Laffel Lori M, Sherr Jennifer L, Liu Jingwen, Wolf Wendy A, Bispham Jeoffrey, Chapman Katherine S, Finan Daniel, Titievsky Lina, Liu Tina, Hagan Kaitlin, Gaglia Jason, Chandarana Keval, Pettus Jeremy, Bergenstal Richard
Joslin Diabetes Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Diabetes Care. 2025 Feb 1;48(2):273-278. doi: 10.2337/dc24-1474.
We captured continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics from a large online survey of adults with type 1 diabetes to determine how glycemic outcomes varied by insulin delivery form.
Adults with type 1 diabetes from the T1D Exchange Registry/online communities completed the survey and contributed retrospective CGM data for up to 1 year. Self-reported glycemic outcomes and CGM measures were described overall and by insulin delivery method.
The 926 participants completed the survey and provided CGM data. Mean ± SD age was 41.9 ± 15.7 years, and 50.8% reported using automated insulin delivery (AID). While AID users spent more time in range, 27.9% did not achieve time in range targets, 15.5% reported severe hypoglycemic events (SHEs), and 16.0% had CGM-detected level 2 hypoglycemic events.
Despite use of diabetes technologies, many individuals are unable to achieve glycemic targets and experience severe hypoglycemia, highlighting the need for novel treatments.
我们从一项针对1型糖尿病成年人的大型在线调查中获取了连续血糖监测（CGM）指标，以确定血糖结果如何因胰岛素给药方式而异。
来自T1D交换注册中心/在线社区的1型糖尿病成年人完成了调查，并提供了长达1年的回顾性CGM数据。总体上以及按胰岛素给药方法描述了自我报告的血糖结果和CGM测量值。
926名参与者完成了调查并提供了CGM数据。平均年龄±标准差为41.9±15.7岁，50.8%的人报告使用自动胰岛素给药（AID）。虽然使用AID的人处于目标血糖范围的时间更多，但27.9%的人未达到目标血糖范围时间，15.5%的人报告有严重低血糖事件（SHE），16.0%的人有CGM检测到的2级低血糖事件。
尽管使用了糖尿病技术，但许多人仍无法实现血糖目标并经历严重低血糖，这凸显了对新型治疗方法的需求。
