Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

MDI versus CSII in Chinese adults with type 1 diabetes in a real-world situation: based on propensity score matching method

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes volume 22, Article number: 47 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Compared with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI), continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) is significantly more expensive and has not been widely used in Chinese type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients. So there are still significant knowledge gaps regarding clinical and patient-reported outcomes in China.

Aims

This study aims to compare the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C), insulin therapy related quality of life (ITR-QOL), fear of hypoglycemia (FOH) of adult T1DM patients treated with MDI and CSII based on propensity score matching in real-world conditions in China.

Methods

Four hundred twenty adult T1DM patients who were treated with MDI or CSII continuously for more than 12 months in a national metabolic center from June 2021 to June 2023 were selected as the study subjects. Their QOL and FOH were evaluated with Insulin Therapy Related Quality of Life Measure Questionnaire-Chinese version (ITR-QOL-CV) and the Chinese Version Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-Worry Scale (CHFSII-WS), and their HbA1C were collected at the same time. Potential confounding variables between the two groups were matched using propensity score matching.

Results

Of the 420 patients included in the study, 315 were in MDI group and 105 were in CSII group. 102 pairs were successfully matched. After matching, the total score of ITR-QOL-CV scale in CSII group was significantly higher than that in MDI group (87.08 ± 13.53 vs. 80.66 ± 19.25, P = 0.006). Among them, the dimensions of daily life, social life, and psychological state were all statistically different (P < 0.05). The scores of CHFSII-WS (8.33 ± 3.49 vs. 11.77 ± 5.27, P = 0.003) and HbA1C (7.19 ± 1.33% vs. 7.71 ± 1.93%, P = 0.045) in CSII group were lower than those in MDI group.

Conclusions

25.0% of T1DM adults are treated with CSII. Compared with adult T1DM patients treated with MDI, those treated with CSII have higher ITR-QOL, less FoH, and better control of HbA1C in real-world conditions in China. Therefore, regardless of economic factors, CSII is recommended for adult T1DM patients to optimize the therapeutic effect and outcomes.

Background

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is a chronic disease mediated by autoimmune impaired islet β cells, leading to severe endogenous insulin deficiency [1]. Despite the younger peak age of the onset of T1DM, new-onset T1DM occurs in all age-groups and people with T1DM live for many decades after the onset of the disease, such that the overall prevalence of T1DM is higher in adults than in children, justifying our focus on T1DM in adults [2, 3]. Due to the absolute lack of self-insulin secretion, T1DM patients require exogenous insulin replacement to control blood glucose. Currently, multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) are the most important treatment regimen for patients with T1DM worldwide [4].

Both MDI and CSII can optimize the glycaemic control to a near normal level of T1DM patients [1]. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) has become the standard biomarker of assessing long-term glycaemic control in patients with diabetes and correlates with the development of complications [5, 6]. A randomized controlled trial in the UK found that during the first year following T1DM diagnosis, no HbA1C benefit of CSII over MDI was identified in children and young people [7]. While a meta-analysis showed that effect of CSII over MDI on HbA1C was − 0.42[− 0.66; −0.18]% in those enrolling only adult T1DM patients [8]. Different study designs and settings may account for this discrepancy.

Considering the enormous daily management burden that T1DM places on patients, benefits for quality of life (QOL) were afforded equal priority to improvements in HbA1C in the past decades [9]. Adult T1DM patients face the pressure of work, social and family, no matter which injection regimen, daily insulin injection and poor blood glucose control will bring physical and psychological burden to patients, which will greatly affect their QOL. A previous review study has shown that CSII users have a lower QOL because of disease exposure, the potential dysfunction of insulin pumps, and the difficulties that CSII users encounter during sexual activity [10]. While another cross-sectional study showed that CSII users scored statistically, significantly better on the satisfaction treatment subscale of the Diabetes Quality of life Brief Clinical Inventory [11]. It is likely that differences in results are due to heterogeneity in study design, sample size, and selection, as well as variation in questionnaires used to assess QOL.

Patients receiving intensive insulin therapy have a significantly higher risk of developing hypoglycemia than those receiving other types of treatment [3, 12]. The physical discomfort experience (dizziness, palpitation, etc.) and the potential threat to life (loss of consciousness, convulsions, etc.) can lead to the fear of hypoglycemia (FOH). FOH has been reported to occur in as many as 44–77% of persons with T1DM [13, 14]. Fear of hypoglycemia often leads to excessive avoidance behaviors such as excessive food intake and self-reduction of insulin dose, which worsen glycemic control, thus leading to complications or aggravating their development [15]. In addition, for adults with T1DM, FOH may also threaten their ability to work and drive. To date, few studies have compared differences in FOH among adults with T1DM using different regimens.

Compared with MDI, CSII is significantly more expensive and has not been widely used in China [16]. Hence, there are still significant knowledge gaps regarding clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes in China, particularly for adult T1DM. Existing studies have predominantly focused on children and adolescents with T1DM, leaving a dearth of research on the adult population [7, 17, 18]. In addition, a systematic review has reported that existing literature on QOL benefits associated with CSII use is limited, with conflicting, often ambiguous results and many design/methodological flaws [19].

The imbalance of potential confounding variables between MDI and CSII groups can distort the relationship between treatment and outcomes, which may lead to certain biases in the study results. For example, Al Shaikh A et al. encouraged more equal gender distribution in future studies for more comprehensive findings while assess the QOL of children with diabetes who use CSII and MDI treatment [17]. The imbalance of potential confounding variables between the treatment groups can distort the relationship between treatment and outcome. Propensity score matching is one, increasingly utilized, method to help account for such imbalances, allowing for a more accurate estimation of the influence of treatment on outcomes in real-world conditions [20]. This method can balance observed covariates between two groups in nonrandomized studies so that the groups are comparable in the sense that their baseline covariates have similar distribution [21]. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the differences in HbA1C, insulin therapy related quality of life (ITR-QOL), and FOH between MDI and CSII groups effectively by controlling for selection bias through propensity score matching, so as to provide a basis for guiding adult T1DM patients to choose the appropriate insulin treatment in China.

Methods

Patients and study design

Four hundred twenty adult T1DM patients meeting the inclusion criteria were admitted to the endocrinology department of a national metabolic center from June 2021 to June 2023 were included in this study. Inclusion criteria: Patients diagnosed with T1DM and aged over 18 years were eligible to participate; receive MDI of subcutaneous basal insulin analogs and mealtime rapid-acting insulin analogs via insulin pen, or CSII of a rapid-acting insulin analog via a pump, delivered as continuous basal insulin combined with manual mealtime boluses to control their blood glucose for more than 12 months. Exclusion criteria: (1) Patients who have changed their insulin injection regimen in the past 12 months or who were also prescribed with non-insulin blood sugar control drugs (a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist or any other oral medication) at the same time; (2) Patients with severe acute complications, such as acute infection and diabetic ketoacidosis; (3)Patients with anemia or other factors that may affect HbA1C results; (4) Patients with other serious chronic diseases (such as tumors) that may affect their QOL. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University (2019-SR-268) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All the patients included in this study signed the informed consent form.

Data collection

  1. (1)

    Sociodemographic and Clinical Variables: Two fixed diabetes education nurses with professional training consulted the inpatient medical records of all patients and extracted their demographic and sociological data, including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), education level, employed or not, etc. Disease-related data, including duration of disease, insulin injection regimen, and with diabetic chronic complications or not. After collection, the relevant data is verified again with the patient to ensure that all data is correct.

  2. (2)

    HbA1C: All HbA1C results were obtained from the medical record at the same time, and the cut-off for optimal glycaemic control was set at ≤ 7.0% [2].

  3. (3)

    Insulin Therapy Related Quality of Life Measure Questionnaire -Chinese version (ITR-QOL-CV) : This study adopted the ITR-QOL-CV developed by Ishii et al., [22] which was translated by Chinese scholar Liu Weiwei et al. with Cronbach’s α coefficient of 0.89 [23]. ITR-QOL-CV is a reliable tool for medical staff to evaluate QOL of patients receiving insulin therapy. The 23 main items of the scale include 4 dimensions: daily life (6 items), social activities (6 items), psychological state (9 items), and adverse insulin reactions (2 items). The Likert 5-level scoring method was adopted for the scale, with a total score of 23–115 points. The higher the score, the higher the patient’s insulin therapy related QOL. In this study, Cronbach’α coefficient of ITR-QOL-CV was 0.857.

  4. (4)

    The Chinese Version Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-Worry Scale (CHFSII-WS): This study adopted the CHFSII-WS developed by Professor Cox DJ et, al. from the University of California Health Science Center [24], which was translated into Chinese by scholars such as Mu Chun et al. with a Cronbach’s α of 0.904 [25]. It is a specific tool for medical staff to evaluate patients’ FOH. The 13 items of the scale can be divided into two dimensions: worry and fear (10 items) and awkward emotions (3 items). Each item is scored on a 0–4 scale based on the patient’s feelings in the past 6 months, with a score ranging from 0 to 52. The higher the total score, the higher the level of fear of hypoglycemia. In this study, Cronbach’α coefficient of CHFSII-WS was 0.844.

Sample size

The overall sample size calculation was conducted using PASS 2021 software (UT, U.S.A) using a two correlated proportions in a matched case-control design. With α = 0.05, a power of 0.90, and an odds ratio = 3.0. We then calculated that at least 76 patients should be enrolled in each group (MDI and CSII group). To ensure an adequate sample size after matching, we plan to include at least 100 patients with CSII.

Statistical analysis

Continuous data with normal distribution were represented by mean (SD), and the comparison between groups was performed by independent sample t test. Continuous data with non-normal distribution were expressed as M (Q1, Q3), and the comparison between groups was performed using Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical data were represented by the number of cases or rates, and the comparison between groups was performed by Chi-square test.

The extended program for propensity score matching achieves propensity score matching between MDI and CSII groups, using a 1:1 proximity matching method. The matching procedure was performed using the nearest neighbor method without replacement and with a caliper width of 0.2 of the pooled standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score.

All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). P values ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Characteristics of the patients before and after matching

Four hundred twenty adult T1DM patients were included in this study, including 315 patients treated with MDI and 105 patients treated with CSII. By insulin injection (MDI vs. CSII) is the grouping variable, using the general conditions (including gender, age, BMI, disease duration, education level, employed or not, with diabetes related complications or not) as the Logistic regression analysis. 102 pairs of patients were matched by the nearest neighbor distance matching of the propensity score (Fig. 1.). The characteristics of the two groups of patients before and after matching are shown in Table 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of patient recruitment

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of patients before and after the propensity score matching analysis
Full size table

Comparison of HbA1C between the matched groups

The mean HbA1C in the CSII group was 7.19 ± 1.33%, and the mean HbA1C in the MDI group was 7.71 ± 1.93%, with statistical significance (P = 0.045). 42 (41.18%) patients in MDI group had their HbA1C less than 7.0% while 57 (55.88%) patients in CSII group had optimal glycaemic control, with statistical significance (P = 0.036) (Fig. 2.).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Comparison of HbA1c between the matched groups

Full size image

Comparison of ITR-QOL, FoH between the matched groups

The total score of ITR-QOL-CV in CSII group was significantly higher than that in MDI group (87.08 ± 13.53 vs. 80.66 ± 19.25, P = 0.006), among which, the scores of daily life dimension, social activities dimension, and psychological state dimension had statistical differences (P < 0.05). The score of CHFSII-WS in CSII group was significantly lower than that in MDI group (8.33 ± 3.49 vs.11.77 ± 5.27, P < 0.05). (See Table 2 for details).

Table 2 Comparison of ITR-QOL-CV and CHFSII-WS scores between the matched groups
Full size table

Discussion

At present, MDI and CSII are the first choice for intensive insulin injection therapy for T1DM patients. Our study found that 25.0% (105/420) of adults with T1DM are treated with CSII and those treated with CSII have better control of HbA1C, higher ITR-QOL, and less FoH in real-world conditions in China.

HbA1C is a classic indicator of the glycemic control of diabetic patients, which can effectively predict the long-term prognosis of patients [26]. The results of this study showed that the blood glucose control of T1DM adults was still far from satisfactory and the HbA1C was better in CSII group than in MDI group in a real-world situation in China. Previous research suggested that in patients with a higher HbA1c levels, a greater reduction in HbA1c levels after CSII occurs [27]. According to the meta-analysis of the three studies included by William et al. [28]., there was no significant difference in the control of HbA1C and time in range in T1DM patients using MDI (72 patients) and CSII (78 patients), but the sample size of each of the above studies was small. In addition, all patients in the study were combined with real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Considering that continuous glucose monitoring can provide patients with more accurate, real-time and intuitive blood glucose information, and patients can adjust diet or insulin dosage in time to correct abnormal blood glucose, the difference in blood glucose control between the two groups may be narrowed. At present, there are few patients applying continuous glucose monitoring in China. In the future, the sample size can be further accumulated to clarify the differences between the two groups of patients in time in range and other blood glucose control indicators.

This study found that compared with MDI group, patients in the CSII group had a higher ITR-QOL, among which the scores of the dimensions of daily life, social activities and psychological state had statistical differences. Al Shaikh A et al. also found children treated with CSII had statistically significant better symptom control, less treatment difficulties, and a higher QOL [17]. CSII allows the administration of additional boluses if needed, with minimal patient discomfort [29]. Patients using a pump have more flexible possibilities regarding meals, diet, everyday activities, and socialization [30]. In addition, CSII can also reduce the pain and inconvenience caused by multiple subcutaneous injections to patients, and it is more convenient for the correction of high and low blood sugar [31]. Therefore, it can effectively reduce the impact on their QOL, which is similar to the findings of Thabit et al. [32] However, another study found that due to the high economic cost of patients in the CSII group, the QOL of patients would decline [33]. One possible reason could be that the EuroQol 5-level 5-dimension questionnaire used in the study is a universal Quality of Life scale that may not be targeted for measuring the changes in QOL in diabetic patients due to insulin injections. In this study, there was no obvious difference in the adverse reaction dimension in the ITR-QOL-CV scale between the two groups. It may be that the adverse reactions of insulin injection are more related to the drug, whether the patient has an allergic constitution, or whether the insulin injection process is standardized.

Intensive insulin therapy increases the risk of hypoglycemia while maintaining normal blood glucose in T1DM patients [34]. Previous studies have shown that FOH is related to the frequency of hypoglycemia, especially severe hypoglycemia [35, 36]. In our study, only 19 of 420 patients (4.52%) wore continuous glucose monitoring on a daily basis. Considering that there are few adult T1DM patients routinely using continuous glucose monitoring in China, it is difficult to effectively capture the true incidence of hypoglycemic events in this population. Therefore, this study used patients’ self-reported FOH scale for relevant evaluation. Studies have demonstrated that FOH may lead to perceived concerns of a mismatch between food intake, insulin dose, or physical activity, resulting in over or under-compensatory behaviors, and can place great mental burden on patients with T1DM [14, 37, 38]. In our study, the FOH of patients in CSII group was lower than that in MDI group. Gomez-Peralta et al. [26] found that patients using CSII have a lower frequency of hypoglycemia than MDI, more hypoglycemia experience may be one of the reasons for the higher FoH in MDI patients. Therefore, more attention should be paid to the evaluation of FOH in T1DM patients with MDI. In practice, newer technologies and individualized strategies to reduce FOH while maintaining optimal glucose control are needed [39]. Besides, Rossi et al. found that hypoglycemia may negatively affect patient QOL [40], further research is needed to explore this relationship in Chinese population.

A strength of our study is the use of to match the confounders of patients between groups, so as to avoid bias in this study. One of the limitations of this study is that only patients with traditional insulin pen and tubular insulin pump were included in this study. With the promotion of needle-free syringe and closed-loop insulin pump system, more patients with different insulin injection methods can be included in the future, so as to enrich relevant research results. In addition, although the evidence of HbA1C reduction remains the most robust measure associated with chronic diabetes complications, more recent studies have begun to examine the relationship between TIR and long-term complications and have provided the basis for glycemic targets with newer glucose monitoring technologies [41].

Conclusions

This study balanced the confounding factors between the two groups by means of propensity score matching, and scientifically and reliably compared the HbA1C, ITR-QOL, and FOH of adult T1DM patients treated with CSII and MDI. Our study found that compared with adult T1DM patients treated with MDI, those treated with CSII have higher ITR-QOL, less FoH, and better control of HbA1C in real-world conditions in China. Therefore, regardless of economic factors, CSII is recommended for adult T1DM patients to optimize the therapeutic effect and outcomes.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

MDI:

Multiple daily insulin injection

CSII:

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion

T1DM:

Type 1 diabetes mellitus

QOL:

Quality of life

FOH:

Fear of hypoglycemia

HbA1C :

Glycated hemoglobin

BMI:

Body mass index

ITR-QOL-CV:

Insulin Therapy Related Quality of Life Measure Questionnaire-Chinese version

CHFSII-WS:

The Chinese Version Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-Worry Scale

References

  1. American Diabetes Association. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(Suppl 1):S62–9. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc11-S062.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Holt RIG, DeVries JH, Hess-Fischl A, et al. The management of type 1 diabetes in adults. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2021;44(11):2589–625. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci21-0043.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Syed FZ. Type 1 diabetes Mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175(3):ITC33–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chinese Diabetes Society, Association CE. Chinese Society of Endocrinology, Chinese Pediatric Society. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus in China (2021 edition). Chin J Diabetes Mellitus. 2022;14(11):1143–250. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn115791-20220916-00474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 1989;12(5):365–68. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.12.5.365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang M, Hng TM. HbA1c: more than just a number. Aust J Gen Pract. 2021;50(9):628–32. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.12.5.365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Blair JC, McKay A, Ridyard C, et al. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injection regimens in children and young people at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes: pragmatic randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. BMJ. 2019;365:l1226. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l1226.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Pala L, Dicembrini I, Mannucci E. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion vs modern multiple injection regimens in type 1 diabetes: an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Acta Diabetol. 2019;56(9):973–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-019-01326-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Speight J, Choudhary P, Wilmot EG, et al. Impact of glycaemic technologies on quality of life and related outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes: a narrative review. Diabet Med. 2023;40(1):e14944. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.14944.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Benioudakis E, Karlafti E, Kalaitzaki A, Kaiafa G, Savopoulos C, Didangelos T. Technological Developments and Quality of Life in Type 1 diabetes Mellitus patients: a review of the modern insulin analogues, continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump therapy. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2022;18(7):e031121197657. https://doi.org/10.2174/1573399818666211103163208.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Benioudakis ES, Georgiou ED, Barouxi ED, et al. The diabetes quality of life brief clinical inventory in combination with the management strategies in type 1 diabetes mellitus with or without the use of insulin pump. Diabetol Int. 2020;12(2):217–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13340-020-00477-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Khunti K, Alsifri S, Aronson R, et al. Rates and predictors of hypoglycaemia in 27585 people from 24 countries with insulin-treated type 1 and type 2 diabetes: the global HAT study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2016;18(9):907–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.12689.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Böhme P, Bertin E, Cosson E, Chevalier N, GEODE group. Fear of hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 diabetes: do patients and diabetologists feel the same way? Diabetes Metab. 2013;39(1):63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabet.2012.10.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Martyn-Nemeth P, Quinn L, Penckofer S, Park C, Hofer V, Burke L. Fear of hypoglycemia: influence on glycemic variability and self-management behavior in young adults with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Complications. 2017;31(4):735–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2016.12.015.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Wild D, von Maltzahn R, Brohan E, Christensen T, Clauson P, Gonder-Frederick L. A critical review of the literature on fear of hypoglycemia in diabetes: implications for diabetes management and patient education. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;68(1):10–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.05.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hu S, Yang H, Chen Z, et al. Clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness analysis of CSII Versus MDI in Children and adolescent with type 1 diabetes Mellitus in a Public Health Care System of China. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021;12:604028. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.604028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Al Shaikh A, Al Zahrani AM, Qari YH, et al. Quality of life in children with diabetes treated with insulin pump compared with multiple daily injections in Tertiary Care Center. Clin Med Insights Endocrinol Diabetes. 2020;13:1179551420959077. https://doi.org/10.1177/1179551420959077.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Rosner B, Roman-Urrestarazu A. Health-related quality of life in paediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus using insulin infusion systems. A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(6):e0217655. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217655.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Barnard KD, Lloyd CE, Skinner TC. Systematic literature review: quality of life associated with insulin pump use in type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2007;24(6):607–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2007.02120.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Badhiwala JH, Karmur BS, Wilson JR. Propensity score matching: a powerful Tool for analyzing Observational Nonrandomized Data. Clin Spine Surg. 2021;34(1):22–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001055.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ishii H, Yamamoto T, Ohashi Y. Development of insulin therapy related quality-of-life measure (ITR-QOL). J Japan Diab Soc. 2001;44:9–15.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Liu WW, Zhao LQ. A study on the reliability and validity of the quality of Life Scale for patients receiving insulin treatment. Chin J Nurs. 2009;44(9):849–51. https://doi.org/10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2009.09.033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cox DJ, Irvine A, Gonder-Frederick L, Nowacek G, Butterfield J. Fear of hypoglycemia: quantification, validation, and utilization. Diabetes Care. 1987;10(5):617–21. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.10.5.617.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mu Chun B, Di, Xing Qiuling. The reliabilityand validityof Chinese Version of Hypoglycemia Fear Survey H-Worry scale (CHFSH-WS) in type2 diabetes mellitus. Chin J Prac Nurs. 2015;31(3):198–201. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1672-7088.2015.03.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gomez-Peralta F, Choudhary P, Cosson E, Irace C, Rami-Merhar B, Seibold A. Understanding the clinical implications of differences between glucose management indicator and glycated haemoglobin. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2022;24(4):599–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.14638.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pickup JC. Management of diabetes mellitus: is the pump mightier than the pen? Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2012;8(7):425–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrendo.2012.28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. William J, McCluskey J, Gleeson N. RT-CGM in conjunction with CSII vs MDI in optimizing glycaemic control in T1DM: systemic review and meta-analysis. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab. 2022;5(2):e00324. https://doi.org/10.1002/edm2.324.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Pozzilli P, Battelino T, Danne T, Hovorka R, Jarosz-Chobot P, Renard E. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in diabetes: patient populations, safety, efficacy, and pharmacoeconomics. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2016;32(1):21–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.2653.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Alsaleh FM, Smith FJ, Taylor KM. Experiences of children/young people and their parents, using insulin pump therapy for the management of type 1 diabetes: qualitative review: experiences of using insulin pumps. J Clin Pharm Th. 2012;37(2):140–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2710.2011.01283.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Callahan Fagan VR, Parsons K. The lived experience of continuous Subcutaneous insulin infusion in adults with type 1 diabetes Mellitus: A Phenomenological Inquiry. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2021;8:2333393620981058. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393620981058.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Thabit H, Hovorka R. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy and multiple daily insulin injections in type 1 diabetes mellitus: a comparative overview and future horizons. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2016;13(3):389–400. https://doi.org/10.1517/17425247.2016.1115013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wan W, Skandari MR, Minc A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of initiating an insulin pump in T1D adults using continuous glucose monitoring compared with multiple daily insulin injections: the DIAMOND Randomized Trial. Med Decis Mak. 2018;38(8):942–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X18803109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hypoglycemia in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Diabetes Control Complications Trial Res Group Diabetes. 1997;46(2):271–86.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Anderbro T, Amsberg S, Adamson U, et al. Fear of hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2010;27(10):1151–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2010.03078.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Przezak A, Bielka W, Molęda P. Fear of hypoglycemia-An underestimated problem. Brain Behav. 2022;12(7):e2633. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.2633.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Cigrovski Berkovic M, Bilic-Curcic I, La Grasta Sabolic L, Mrzljak A, Cigrovski V. Fear of hypoglycemia, a game changer during physical activity in type 1 diabetes mellitus patients. World J Diabetes. 2021;12(5):569–77. https://doi.org/10.4239/wjd.v12.i5.569.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Wu FL, Juang JH, Yeh MC. The dilemma of diabetic patients living with hypoglycaemia. J Clin Nurs. 2011;20(15–16):2277–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03725.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Martyn-Nemeth P, Schwarz Farabi S, Mihailescu D, Nemeth J, Quinn L. Fear of hypoglycemia in adults with type 1 diabetes: impact of therapeutic advances and strategies for prevention-a review. J Diabetes Complications. 2016;30(1):167–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2015.09.003.

  40. Rossi MC, Nicolucci A, Ozzello A, et al. Impact of severe and symptomatic hypoglycemia on quality of life and fear of hypoglycemia in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Results of the Hypos-1 observational study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2019;29(7):736–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2019.04.009.

  41. Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, Riddlesworth TD, Kollman C, Li Z, Brown AS, Close KL. Validation of time in range as an outcome measure for diabetes clinical trials. Diabetes Care. 2019;42:400–4400. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc18-1444.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was supported by the Clinical Ability Improvement Project of Jiangsu Province Hospital (JSPH-NC-2022-27).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Endocrinology, the First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University(Jiangsu Province Hospital), 300 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, LA, 210029, China

    Jian Yu, Hong Wang, Min Zhu & Jingjing Xu

  2. Department of Nursing, the First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University(Jiangsu Province Hospital), Nanjing, China

    Jingjing Xu

Authors
  1. Jian Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Min Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jingjing Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Jian Yu and Min Zhu contributed to the conception and design of the study. Jian Yu and Hong Wang contributed to the acquisition of data and drafting of manuscript. Min Zhu participated in analyzing data. Jingjing Xu reviewed and revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Min Zhu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University (2019-SR-268).

Consent for publication

All the patients included in this study signed the informed consent form.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, J., Wang, H., Zhu, M. et al. MDI versus CSII in Chinese adults with type 1 diabetes in a real-world situation: based on propensity score matching method. Health Qual Life Outcomes 22, 47 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-024-02263-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-024-02263-w

Keywords

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

ISSN: 1477-7525

Contact us