Author:
Santova Alzbeta,Plachy Lukas,Neuman Vit,Pavlikova Marketa,Petruzelkova Lenka,Konecna Petra,Venhacova Petra,Skvor Jaroslav,Pomahacova Renata,Neumann David,Vosahlo Jan,Strnadel Jiri,Kocourkova Kamila,Obermannova Barbora,Pruhova Stepanka,Cinek Ondrej,Sumnik Zdenek
Abstract
ObjectiveTo compare parameters of glycemic control among three types of hybrid closed loop (HCL) systems in children with T1D (CwD) using population-wide data from the national pediatric diabetes registry ČENDA.MethodsCwD aged <19 years treated with Medtronic MiniMed 780G (780G), Tandem t:slim X2 (Control-IQ) or do-it-yourself AndroidAPS (AAPS) systems for >12 months and monitored by CGM >70% of the time were included. HbA1c, times in glycemic ranges, and Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) were used for cross-sectional comparison between the HCL systems.ResultsData from 512 CwD were analyzed. 780G, Control-IQ and AAPS were used by 217 (42.4%), 211 (41.2%), and 84 (16.4%) CwD, respectively. The lowest HbA1c value was observed in the AAPS group (44 mmol/mol; IQR 8.0, p<0.0001 vs any other group), followed by Control-IQ and 780G groups (48 (IQR 11) and 52 (IQR 10) mmol/mol, respectively). All of the systems met the recommended criteria for time in range (78% in AAPS, 76% in 780G, and 75% in Control-IQ users). CwD using AAPS spent significantly more time in hypoglycemia (5% vs 2% in 780G and 3% in Control-IQ) and scored the highest GRI (32, IQR 17). The lowest GRI (27, IQR 15) was seen in 780G users.ConclusionAlthough all HCL systems proved effective in maintaining recommended long-term glycemic control, we observed differences that illustrate strengths and weaknesses of particular systems. Our findings could help in individualizing the choice of HCL systems.
Subject
Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献