Vše

Co hledáte?

Vše
Projekty
Výsledky výzkumu
Subjekty

Rychlé hledání

  • Projekty podpořené TA ČR
  • Významné projekty
  • Projekty s nejvyšší státní podporou
  • Aktuálně běžící projekty

Chytré vyhledávání

  • Takto najdu konkrétní +slovo
  • Takto z výsledků -slovo zcela vynechám
  • “Takto můžu najít celou frázi”

Comparison of Control-IQ and open-source AndroidAPS automated insulin delivery systems in adults with type 1 diabetes: The CODIAC study

Identifikátory výsledku

  • Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

    <a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11110%2F24%3A10468626" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11110/24:10468626 - isvavai.cz</a>

  • Výsledek na webu

    <a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=NpYSJLjimM" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=NpYSJLjimM</a>

  • DOI - Digital Object Identifier

    <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dom.15289" target="_blank" >10.1111/dom.15289</a>

Alternativní jazyky

  • Jazyk výsledku

    angličtina

  • Název v původním jazyce

    Comparison of Control-IQ and open-source AndroidAPS automated insulin delivery systems in adults with type 1 diabetes: The CODIAC study

  • Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

    Aim: To compare open-source AndroidAPS (AAPS) and commercially available Control-IQ (CIQ) automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in a prospective, open-label, single-arm clinical trial. Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes who had been using AAPS by their own decision entered the first 3-month AAPS phase then were switched to CIQ for 3 months. The results of this treatment were compared with those after the 3-month AAPS phase. The primary endpoint was the change in time in range (% TIR; 70-80 mg/dL). Results: Twenty-five people with diabetes (mean age 34.32 +- 11.07 years; HbA1c 6.4% +- 3%) participated in this study. CIQ was comparable with AAPS in achieving TIR (85.72% +- 7.64% vs. 84.24% +- 8.46%; P = .12). Similarly, there were no differences in percentage time above range (&gt; 180 and &gt; 250 mg/dL), mean sensor glucose (130.3 +- 13.9 vs. 128.3 +- 16.9 mg/dL; P = .21) or HbA1c (6.3% +- 2.1% vs. 6.4% +- 3.1%; P = .59). Percentage time below range (&lt; 70 and &lt; 54 mg/dL) was significantly lower using CIQ than AAPS. Even although participants were mostly satisfied with CIQ (63.6% mostly agreed, 9.1% strongly agreed), they did not plan to switch to CIQ. Conclusions: The CODIAC study is the first prospective study investigating the switch between open-source and commercially available AID systems. CIQ and AAPS were comparable in achieving TIR. However, hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with CIQ.

  • Název v anglickém jazyce

    Comparison of Control-IQ and open-source AndroidAPS automated insulin delivery systems in adults with type 1 diabetes: The CODIAC study

  • Popis výsledku anglicky

    Aim: To compare open-source AndroidAPS (AAPS) and commercially available Control-IQ (CIQ) automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in a prospective, open-label, single-arm clinical trial. Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes who had been using AAPS by their own decision entered the first 3-month AAPS phase then were switched to CIQ for 3 months. The results of this treatment were compared with those after the 3-month AAPS phase. The primary endpoint was the change in time in range (% TIR; 70-80 mg/dL). Results: Twenty-five people with diabetes (mean age 34.32 +- 11.07 years; HbA1c 6.4% +- 3%) participated in this study. CIQ was comparable with AAPS in achieving TIR (85.72% +- 7.64% vs. 84.24% +- 8.46%; P = .12). Similarly, there were no differences in percentage time above range (&gt; 180 and &gt; 250 mg/dL), mean sensor glucose (130.3 +- 13.9 vs. 128.3 +- 16.9 mg/dL; P = .21) or HbA1c (6.3% +- 2.1% vs. 6.4% +- 3.1%; P = .59). Percentage time below range (&lt; 70 and &lt; 54 mg/dL) was significantly lower using CIQ than AAPS. Even although participants were mostly satisfied with CIQ (63.6% mostly agreed, 9.1% strongly agreed), they did not plan to switch to CIQ. Conclusions: The CODIAC study is the first prospective study investigating the switch between open-source and commercially available AID systems. CIQ and AAPS were comparable in achieving TIR. However, hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with CIQ.

Klasifikace

  • Druh

    J<sub>imp</sub> - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

  • CEP obor

  • OECD FORD obor

    30202 - Endocrinology and metabolism (including diabetes, hormones)

Návaznosti výsledku

  • Projekt

  • Návaznosti

    I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Ostatní

  • Rok uplatnění

    2024

  • Kód důvěrnosti údajů

    S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Údaje specifické pro druh výsledku

  • Název periodika

    Diabetes, Obesity &amp; Metabolism

  • ISSN

    1462-8902

  • e-ISSN

    1463-1326

  • Svazek periodika

    26

  • Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

    1

  • Stát vydavatele periodika

    GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

  • Počet stran výsledku

    7

  • Strana od-do

    78-84

  • Kód UT WoS článku

    001070754700001

  • EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

    2-s2.0-85172342812