Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Versus Multiple Daily Injections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Rapid-acting insulin analogs (insulin lispro and insulin aspart) have emerged as the meal insulin of choice in both multiple daily insulin injection (MDII) therapy and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) for type 1 diabetes. Thus, a comparison of efficacy between CSII and MDII should be undertaken only in studies that used rapid-acting analogs for both intensive regimens. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of the randomized controlled trials that compared CSII and optimized MDII therapy using rapid-acting analogs in adults with type 1 diabetes. RESULTS: The three studies that met inclusion criteria provided data on 139 patients, representing 596 patient-months for CSII and 529 patient-months for MDII. Mean age was 38.5 years, with duration of diabetes of 18.0 years. The studies differed significantly in mean baseline A1c (7.95, 8.20, and 9.27%). The pooled estimate of treatment effect comparing the percentage reduction in A1c by CSII with that by MDII (CSII - MDII) was 0.35% (95% CI -0.10 to 0.80, P = 0.08) using a random effect to account for heterogeneity between studies. Importantly, the interaction between baseline A1c and treatment modality emerged as an independent predictor of treatment effect (CSII - MDII) (P = 0.002). The relative benefit of CSII over MDII was found to increase with higher baseline A1c. A model derived from these data predicts that in a patient with a baseline A1c of 10%, CSII would reduce the A1c by an additional 0.65% compared with MDII. Conversely, there would be no A1c benefit of CSII compared with MDII if baseline A1c were 6.5%. There was no significant difference between CSII and MDII in the rate of hypoglycemic events. CONCLUSIONS: When using rapid-acting insulin analogs in CSII and MDII regimens in adult patients with type 1 diabetes, insulin pump therapy is associated with better glycemic control, particularly in those individuals with higher baseline A1c. Thus, CSII emerges as an important modality for implementing intensive therapy and may be uniquely advantageous in patients with poor glycemic control.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".