7 Shocking Facts On SCH 900776

Patients/families were sent copies of the CGM reports prior click here to visits that occurred by phone. Treatment data, demographics, and A1c (obtained pre- and ~2-3 months post-CGM use) were extracted from medical records. Figure 1. Percentage of patients who received each treatment recommendation following CGM. Data Analysis Data are reported as mean �� SD (range), median (interquartile range, IQR), and proportions. We defined improvement as a decrement in A1c ��0.5%. Analyses, performed using SAS (version 9.2; SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA), included paired and unpaired t tests and chi-square tests; P �� .05 defined significance. Results Sample Patients referred for masked CGM (N = 122, 53% female) were 14.3 �� 3.9 years old (range 7-28) with type 1 diabetes for 7.5 �� 4.7 years (range 1-23). All received intensive therapy: 61% pump, 39% multiple injections (34% basal-bolus, 5% basal analog with AM NPH). Mean baseline A1c was 8.5 �� 1.1% (range 5.8-12.6%) (69 �� 12 mmol/mol, range 40-114). Reasons for Masked CGM Patients were often referred for multiple reasons. The most common reasons were assessment of hyperglycemia (39%) or hypoglycemia (37%), patient/family interest in RT-CGM (37%), and insulin dosing adjustments (27%). Other reasons included evaluation of impact of food and exercise and follow-up after diabetic ketoacidosis. CGM Data Most patients successfully wore CGM following a single insertion; 3 required reinsertions. Mean number of sensor glucose readings/patient was 894 �� 136 (range 435-1151), capturing 1.5-4 days of Chk inhibitor CGM, with an average of 3.1 days. Mean sensor glucose was 181 �� 34 mg/dL B3GAT3 (range 103-265 mg/dL), and mean SD of sensor glucose was 75 �� 16 mg/dL (range 34-114 mg/dL). Treatment Recommendations Almost all patients (n = 116, 95%) received multiple recommendations following CGM, 5 (4%) received a single recommendation, and 1 received none. The mean number of recommendations/patient was 3.1 �� 1.1 (range 0-6). Most (80%) received the reminder to give insulin preprandially as reinforcement of standard care. Other common recommendations included specific dose adjustments (bolus and/or basal) and review of insulin action (advanced boluses/attention to active insulin) (Figure 1). Treatment Outcomes To assess impact of recommendations following CGM, we compared patients�� A1c levels a median of 2.6 months (IQR 1.8-4.3) post-CGM. Mean follow-up A1c was 8.4 �� 1.1% (range 5.9-12.3%) (68 �� 12 mmol/mol, range 41-111); mean A1c change was ?0.1 �� 0.7% (range ?1.9-2.1%) (1 �� 8 mmol/mol, range ?21-23). About a third of patients (n = 39, 32%) improved A1c by ��0.5%. These patients, compared to those without improvement, were older (15.5 �� 4.4 vs 14.0 �� 3.6 years, P = .04), had longer diabetes duration (8.7 �� 4.9 vs 6.9 �� 4.5 years, P = .05), had higher initial A1c (8.9 �� 1.0 vs 8.2 �� 1.1%, P