclusions: For Netherlands, who had HbA1c do reach initiation projected long-term clinical outcomes reduce both productivity losses. From perspective, likely represents good value money
Language: Английский
Citations
1
EClinicalMedicine, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 82, P. 103190 - 103190
Published: April 1, 2025
The comparative efficacy of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems and other treatment options for type 1 diabetes, accounting the certainty evidence (CoE), is unknown. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register Controlled Trials ClinicalTrials.gov included outpatient randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published until January 8, 2025, in people with diabetes a three-week or longer intervention AID (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023395492). performed pairwise network meta-analyses used Risk Bias tool 2 Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development Evaluation methods to determine CoE each outcome. A total 46 studies involving seven 4113 participants were included, which 29 17 had low moderate risks bias, respectively. systems, including hybrid closed-loop (HCL), advanced HCL (AHCL) full (FCL) evaluated 20, 25 studies, meta-analysis did not indicate global inconsistencies but publication bias all glycaemic outcomes. varied between very high, depending on outcome under consideration. Compared pump therapy, percentage time range 70-180 mg/dl was greater use (HCL: 19.7% [95% confidence interval 13.2%; 26.1%], CoE; AHCL: 24.1% [18.2%; 29.9%], FCL: 25.5% [11.1%; 39.9%], high CoE). above 180 250 lower AHCL, average, by 19.6% (14.0%; 25.1%), CoE, 14.8% (8.8%; 20.8%), uncertain regarding overall effect below 70 54 HbA1c. improve outcomes varying degrees CoE. German Federal Ministry Education Research (BMBF; grant 01KG2203).
Language: Английский
Citations
1