📇 Rhumatologue · PARIS CEDEX 14 · (75) · Hospitalier
Chargement de la fiche…
Chargement de la fiche…
MonRhumato.fr utilise des cookies pour mesurer l'audience (statistiques) et améliorer le site. Aucune donnée de santé identifiable n'est jamais collectée. Politique de confidentialité.
Votre choix est conservé 13 mois (durée max CNIL). Vous pouvez le modifier à tout moment via Préférences cookies.
3 raisons identifiées
Plateau technique de référence
Assistance publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP) — équipements et expertise pointus pour les cas complexes
Praticien-chercheur
10 articles scientifiques publiés — formation continue solide
Délais de RDV courts dans la région
336.2 rhumatos / 100 000 hab. — département bien doté
✨ Génération du profil synthétique IA en cours…
Articles déposés en accès libre sur l'archive ouverte des universités françaises (HAL) — gage d'activité de recherche en France.
Données ANS publiques (Licence Ouverte 2.0) · Enrichissements MonRhumato 100 % opt-in · Toute personne référencée peut demander la suppression ou la rectification.
Source : HAL — archive ouverte CCSD/CNRS (couvre articles, chapitres EMC, communications congrès, thèses).
GHU APHP CUP SITE COCHIN PORT ROYAL
27 R DU FAUBOURG SAINT JACQUES, 75679 PARIS CEDEX 14
Secteur de conventionnement non disponible (médecin hospitalier ou non présent dans l'Annuaire santé CNAM des libéraux conventionnés).
Lien Doctolib = recherche Google site:doctolib.fr (le 1er résultat est presque toujours le profil correct s'il existe).
Diabetes care · 2009
OBJECTIVE Insulin pump therapy (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]) and multiple daily injections (MDIs) with insulin glargine as basal insulin and mealtime insulin lispro have not been prospectively compared in people naïve to either regimen in a multicenter study. We aimed to help close that deficiency. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS People with type 1 diabetes on NPH-based insulin therapy were randomized to CSII or glargine-based MDI (both otherwise using lispro) and followed for 24 weeks in an equivalence design. Fifty people were correctly randomized, and 43 completed the study. RESULTS Total insulin requirement (mean ± SD) at end point was 36.2 ± 11.5 units/day on CSII and 42.6 ± 15.5 units/day on MDI. Mean A1C fell similarly in the two groups (CSII −0.7 ± 0.7%; MDI −0.6 ± 0.8%) with a baseline-adjusted difference of −0.1% (95% CI −0.5 to 0.3). Similarly, fasting blood glucose and other preprandial, postprandial, and nighttime self-monitored plasma glucose levels did not differ between the regimens, nor did measures of plasma glucose variability. On CSII, 1,152 hypoglycemia events were recorded by 23 of 28 participants (82%) and 1,022 in the MDI group by 27 of 29 patients (93%) (all hypoglycemia differences were nonsignificant). Treatment satisfaction score increased more with CSII; however, the change in score was similar for the groups. Costs were ∼3.9 times higher for CSII. CONCLUSIONS In unselected people with type 1 diabetes naïve to CSII or insulin glargine, glycemic control is no better with the more expensive CSII therapy compared with glargine-based MDI therapy.
Diabetes care · 2012
OBJECTIVE The benefits of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) have been demonstrated in patients with type 1 diabetes. Our aim was to compare the effect of two modes of use of CGM, patient led or physician driven, for 1 year in subjects with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Patients with type 1 diabetes aged 8–60 years with HbA1c ≥8% were randomly assigned to three groups (1:1:1). Outcomes for glucose control were assessed at 1 year for two modes of CGM (group 1: patient led; group 2: physician driven) versus conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose (group 3: control). RESULTS A total of 257 subjects with type 1 diabetes underwent screening. Of these, 197 were randomized, with 178 patients completing the study (age: 36 ± 14 years; HbA1c: 8.9 ± 0.9%). HbA1c improved similarly in both CGM groups and was reduced compared with the control group (group 1 vs. group 3: −0.52%, P = 0.0006; group 2 vs. group 3: −0.47%, P = 0.0008; groups 1 + 2 vs. group 3: −0.50%, P < 0.0001). The incidence of hypoglycemia was similar in the three groups. Patient SF-36 questionnaire physical health score improved in both experimental CGM groups (P = 0.004). Sensor consumption was 34% lower in group 2 than in group 1 (median [Q1–Q3] consumption: group 1: 3.42/month [2.20–3.91] vs. group 2: 2.25/month [1.27–2.99], P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Both patient-led and physician-driven CGM provide similar long-term improvement in glucose control in patients with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes, but the physician-driven CGM mode used fewer sensors.
Behavioural processes · 2016
Source PubMed · Recherche par auteur (homonymes possibles, vérifier l'affiliation).
Diabetologia · 2022 · Journal Article
Sola-Gazagnes A, Pecquet C, Berré S, Achenbach P, et al.
Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2022 · Journal Article
Moser O, Sternad C, Eckstein ML, Szadkowska A, et al.
La Revue du praticien · 2018 · Journal Article
Larger É, Diedisheim M, Donath X, Dehghani L, et al.
Behavioural processes · 2016 · Journal Article
Lebeau G, Consoli SM, Le Bouc R, Sola-Gazagnes A, et al.
Revue de l'infirmiere · 2015 · Journal Article
Defer F, Tourneur ML, Guillaume C, Sola-Gazagnes A
Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2014 · Comparative Study
Schaepelynck P, Riveline JP, Renard E, Hanaire H, et al.
Diabetes care · 2012 · Journal Article
Riveline JP, Schaepelynck P, Chaillous L, Renard E, et al.
Diabetes care · 2003 · Case Reports
Sola-Gazagnes A, Pecquet C, Radermecker R, Piétri L, et al.
Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2023 · Multicenter Study
Diedisheim M, Pecquet C, Julla JB, Carlier A, et al.
Diabetes care · 2009 · Journal Article
Bolli GB, Kerr D, Thomas R, Torlone E, et al.
Source : DataCite — DOIs pour datasets, logiciels, protocoles, registres patient. Hors articles (déjà couverts).