A comparison of the usage of an open-source automated insulin delivery system and the MiniMed™ 780G system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in real-world settings: the AWeSoMe Study Group
Author:
Landau Zohar1ORCID, Lebenthal Yael2, Mazor-Aronovitch Kineret3, Brener Avivit2, Levek Noah3, Jacobi-Polishook Talia4, Ari Tal Ben5, Abiri Shirly5, Haim Alon6, Nir Judith4, Rachmiel Marianna4, Pinhas-Hamiel Orit7
Affiliation:
1. Kupat Holim Meuhedet: Meuhedet Health Services 2. Dana-Dwek Children's Hospital 3. Shiba Medical Center: Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer 4. Shamir Medical Center: Shamir Medical Center Assaf Harofeh 5. Wolfson Medical Center: Edith Wolfson Medical Center 6. Soroka University Medical Center: Soroka Medical Center 7. Sheba Medical Center: Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose:
In recent years there has been a noticeable increase in the use of advanced hybrid closed-loop systems (AHCLs) for managing type 1 diabetes (T1D) among youth. However, there is a lack of comparison between the open-source automated insulin delivery (AID) system and the MiniMed™ 780G system (780G).
Methods:
In this multi-center study, we retrospectively compared selected glycemic ranges of 26individuals who used open-source AID and 20 individuals who used 780G (age 11.3 years [IQR 9.3, 12.9] and 13.4 years [IQR10.9, 16.5], respectively, p = 0.069) from system initiation to the most recent visit.
Results:
At baseline, the median HbA1c was significantly lower and the TBR< 54mg/dL was significantly higher in the open-source AID group compared to the 780G group (6.8% [IQR 6.4, 7.1] vs. 7.4% [IQR 6.9, 8.6], p = 0.006 and (1.0% [IQR 0.5, 2.8] vs. 0.0 [0.0, 1.0], p = 0.014), respectively; the median time in range (TIR70-180mg/dL) was similar (p = 0.068). After a median duration of 10.9 months on AHCLs the reduction of HbA1c was similar (~ 0.3%). The time spent in the hypoglycemic ranges was longer among users of the open-source AID compared to 780G (TBR54-70mg/dL 4.2% [IQR 2.6, 7.3] vs. 2.0 [1.0, 4.0], p = 0.005) and TBR< 54mg/dL 1.1% [IQR 0.4, 2.3] vs. 0.0 [0.0, 1.0], p = 0.001).
Conclusions:
Both AHCLs similarly improved HbA1c and TIR70-180mg/dL. The open-source AID youth had better glycemic control but spent longer time in the hypoglycemic range. These findings must be considered when choosing the use of AHCL technologies.
Publisher
Research Square Platform LLC
Reference17 articles.
1. R.A. Lal, L. Ekhlaspour, K. Hood, B. Buckingham, Endocr. Rev. 40, 1521 (2019) 2. K. Braune, R.A. Lal, L. Petruželková, G. Scheiner, P. Winterdijk, S. Schmidt, L. Raimond, K.K. Hood, M.C. Riddell, T.C. Skinner, K. Raile, S. Hussain, Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 10, 58 (2022) 3. J.L. Sherr, L. Heinemann, G.A. Fleming, R.M. Bergenstal, D. Bruttomesso, H. Hanaire, R.W. Holl, J.R. Petrie, A.L. Peters, M. Evans, Diabetologia. 66, 3 (2023) 4. L. Petruzelkova, P. Jiranova, J. Soupal, M. Kozak, L. Plachy, V. Neuman, S. Pruhova, B. Obermannova, S. Kolouskova, Z. Sumnik, Pediatr. Diabetes. 22, 594 (2021) 5. M.J. Burnside, D.M. Lewis, H.R. Crocket, R.A. Meier, J.A. Williman, O.J. Sanders, C.A. Jefferies, A.M. Faherty, R.G. Paul, C.S. Lever, S.K.J. Price, C.M. Frewen, S.D. Jones, T.C. Gunn, C. Lampey, B.J. Wheeler, M.I. de Bock, Https://Doi.Org/. 869 (2022). 10.1056/NEJMoa2203913 387
|
|