*Introduction To Pumps* - Page 2

Go Back   The Diabetes Forum Support Community For Diabetics Online > Diabetes Forum Community > Diabetes Treatment > Insulin Pumps

Insulin Pumps If you are considering going on a pump or you already use a pump, please ask your questions, share your experiences, and discuss related issues in this section.


Like Tree5Likes

*Introduction To Pumps* - Page 2


Closed Thread
 
Shared Thread Thread Tools
Old 08-20-2009, 14:56   #11
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 36


Default

A recent analysis of the records of CGMS and pump users showed that the average improvement in A1C was 0.5 . The average time spent by users to manage these devices was 50% more than with 5x MDI. There were notable increases in episodes of hypoglycemia and weight and no reductions in oter medical costs by by users.

The pump costs 3x vs syringes and CGMS 4x vs syringes and standard metering. When combined with the recalls and product defect reports on the pumps and CGMS systems available today in the US, there's no substantiation yet for the position that either is a significantly superior alternative to MDI by a well-educated person with diabetes.

When these devices are merged into a reliable moderate cost artificial pancreas that doesn't require user intervention they'll merit serious consideration, but until that time the users will be guinea pigs who will continue to drive up the cost of medical care with no improvements in outcome.

psdaengr is offline  
Old 11-03-2009, 11:54   #12
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1


Default Request for references

Dear "psdaengr"

Interesting analysis that you are referring to. Could you please provide the relevant references?

Thanks,
Trine

Quote:
Originally Posted by psdaengr View Post
A recent analysis of the records of CGMS and pump users showed that the average improvement in A1C was 0.5 . The average time spent by users to manage these devices was 50% more than with 5x MDI. There were notable increases in episodes of hypoglycemia and weight and no reductions in oter medical costs by by users.

The pump costs 3x vs syringes and CGMS 4x vs syringes and standard metering. When combined with the recalls and product defect reports on the pumps and CGMS systems available today in the US, there's no substantiation yet for the position that either is a significantly superior alternative to MDI by a well-educated person with diabetes.

When these devices are merged into a reliable moderate cost artificial pancreas that doesn't require user intervention they'll merit serious consideration, but until that time the users will be guinea pigs who will continue to drive up the cost of medical care with no improvements in outcome.

thomsentrine is offline  
Old 11-03-2009, 16:32   #13
Senior Member
 
Richard157's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kingston, NY
Posts: 3,024

Member Type
Type 1
Diagnosed in 1945

931 likes received
936 likes given
Default

Hello psdaenger, I appreciate your post. It is very interesting but I agree that you should give us a link to show us the source of this information. Does it apply only to your country?

__________________
I have been Type 1 for 73 years. My A1c is 6.2. I pump with the MM 630, and I am using the Dexcom G5.
Richard157 is offline  
 
Old 11-03-2009, 16:33   #14
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 36


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thomsentrine View Post
Dear "psdaengr"

Interesting analysis that you are referring to. Could you please provide the relevant references?

Thanks,
Trine
My experience is that if you have to (search) for something, it becomes more valuable to you than if it's spoonfed to you.

The outcomes meta-study extracted the number of patients and claimed improvements from 50 randomly selected studies of the use of patients with type 1 diabetes plus the statistics from their control groups, calculated weighted averages. It did the same with studies that were more than 5 years old on the effects of metering vs non-metering and 10 years old on the effects of intensive MDI vs 1-2 injections per day using NPH and Humalog.

Time figures were based on surveys of 1000+ patients using intensive MDI, Humalog and Lantus with sliding scale, 100+ patients using pumps and 50 using CGMS 90 days after training and adoption of the management method by the patients. These surveys included patients from 15 European counties. The cost figures were calculated using US over-the-counter costs for supplies.

By far, the largest improvement in control came from patients being trained to utilize MDI with sliding scale, a measured diet and exercize plan. When patients who were thus trained were switched to metering and/or CGMS, they experienced a slight improvement in A1C, but a significant reduction in hypoglycemic episodes. When patients were not trained in MDI and sliding scale, they experienced an improvement in A1C but an increase in hypoglycemic episodes.

I realize that a metastudy typically isn't a good sole criteria for choosing a course of disease treatment, because any particular individual may be able to benefit more from it than the average patient.

In light of the health care insurance debate now going on in the US, what I found interesting was that the control gains from utilizing each of the newer technologies, when analyzed on a pure cost basis, were so tiny.

When all my supplies were being provided by my insurance for a small copayment, I didn't realize how high the cost of basic diabetes management was, but when I had to start paying the entire cost myself, I was astonished to discover that the "preferred" products of US companies sold in the US had twice the US retail price of non-US products sold in the US and in widespread use internationally. The sole exception was that each latest generation of insulin, has had a nearly constant price/unit for the last 50 years when adjusted for inflation. Given that the demand has doubled in the last 15 years, and the cost of production hasn't . . .

I guess my point is that if cost were no object, it would make sense to always use the latest technology. But it's not. Someone pays for everything we get, and someone suffers whenever resources are diverted to produce a benefits to society that isn't proportional to the costs.

psdaengr is offline  
Old 11-03-2009, 16:51   #15
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 36


Default

Richard157:

Obviously you didn't achieve your excellent results after 64 years by being dependent on a pump.

The metastudy outcomes statistics for everything except cost should apply to any country. The costs obviously can only apply to the US, since the US is one of the few countries that has retail prices that aren't subsidided by its government.
______________________________
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Chinese Proverb.
"Teach a man to think and act and you may not need to feed him at all." psdaengr.

Age 61. Type 1 for 32 years. Using MDI + diet. A1C = 5.6


Last edited by psdaengr; 11-03-2009 at 16:57.
psdaengr is offline  
Old 11-03-2009, 20:02   #16
Senior Member
 
Richard157's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kingston, NY
Posts: 3,024

Member Type
Type 1
Diagnosed in 1945

931 likes received
936 likes given
Default

My A1c had been below 6.0 for several years before I started pumping. It has not been significantly different since I began pumping in June, 2007. The reason I wanted to pump was to reduce the number of highs and lows I was having. It is a well kown fact that a roller coaster type of control can lead to diabetes complications even when the A1c's are consistently good. After adjusting to pumping my BG's are in the range 70-130 (3.9-7.2) about 90% of the time. Before pumping it was in that range about 70% of the time and I had rather frequent highs at 170 (9.4)or greater, and lows below 50 (2.8) that sometimes required my wife to feed me glucose. That has not happened for two years now. My roller coaster has leveled out considerably, it is no longer a bumpy ride. I was having mild retinopathy and some neuropathy before pumping. Those problems have vanished due to my more stable control, even though my A1c's have not improved. My pump has enabled me to be complication free. I know many Americans who are using much less insulin, are losing weight and have considerly lower A1c's than before pumping. I rather doubt that your statistics are valid for pumpers in the USA.

__________________
I have been Type 1 for 73 years. My A1c is 6.2. I pump with the MM 630, and I am using the Dexcom G5.
Richard157 is offline  
Old 11-03-2009, 22:37   #17
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 36


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard157 View Post
... I rather doubt that your statistics are valid for pumpers in the USA.
I'm happy that you doubt; it's people who accept what they are told without question that prevent progress.

It gives me no pleasure as a US citizen that even though the US spends far more per capita, the US trails most EU countries in quality and access to education and access to medical care for diabetes. Unless you think that US citizens are better educated, better motivated or smarter than citizens of the EU, I don't see how you could conclude the statistics wouldn't apply, or that the US statistics might not be worse.

Being highly motivated, informed and educated is what enables you to apply technology successfully to your personal advantage. I wish that more persons with diabetes were equally competent and had equal access to the technology; but until cost-effective hands-off systems are introduced, (or Homo Sapiens Mark II) pump and CGMS technology has to be applied on a case-by-case basis.

The meta-study hasn't been released as it is undergoing review, but its findings aren't surprising; there are many individual studies that have results consistent with the metastudy going all the way back to the early 90's. Three things to consider when looking at an individual study is what was the study trying to prove, how did the control group differed from the intervention group, and who sponsored the study. The majority of studies with manufacturer sponsors have been primarily intended to prove that pumping and CGMS are safe and effective, not that they are more effective, and too often the control group receives no education. Newer studies are addressing these defects.

Here are some studies that are relevant:

Completed Trial
PUMP STUDY MDI Lantus/Lispro vs Continuous Insulin+Lispro
Comparison of a multiple daily insulin injection regimen (basal once-daily glargine plus mealtime lispro) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (lispro) in type 1 diabetes: a randomized open parallel multicenter study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

Comparison of Insulin Pump and Multiple Daily Injection Regimens in Type 1 Diabetic Patients (Children)
Author(s): Bassam S. Bin-Abbas, Abdullah Al-Fares, Nadia A. Sakati, Abdullah A. Al-Ashwal
Vol. 10, No. 1 (2006-10 - 2006-12)
http://www.indmedica.com/journals.ph...action=article

papers:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...0&ordinalpos=1
http://www.insulinpumptherapy.co.uk/...ers/index.html
http://thejsms.com/744/

This publication from the Undersecretary for Health is interesting. It says flat out that efficacy of using pumps in an adult population was comparable to MDI. It raises the question of cost but it avoids answering it, http://www1.va.gov/VHAPUBLICATIONS/V...sp?pub_ID=2054

This site has data on the effective application of pumps to children, one of the best applications, since management of childhood diabetes has been very difficult to manage. Note though, that even with government subsidization and control of pharmaceutical industry profits, the cost is still more than double vs MDI.
http://www.insulinpumptherapy.co.uk/...ers/index.html

Ongoing Clinical Trials
"Study to Compare Efficacy of the MiniMed Paradigm REAL-Time System Vs. MDI in Subjects Naive to Insulin Pump Therapy"
Study Director: Scott W Lee, MD Medtronic MiniMed
Responsible Party: Medtronic Diabetes ( John Mastrototaro, VP, Global Clinical, Scientific and Health Affairs )
Study ID Numbers: CEP179/Z25
Study First Received: January 2, 2007
Last Updated: January 7, 2009
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00417989
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00417989

psdaengr is offline  
Old 11-04-2009, 22:43   #18
Senior Member
 
Richard157's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kingston, NY
Posts: 3,024

Member Type
Type 1
Diagnosed in 1945

931 likes received
936 likes given
Default

Thanks for these links! I am enjoying the topic and discussion.

__________________
I have been Type 1 for 73 years. My A1c is 6.2. I pump with the MM 630, and I am using the Dexcom G5.
Richard157 is offline  
Old 11-06-2009, 06:30   #19
Active Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 36

Member Type
Type 2
Diagnosed in 2009

4 likes received
Default

[QUOTE=psdaengr;6795]I'm happy that you doubt; it's people who accept what they are told without question that prevent progress.

It gives me no pleasure as a US citizen that even though the US spends far more per capita, the US trails most EU countries in quality and access to education and access to medical care for diabetes.


psdaengr, I confess that I don't know a lot about the subject of pumps, so I am actually changing the subject a bit. I'm Type 2 and don't take insulin. I do work in the health care system, as a customer service representative for a major insurance company, and I have talked to literally thousands of people this year - a few hundred last week alone. I have heard the same frustrations voiced over and over.

Thus, I would like to make a comment about our health care system in the US. One of the reasons I think our "health care system" and "cost of health insurance" is so high is that in the past 30-40 years we have spent more money and time educating our kids to play basketball and football and play with computers than we have ever done educating them about their body and health, or anything else for that matter. Now it is taking its toll healthwise. Likewise with adults; we are too busy earning a living and raising families to have time for "proper living." No one is pushing "health." Just a "health system" or "insurance." And I think there is a reason for that.
Our government knows what is wrong with the system. I offer the following document as a reference: Citizens' Health Care Working Group: Health Report to the American People
This study was sponsored by the US Government by means of the MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG, IMPROVEMENT, AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2003, Public Law 1080-173, Sec. 1014 c, which I'm sure anyone over 65 is now familiar with. (Citizens' Health Care Working Group) The act did a little more than just make the first ever major change to Medicare.
The study shows that: (page 8)
"In 2004, almost half of all people in the United States had a chronic condition that ranged from mild to severe. That year, 23 million Americans had heart disease, 22 million had asthma, more than 13 million had diabetes [22], 400,000 had multiple sclerosis [31], and more than 750,000 had cerebral palsy [32]." (The bracketed numbers are footnotes found in the report - references for the info).
(page 9) "Health care for people with chronic diseases accounts for 75 percent of the nation’s total health care costs [34]. For example, people with diabetes incurred an average of $13,243 in health care bills in 2002 [35]."
(Page 35)
"Health promotion and disease prevention - One way to reduce the amount of health care we need might be to take better care of ourselves. For many of us, better diets, exercise, or not smoking could reduce the need for some kinds of health care. Nearly two-thirds of American adults are overweight or obese [6]. Unhealthy lifestyles contribute to this statistic. Not everyone is able to exercise regularly, but many of us who are able to don’t. Nearly 40 percent of adults are not physically active during their free time, and 1 in 3 high school students do not get the recommended amount of physical activity [41]. Lack of exercise is just one lifestyle habit that can increase the risk of certain diseases, such as heart disease or stroke."
It seems to me we work very hard in this country trying to cure things after they develop - but not to prevent them. Would there be some $ signs in this equation - would anyone make as much money if people were healthier? But I don't hear one Congressman taking a stand for promoting "health" rather than "health care", although they have the information in the study directly before them. Could there be some $ signs from drug and food lobbyists blocking the legislators eyes?
Food is another thing - how much do we really know about what is being put into our food? What about our water supply - is there a better way than pouring clorine and floride in it?
I'm not saying prevention is the answer to every health problem, but isn't it at least half the answer, at least for future generations?
The only thing I can see is that it will take a huge grass roots effort, and research, to make a change.
I can say this, "lowering the cost of the health care system" by just cutting out waste and fraud, or limiting people's ability to sue drug companies, isn't going to work. Those costs are small compared to the overall costs. Nor is "insuring all Americans" the answer. I hear the pain in people's voices when they get their rate change letters as a birthday or policy anniversary gift, and they are forced by economics to choose a higher deductible or policy with fewer benefits. They don't go to the doctor or get health care checks thinking that is the cause for their premium being raised, but it isn't. They're actually paying for others' medical bills through their "unused" premium if they are healthy. Also, in the last ten years, I believe the health insurance companies have drastically lowered the percentage of total premium they are paying out in claims. So its a money deal, too.
If the government takes insurance over, people will still have to pay the health care through the tax system, and government will have control of access. So, the only thing I can see as being beneficial if to attack the root causes and the symptems.
Sorry to rattle on like this. I'm not siding politically here with either party. However, I do agree with you, psdaengr, we do need to be always asking questions.
Jer


Last edited by Oldlady; 11-06-2009 at 06:40.
Oldlady is offline  
Old 01-25-2013, 13:43   #20
Active Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: brazil
Posts: 19


Default Omnipod insulin pump

has anyone used Omnipod insulin pump so far?

antaki is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
*Insulin Pumps* Terrie Insulin Pumps 3 01-18-2010 02:14
Anyone heard from Pumps It? njperry Diabetes News 1 09-18-2008 18:38

LEGAL NOTICE
By using this Website, you agree to abide by our Terms and Conditions (the "Terms"). This notice does not replace our Terms, which you must read in full as they contain important information. You must not post any defamatory, unlawful or undesirable content, or any content copied from a third party, on the Website. You must not copy material from the Website except in accordance with the Terms. This Website gives users an opportunity to share information only and is not intended to contain any advice which you should rely upon. It does not replace the need to take professional or other advice. We have no liability to you or any other person in respect of any content on this Website.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:42.




Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.