Suppr超能文献

CLC 与 PLGS 在 1 型糖尿病中的应用对血糖结局的影响:一项随机对照试验。

Glycemic Outcomes of Use of CLC Versus PLGS in Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

机构信息

Division of Endocrinology and Center for Diabetes Technology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.

Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, FL.

出版信息

Diabetes Care. 2020 Aug;43(8):1822-1828. doi: 10.2337/dc20-0124. Epub 2020 May 29.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Limited information is available about glycemic outcomes with a closed-loop control (CLC) system compared with a predictive low-glucose suspend (PLGS) system.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

After 6 months of use of a CLC system in a randomized trial, 109 participants with type 1 diabetes (age range, 14-72 years; mean HbA, 7.1% [54 mmol/mol]) were randomly assigned to CLC ( = 54, Control-IQ) or PLGS ( = 55, Basal-IQ) groups for 3 months. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitor (CGM)-measured time in range (TIR) for 70-180 mg/dL. Baseline CGM metrics were computed from the last 3 months of the preceding study.

RESULTS

All 109 participants completed the study. Mean ± SD TIR was 71.1 ± 11.2% at baseline and 67.6 ± 12.6% using intention-to-treat analysis (69.1 ± 12.2% using per-protocol analysis excluding periods of study-wide suspension of device use) over 13 weeks on CLC vs. 70.0 ± 13.6% and 60.4 ± 17.1% on PLGS (difference = 5.9%; 95% CI 3.6%, 8.3%; < 0.001). Time >180 mg/dL was lower in the CLC group than PLGS group (difference = -6.0%; 95% CI -8.4%, -3.7%; < 0.001) while time <54 mg/dL was similar (0.04%; 95% CI -0.05%, 0.13%; = 0.41). HbA after 13 weeks was lower on CLC than PLGS (7.2% [55 mmol/mol] vs. 7.5% [56 mmol/mol], difference -0.34% [-3.7 mmol/mol]; 95% CI -0.57% [-6.2 mmol/mol], -0.11% [1.2 mmol/mol]; = 0.0035).

CONCLUSIONS

Following 6 months of CLC, switching to PLGS reduced TIR and increased HbA toward their pre-CLC values, while hypoglycemia remained similarly reduced with both CLC and PLGS.

摘要

目的

与预测性低血糖暂停(PLGS)系统相比,闭环控制系统(CLC)的血糖控制结果信息有限。

研究设计和方法

在一项随机试验中使用 CLC 系统 6 个月后,109 名 1 型糖尿病患者(年龄 14-72 岁;平均 HbA1c 为 7.1%[54mmol/mol])被随机分为 CLC 组(n=54,Control-IQ)或 PLGS 组(n=55,Basal-IQ),治疗 3 个月。主要结局是连续血糖监测(CGM)测量的 70-180mg/dL 时间范围内(TIR)。基线 CGM 指标是在前一研究的最后 3 个月计算得出的。

结果

所有 109 名参与者均完成了研究。在 CLC 治疗 13 周时,基于意向治疗分析的平均±SD TIR 为 71.1±11.2%(基于方案分析的 TIR 为 69.1±12.2%,排除了研究期间设备使用暂停的所有时间段),而使用 PLGS 时为 70.0±13.6%和 60.4±17.1%(差值=5.9%;95%CI 3.6%,8.3%;<0.001)。与 PLGS 组相比,CLC 组的血糖>180mg/dL 时间更低(差值=-6.0%;95%CI-8.4%,-3.7%;<0.001),而血糖<54mg/dL 时间相似(差值=0.04%;95%CI-0.05%,0.13%;=0.41)。13 周时,CLC 组的 HbA1c 低于 PLGS 组(7.2%[55mmol/mol] vs. 7.5%[56mmol/mol],差值-0.34%[-3.7mmol/mol];95%CI-0.57%[-6.2mmol/mol],-0.11%[1.2mmol/mol];=0.0035)。

结论

在使用 CLC 6 个月后,切换至 PLGS 会降低 TIR 并使 HbA1c 恢复到使用 CLC 之前的值,同时使用 CLC 和 PLGS 仍可同样减少低血糖。

相似文献

1
Glycemic Outcomes of Use of CLC Versus PLGS in Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Diabetes Care. 2020 Aug;43(8):1822-1828. doi: 10.2337/dc20-0124. Epub 2020 May 29.
3
Randomized Controlled Trial of Mobile Closed-Loop Control.
Diabetes Care. 2020 Mar;43(3):607-615. doi: 10.2337/dc19-1310. Epub 2020 Jan 14.

引用本文的文献

2
Personalization of continuous glucose monitoring system for diabetic patients in the Polish market in 2024.
Pediatr Endocrinol Diabetes Metab. 2025;31(2):75-79. doi: 10.5114/pedm.2025.152598.
5
9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2025.
Diabetes Care. 2025 Jan 1;48(Supplement_1):S181-S206. doi: 10.2337/dc25-S009.
6
7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2025.
Diabetes Care. 2025 Jan 1;48(Supplement_1):S146-S166. doi: 10.2337/dc25-S007.
7
9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024.
Diabetes Care. 2024 Jan 1;47(Suppl 1):S158-S178. doi: 10.2337/dc24-S009.
8
7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024.
Diabetes Care. 2024 Jan 1;47(Suppl 1):S126-S144. doi: 10.2337/dc24-S007.

本文引用的文献

1
Evening and overnight closed-loop control versus 24/7 continuous closed-loop control for type 1 diabetes: a randomised crossover trial.
Lancet Digit Health. 2020 Feb;2(2):e64-e73. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(19)30218-3. Epub 2020 Jan 3.
2
6. Glycemic Targets: .
Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan;43(Suppl 1):S66-S76. doi: 10.2337/dc20-S006.
3
Six-Month Randomized, Multicenter Trial of Closed-Loop Control in Type 1 Diabetes.
N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 31;381(18):1707-1717. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1907863. Epub 2019 Oct 16.
4
A Review of Predictive Low Glucose Suspend and Its Effectiveness in Preventing Nocturnal Hypoglycemia.
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019 Oct;21(10):602-609. doi: 10.1089/dia.2019.0119.
5
State of Type 1 Diabetes Management and Outcomes from the T1D Exchange in 2016-2018.
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019 Feb;21(2):66-72. doi: 10.1089/dia.2018.0384. Epub 2019 Jan 18.
6
First Look at Control-IQ: A New-Generation Automated Insulin Delivery System.
Diabetes Care. 2018 Dec;41(12):2634-2636. doi: 10.2337/dc18-1249. Epub 2018 Oct 10.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验