Clinical Outcome and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of CSII Versus MDI in Children and Adolescent With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus in a Public Health Care System of China

OBJECTIVE The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) was designed to test the glucose hypothesis and determine whether the complications of type 1 diabetes (T1DM) could be prevented or delayed. The Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) observational follow-up determined the durability of the DCCT effects on the more-advanced stages of diabetes complications including cardiovascular disease (CVD). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS The DCCT (1982–1993) was a controlled clinical trial in 1,441 subjects with T1DM comparing intensive therapy (INT), aimed at achieving levels of glycemia as close to the nondiabetic range as safely possible, with conventional therapy (CON), which aimed to maintain safe asymptomatic glucose control. INT utilized three or more daily insulin injections or insulin pump therapy guided by self-monitored glucose. EDIC (1994–present) is an observational study of the DCCT cohort. RESULTS The DCCT followed >99% of the cohort for a mean of 6.5 years and demonstrated a 35–76% reduction in the early stages of microvascular disease with INT, with a median HbA1c of 7%, compared with CONV, with a median HbA1c of 9%. The major adverse effect of INT was a threefold increased risk of hypoglycemia, which was not associated with a decline in cognitive function or quality of life. EDIC showed a durable effect of initial assigned therapies despite a loss of the glycemic separation (metabolic memory) and demonstrated that the reduction in early-stage complications during the DCCT translated into substantial reductions in severe complications and CVD. CONCLUSIONS DCCT/EDIC has demonstrated the effectiveness of INT in reducing the long-term complications of T1DM and improving the prospects for a healthy life span.

Question Are the rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis lower with insulin pump therapy than with insulin injection therapy in young patients with type 1 diabetes? Findings In this population-based observational study including 30 579 young patients with type 1 diabetes, pump therapy, compared with injection therapy, was associated with significantly lower rates of severe hypoglycemia (9.55 vs 13.97 per 100 patient-years) and ketoacidosis (3.64 vs 4.26 per 100 patient-years), and with lower hemoglobin A 1c levels (8.04% vs 8.22%) in a propensity score–matched cohort. Meaning Insulin pump therapy was associated with reduced risks of short-term diabetes complications and with better glycemic control compared with injection therapy. Importance Insulin pump therapy may improve metabolic control in young patients with type 1 diabetes, but the association with short-term diabetes complications is unclear. Objective To determine whether rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis are lower with insulin pump therapy compared with insulin injection therapy in children, adolescents, and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants Population-based cohort study conducted between January 2011 and December 2015 in 446 diabetes centers participating in the Diabetes Prospective Follow-up Initiative in Germany, Austria, and Luxembourg. Patients with type 1 diabetes younger than 20 years and diabetes duration of more than 1 year were identified. Propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses with age, sex, diabetes duration, migration background (defined as place of birth outside of Germany or Austria), body mass index, and glycated hemoglobin as covariates were used to account for relevant confounders. Exposures Type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy or with multiple (≥4) daily insulin injections. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes were rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis during the most recent treatment year. Secondary outcomes included glycated hemoglobin levels, insulin dose, and body mass index. Results Of 30 579 patients (mean age, 14.1 years [SD, 4.0]; 53% male), 14 119 used pump therapy (median duration, 3.7 years) and 16 460 used insulin injections (median duration, 3.6 years). Patients using pump therapy (n = 9814) were matched with 9814 patients using injection therapy. Pump therapy, compared with injection therapy, was associated with lower rates of severe hypoglycemia (9.55 vs 13.97 per 100 patient-years; difference, −4.42 [95% CI, −6.15 to −2.69]; P  < .001) and diabetic ketoacidosis (3.64 vs 4.26 per 100 patient-years; difference, −0.63 [95% CI, −1.24 to −0.02]; P  = .04). Glycated hemoglobin levels were lower with pump therapy than with injection therapy (8.04% vs 8.22%; difference, −0.18 [95% CI, −0.22 to −0.13], P  < .001). Total daily insulin doses were lower for pump therapy compared with injection therapy (0.84 U/kg vs 0.98 U/kg; difference, −0.14 [−0.15 to −0.13], P  < .001). There was no significant difference in body mass index between both treatment regimens. Similar results were obtained after propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses in the entire cohort. Conclusions and Relevance Among young patients with type 1 diabetes, insulin pump therapy, compared with insulin injection therapy, was associated with lower risks of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis and with better glycemic control during the most recent year of therapy. These findings provide evidence for improved clinical outcomes associated with insulin pump therapy compared with injection therapy in children, adolescents, and young adults with type 1 diabetes. This population-based cohort study compares rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis among children, adolescents, and young adults with type 1 diabetes managed with insulin pump therapy vs insulin injection therapy.

We compared the effects of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with those of multiple daily insulin (MDI) injections on glycaemic control, risk of hypoglycaemic episodes, insulin requirements and adverse events in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials up to March 2007. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Overall, 22 studies were included (17 on type 1 diabetes mellitus, two on type 2 diabetes mellitus, three on children). With regard to adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus, our meta-analysis found a between-treatment difference of -0.4% HbA(1c) (six studies) in favour of CSII therapy. Available median rates of mild or overall hypoglycaemic events were comparable between the different interventions (1.9 [0.9-3.1] [CSII] vs 1.7 [1.1-3.3] [MDI] events per patient per week). Total daily insulin requirements were lower with CSII than with MDI therapy. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, CSII and MDI treatment showed no statistically significant difference for HbA(1c). The incidence of mild hypoglycaemic events was comparable between the treatment groups. In adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus, glycated haemoglobin and insulin requirements were significantly lower in the CSII groups; no data were available on hypoglycaemic events. The only study performed in younger children did not provide enough data for conclusive inferences. No overall conclusions were possible for severe hypoglycaemia and adverse events for any of the different patient groups due to rareness of such events, different definitions and insufficient reporting. CSII therapy in adults and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus resulted in a greater reduction of glycated haemoglobin, in adult patients without a higher rate of hypoglycaemia. No beneficial effect of CSII therapy could be detected for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.