Glycaemic impact of patient-led use of sensor-guided pump therapy in type 1 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial

Diabetologia. 2009 Jul;52(7):1250-7. doi: 10.1007/s00125-009-1365-0. Epub 2009 Apr 25.


Aims/hypothesis: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of patient-led sensor-guided pump management on glycaemic control, and compare the effect with that of standard insulin pump therapy.

Methods: An open multicentre parallel randomised controlled trial was conducted at five tertiary diabetes centres. Participants aged 13.0-40.0 years with well-controlled type 1 diabetes were randomised 1:1 to either study group for 3 months. Randomisation was carried out using a central computer-generated schedule. Participants in the intervention group used sensor-guided pump management; no instructive guidelines in interpreting real-time data were provided ('patient-led' use). Participants in the control group continued their original insulin pump regimen. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and HbA(1c) level were used to assess outcomes. The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of time in the target glycaemic range during the 3 month study period (derived from CGM, target range 4-10 mmol/l). Secondary outcomes were difference in HbA(1c), time in hypoglycaemic (< or =3.9 mmol/l) and hyperglycaemic (> or =10.1 mmol/l) ranges and glycaemic variability.

Results: Sixty-two participants were recruited and randomised; 5/31 and 2/31 withdrew from intervention and control groups, respectively, leaving 26/31 and 29/31 for the intention-to-treat analyses. When adjusted for baseline values, the mean end-of-study HbA(1c) was 0.43% lower in the intervention group compared with the control group (95% CI 0.19 to 0.75%; p = 0.009). No difference was observed in CGM-derived time in target (measured difference 1.72; 95% CI -5.37 to 8.81), hypoglycaemic (0.54; 95% CI -3.48 to 4.55) or hyperglycaemic (-2.18; 95% CI -10.0 to 5.69) range or in glycaemic variability (-0.29; 95% CI -0.34 to 0.28). Within the intervention group, HbA(1c) was 0.51% lower in participants with sensor use > or =70% compared with participants with sensor use <70% (95% CI -0.98 to -0.04, p = 0.04). Five episodes of device malfunction occurred.

Conclusions/interpretation: Individuals established on insulin pump therapy can employ sensor-guided pump management to improve glycaemic control. An apparent dose-dependent effect of sensor usage was noted; however, frequent use of this technology (> or =70%) was not universally acceptable.

Trial registration: ACTRN12606000049572

Publication types

  • Multicenter Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Adult
  • Blood Glucose / drug effects
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 / drug therapy*
  • Female
  • Glycated Hemoglobin A / metabolism
  • Humans
  • Hyperglycemia / drug therapy
  • Hypoglycemic Agents / administration & dosage*
  • Hypoglycemic Agents / adverse effects
  • Insulin / administration & dosage*
  • Insulin / adverse effects
  • Insulin Infusion Systems*
  • Male
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Young Adult


  • Blood Glucose
  • Glycated Hemoglobin A
  • Hypoglycemic Agents
  • Insulin