INTERPRET - International Report on Routine Practice of Sensor-enabled Pump Therapy

Completed

Conditions: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1

Registration Number: NCT00790088

Lead Sponsor: Medtronic Diabetes

Brief Summary: The aim of the project is to document the international routine practice in sensor usage in patients treated with sensor-augmented pump therapy and to assess which variables (e.g. training of patients, frequency of sensor usage etc) are associated with an improvement in clinical outcome(s) from the start of the sensor use to the end of the follow-up period.

Detailed Description: Pump therapy has been established as "gold standard" for insulin delivery offering improvements over multiple daily insulin injections, but there is a proportion of patients for whom the Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) has not been completely successful therapy leaving some room for improvement of the glucose level of those patients. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems represent an important advance in diabetes technology that can facilitate optimal glucose control in type 1 diabetes. Numerous randomized control trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of real-time CGM in both sub-optimally and well-controlled type 1 diabetes. In all these trials, the benefits of CGM correlate with frequent sensor wear and more advanced age. In clinical practice, the sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAP therapy) is indicated for patients who cannot achieve good metabolic control on CSII, who have a history of severe hypoglycemia and/or hypoglycemia unawareness, or who desire increased flexibility in their daily lives while maintaining or even improving their HbA1c levels.

This was a post-market release, minimally interventional study. All the study devices and related software were CE-marked and commercially available in the countries participating to the study. The devices were prescribed and reimbursed, if applicable, according to routine practice.

The gathered information during this study may help to define which patient groups benefit the most from the treatment with SAP therapy systems. The real-life results of these descriptive analyses will aid improvement of guidelines helping the medical community to better choose the right patient population and treatment patterns. Moreover, based on these real-life data, hypotheses could be defined when addressing further research questions.

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status: COMPLETED

Sex: All

Target Recruitment: 274

Inclusion Criteria

Patient (and/or legal representative) has signed Patient Informed Consent (PIC)
Patient was diagnosed with Type 1 DM and has been on insulin infusion pump therapy (without any additional insulin injection) for at least 6 months prior to signature of the PIC
The treating physician decided independently of the study to prescribe non-blinded continuous glucose monitoring as part of the patient's pump therapy for at least 10% of the study time (estimated as days per month)

Exclusion Criteria

Participation in any other clinical trial - currently and/or in the last 3 months prior to signature of informed consent
Patient has preliminary experience with non-blinded continuous glucose monitoring prior to signature of informed consent (not naïve to non-blinded continuous glucose monitoring)
For children: no reliable contact person

Study & Design

Study Type: OBSERVATIONAL

Study Design: Not specified

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
HbA1c	every 3 months
Percentage of Patients Achieving HbA1c < 7.5%	every 3 months
Frequency as Percentage of Sensor Usage	every 3 months	To calculate the percentage of time that sensors were used during 3 months: the total number of recorded sensor readings during 3 months was divided by the theoretical number of sensor readings that would be observed if sensor was worn every day of using pump to deliver insulin during the same period (ie, observed readings / (theoretical 288 readings per day x nber of days with insulin use)) and multiplied by 100
Percentage of Patients Achieving HbA1c < 7%	every 3 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Fear of Hypoglycemia Survey (HFS-II) - Total Score and Behavior Score	at baseline, after 6 and after 12 months	sub-group of patients (adults only in Hungary and Denmark) were asked to answer the fear of hypoglycemia validated questionnaires. The total HFS-II questionnaire is represented by 33 items. The respondents rank the responses on a 5- point Likert scale where zero is never and four is always.The total HFS-II score ranges from 0 to 132. Lower score at 6 months or 12 months compared to baseline represents a better outcome. The HFS-II questionnaire is divided into 2 subscales: the behavior and the worry subscales. The behavior score is represented by 15 items and ranges from 0 to 60. Lower score at 6 months or 12 months compared to baseline represents a better outcome.
Fear of Hypoglycemia Survey (HFS-II) - Worry Score	at baseline, after 6 and after 12 months	sub-group of patients (adults only) were asked to answer the fear of hypoglycemia validated questionnaires. The respondents rank the responses on a 5- point Likert scale where zero is never and four is always. The worry subscale is the mean of 18 items which evaluate the worry score (range from 0 to 72). Lower score at 6 months or 12 months compared to baseline represents a better outcome.
Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire Status Version (DTSQs)	at baseline, after 3 and after 12 months	A sub-group of patients (adults) were asked to complete the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQs) The treatment satisfaction is measured by means of the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, status version (DTSQs, Bradley, 1990). It consists of a six-item scale assessing treatment satisfaction (TS) and two items assessing perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia. The DTSQs items are scored on a scale from 6 to 0. The scale total is computed by adding the six items 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, to produce the Treatment Satisfaction scale total, which has a min of 0 and a max of 36. Higher score at 6 month or 12 months compared to baseline represents a better outcome. Items 2 (perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia) and 3 (perceived frequency of hypoglycaemia) are treated individually in data analysis. Lower score at 6 months or 12 months compared to baseline represents a better outcome.

Trial Locations

Locations (26): AZ Imelda
🇧🇪
Bonheiden, Belgium
Centre Hospitalier de Haguenau
🇫🇷
Haguenau, France
Sacco Hospital, University of Milan
🇮🇹
Milan, Italy
Clinical Center of Serbia
🇷🇸
Belgrade, Serbia
Hospital Virgen del Rocio
🇪🇸
Sevilla, Spain
Josa András Teaching Hospital
🇭🇺
Nyiregyhaza, Hungary
Kaunas University Hospital
🇱🇹
Kaunas, Lithuania
Hospital Universitario Infanta Cristina
🇪🇸
Badajoz, Spain
Astrid Lindgrens Barnsjukhus
🇸🇪
Stockholm, Sweden
Ospedale S. Camillo Forlanini
🇮🇹
Roma, Italy
LKH Salzburg/Universitätsklinikum der Paracelsus Med Privatuniversität/Innere Medizin I
🇦🇹
Salzburg, Austria
Hôpital de Dax
🇫🇷
Dax, France
Centre Hospitalier La Rochelle
🇫🇷
La Rochelle, France
Chaim Sheba Medical center
🇮🇱
Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Israel
Klinika Chorób Dzieci Uniwersytecki Dzieciecy Szp
🇵🇱
Bialystok, Poland
Universitair Ziekenhuis Antwerpen
🇧🇪
Antwerpen, Belgium
Hvidovre Hospital
🇩🇰
Hvidovre, Denmark
National Institute of Endocrinology
🇸🇰
Lubochna, Slovakia
Complejo Hosp. Santiago De Compostela
🇪🇸
Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Péterfy Hospital, Outpatient Clinic
🇭🇺
Budapest, Hungary
Fredericia Hospital
🇩🇰
Fredericia, Denmark
Réthy Pál Hospital
🇭🇺
Békéscsaba, Hungary
Specjalistyczna Praktyka Lekarska
🇵🇱
Gliwice, Poland
Oddzial Kliniczny Kliniki Chorób Metabolicznych Sz
🇵🇱
Krakow, Poland
University Childrens Hospital
🇸🇮
Ljubjana, Slovenia
TopCare s.r.o.
🇸🇰
Kosice, Slovakia