Real-World Use of Do-It-Yourself Artificial Pancreas Systems in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: Online Survey and Analysis of Self-Reported Clinical Outcomes.
Adolescent
Blood Glucose
/ analysis
Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring
/ instrumentation
Caregivers
/ statistics & numerical data
Child
Child, Preschool
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1
/ drug therapy
Female
Glycated Hemoglobin
/ analysis
Humans
Hypoglycemic Agents
/ administration & dosage
Infusion Pumps, Implantable
/ statistics & numerical data
Insulin
/ administration & dosage
Male
Observational Studies as Topic
Outcome Assessment, Health Care
Pancreas, Artificial
/ statistics & numerical data
Quality of Life
Self Report
/ statistics & numerical data
Surveys and Questionnaires
Teach-Back Communication
/ methods
Telemedicine
/ instrumentation
Young Adult
artificial pancreas
automated insulin delivery
closed loop
diabetes
do it yourself
mobile health
open source
pediatric diabetes
type 1 diabetes
Journal
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
ISSN: 2291-5222
Titre abrégé: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101624439
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 07 2019
30 07 2019
Historique:
received:
21
03
2019
accepted:
16
06
2019
revised:
14
06
2019
entrez:
1
8
2019
pubmed:
1
8
2019
medline:
28
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patient-driven initiatives have made uptake of Do-it-Yourself Artificial Pancreas Systems (DIYAPS) increasingly popular among people with diabetes of all ages. Observational studies have shown improvements in glycemic control and quality of life among adults with diabetes. However, there is a lack of research examining outcomes of children and adolescents with DIYAPS in everyday life and their social context. This survey assesses the self-reported clinical outcomes of a pediatric population using DIYAPS in the real world. An online survey was distributed to caregivers to assess the hemoglobin A A total of 209 caregivers of children from 21 countries responded to the survey. Of the children, 47.4% were female, with a median age of 10 years, and 99.4% had type 1 diabetes, with a median duration of 4.3 years (SD 3.9). The median duration of DIYAPS use was 7.5 (SD 10.0) months. Clinical outcomes improved significantly, including the hemoglobin A Improved glycemic outcomes were found across all pediatric age groups, including adolescents and very young children. These findings are in line with clinical trial results from commercially developed closed-loop systems.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Patient-driven initiatives have made uptake of Do-it-Yourself Artificial Pancreas Systems (DIYAPS) increasingly popular among people with diabetes of all ages. Observational studies have shown improvements in glycemic control and quality of life among adults with diabetes. However, there is a lack of research examining outcomes of children and adolescents with DIYAPS in everyday life and their social context.
OBJECTIVE
This survey assesses the self-reported clinical outcomes of a pediatric population using DIYAPS in the real world.
METHODS
An online survey was distributed to caregivers to assess the hemoglobin A
RESULTS
A total of 209 caregivers of children from 21 countries responded to the survey. Of the children, 47.4% were female, with a median age of 10 years, and 99.4% had type 1 diabetes, with a median duration of 4.3 years (SD 3.9). The median duration of DIYAPS use was 7.5 (SD 10.0) months. Clinical outcomes improved significantly, including the hemoglobin A
CONCLUSIONS
Improved glycemic outcomes were found across all pediatric age groups, including adolescents and very young children. These findings are in line with clinical trial results from commercially developed closed-loop systems.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31364599
pii: v7i7e14087
doi: 10.2196/14087
pmc: PMC6691673
doi:
Substances chimiques
Blood Glucose
0
Glycated Hemoglobin A
0
Hypoglycemic Agents
0
Insulin
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e14087Informations de copyright
©Katarina Braune, Shane O'Donnell, Bryan Cleal, Dana Lewis, Adrian Tappe, Ingrid Willaing, Bastian Hauck, Klemens Raile. Originally published in JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 30.07.2019.
Références
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Dec 15;15:553
pubmed: 26666413
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016 Nov 1;10(6):1411
pubmed: 27510442
Diabetes Care. 2016 Nov;39(11):2019-2025
pubmed: 27612500
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017 Mar;19(3):155-163
pubmed: 28134564
Diabetes Care. 2018 Jan;41(Suppl 1):S55-S64
pubmed: 29222377
Pediatr Diabetes. 2018 Oct;19 Suppl 27:105-114
pubmed: 30058221
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018 Nov;12(6):1223-1226
pubmed: 30079769
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018 Nov;20(11):744-750
pubmed: 30285476
Lancet. 2018 Oct 13;392(10155):1321-1329
pubmed: 30292578
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019 Jul;13(4):790-793
pubmed: 30348013
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019 Jan;21(1):11-19
pubmed: 30585770
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019 Feb;21(2):66-72
pubmed: 30657336
Diabetes Care. 2019 Apr;42(4):594-600
pubmed: 30692242
N Engl J Med. 1993 Sep 30;329(14):977-86
pubmed: 8366922