OBJECTIVETo determine whether impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) can be improved and severe hypoglycemia (SH) prevented in type 1 diabetes, we compared an insulin pump (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]) with multiple daily injections (MDIs) and adjuvant real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT) with conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSA 24-week 2 3 2 factorial randomized controlled trial in adults with type 1 diabetes and IAH was conducted. All received comparable education, support, and congruent therapeutic targets aimed at rigorous avoidance of biochemical hypoglycemia without relaxing overall control. Primary end point was between-intervention difference in 24-week hypoglycemia awareness (Gold score). RESULTSA total of 96 participants (mean diabetes duration 29 years) were randomized. Overall, biochemical hypoglycemia (£3.0 mmol/L) decreased (53 6 63 to 24 6 56 min/24 h; P = 0.004 [t test]) without deterioration in HbA 1c . Hypoglycemia awareness improved (5.1 6 1.1 to 4.1 6 1.6; P = 0.0001 [t test]) with decreased SH (8.9 6 13.4 to 0.8 6 1.8 episodes/patient-year; P = 0.0001 [t test]). At 24 weeks, there was no significant difference in awareness comparing CSII with MDI (4.1 6 1.6 vs. 4.2 6 1.7; difference 0.1; 95% CI 20.6 to 0.8) and RT with SMBG (4.3 6 1.6 vs. 4.0 6 1.7; difference 20.3; 95% CI 21.0 to 0.4). Between-group analyses demonstrated comparable reductions in SH, fear of hypoglycemia, and insulin doses with equivalent HbA 1c . Treatment satisfaction was higher with CSII than MDI (32 6 3 vs. 29 6 6; P = 0.0003 [t test]), but comparable with SMBG and RT (30 6 5 vs. 30 6 5; P = 0.79 [t test]). CONCLUSIONSHypoglycemia awareness can be improved and recurrent SH prevented in longstanding type 1 diabetes without relaxing HbA 1c . Similar biomedical outcomes can be attained with conventional MDI and SMBG regimens compared with CSII/RT, although satisfaction was higher with CSII.
BackgroundEarly physical rehabilitation in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been shown to improve short-term clinical outcomes but long-term benefit has not been proven and the optimum intensity of rehabilitation is not known.MethodsWe conducted a randomised, parallel-group, allocation-concealed, assessor-blinded, controlled trial in patients who had received at least 48 hours of invasive or non-invasive ventilation. Participants were randomised in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by admitting ICU, admission type and level of independence. The intervention group had a target of 90 min physical rehabilitation per day, the control group a target of 30 min per day (both Monday to Friday). The primary outcome was the Physical Component Summary (PCS) measure of SF-36 at 6 months.ResultsWe recruited 308 participants over 34 months: 150 assigned to the intervention and 158 to the control group. The intervention group received a median (IQR) of 161 (67–273) min of physical rehabilitation on ICU compared with 86 (31–139) min in the control group. At 6 months, 62 participants in the intervention group and 54 participants in the control group contributed primary outcome data. In the intervention group, 43 had died, 11 had withdrawn and 34 were lost to follow-up, while in the control group, 56 had died, 5 had withdrawn and 43 were lost to follow-up. There was no difference in the primary outcome at 6 months, mean (SD) PCS 37 (12.2) in the intervention group and 37 (11.3) in the control group.ConclusionsIn this study, ICU-based physical rehabilitation did not appear to improve physical outcomes at 6 months compared with standard physical rehabilitation.Trial registration numberISRCTN 20436833.
Introduction Evidence for seasonal variation in incidence and subtype of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is contradictory, but has implications for provision of neurological services and understanding pathogenesis. Methods We searched PubMed and EMBASE between inception and January 2014, including all studies reporting seasonal incidence of GBS. We included a retrospective cohort study of patients with GBS at the John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford 2001-2012 and determined the seasonal variation in GBS incidence and length of stay. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) for winter versus summer was pooled across studies by fixed and random effects meta-analysis weighted by inverse variance, stratified by geographical region, infectious prodrome and GBS subtype.
SummaryBackgroundRepeated symptomatic urinary tract infections (UTIs) affect 25% of people who use clean intermittent self-catheterisation (CISC) to empty their bladder. We aimed to determine the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of continuous low-dose antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of recurrent UTIs in adult users of CISC.MethodsIn this randomised, open-label, superiority trial, we enrolled participants from 51 UK National Health Service organisations. These participants were community-dwelling (as opposed to hospital inpatient) users of CISC with recurrent UTIs. We randomly allocated participants (1:1) to receive either antibiotic prophylaxis once daily (prophylaxis group) or no prophylaxis (control group) for 12 months by use of an internet-based system with permuted blocks of variable length. Trial and laboratory staff who assessed outcomes were masked to allocation but participants were aware of their treatment group. The primary outcome was the incidence of symptomatic, antibiotic-treated UTIs over 12 months. Participants who completed at least 6 months of follow-up were assumed to provide a reliable estimate of UTI incidence and were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. Change in antimicrobial resistance of urinary and faecal bacteria was monitored as a secondary outcome. The AnTIC trial is registered at ISRCTN, number 67145101; and EudraCT, number 2013-002556-32.FindingsBetween Nov 25, 2013, and Jan 29, 2016, we screened 1743 adult users of CISC for eligibility, of whom 404 (23%) participants were enrolled between Nov 26, 2013, and Jan 31, 2016. Of these 404 participants, 203 (50%) were allocated to receive prophylaxis and 201 (50%) to receive no prophylaxis. 1339 participants were excluded before randomisation. The primary analysis included 181 (89%) adults allocated to the prophylaxis group and 180 (90%) adults in the no prophylaxis (control) group. 22 participants in the prophylaxis group and 21 participants in the control group were not included in the primary analysis because they were missing follow-up data before 6 months. The incidence of symptomatic antibiotic-treated UTIs over 12 months was 1·3 cases per person-year (95% CI 1·1–1·6) in the prophylaxis group and 2·6 (2·3–2·9) in the control group, giving an incidence rate ratio of 0·52 (0·44–0·61; p<0·0001), indicating a 48% reduction in UTI frequency after treatment with prophylaxis. Use of prophylaxis was well tolerated: we recorded 22 minor adverse events in the prophylaxis group related to antibiotic prophylaxis during the study, predominantly gastrointestinal disturbance (six participants), skin rash (six participants), and candidal infection (four participants). However, resistance against the antibiotics used for UTI treatment was more frequent in urinary isolates from the prophylaxis group than in those from the control group at 9–12 months of trial participation (nitrofurantoin 12 [24%] of 51 participants from the prophylaxis group vs six [9%] of 64 participants from the control group with at least one isolate; p...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.