4.5 Article

Long-term outcomes of an advanced hybrid closed-loop system: A focus on different subpopulations

Journal

DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 191, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2022.110052

Keywords

Type 1 diabetes; Closed-loop systems; Artificial pancreas; Hypoglycaemia

Funding

  1. Medtronic
  2. Lilly
  3. Novo Nordisk

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study prospectively evaluated the long-term benefit of using the advanced hybrid closed-loop system (AHCL) in different subpopulations. The results showed sustained improvement in blood glucose control and hypoglycemia risk with the AHCL system in all subgroups.
Background: The long-term benefit provided by advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) systems needs to be assessed in general populations and specific subpopulations.Methods: A prospective evaluation of subjects initiating the AHCL system 780G was performed. Time in range (70-180 mg/dl) (TIR), < 70 mg/dl, < 54 mg/dl, > 180 mg/dl and > 250 mg/dl were compared, at baseline and after one year, in different subpopulations, according to previous treatment (pump vs MDI), age (> or & LE;25 years old) and hypoglycaemia risk at baseline.Results: 135 subjects were included (age: 35 +/- 15 years, 64 % females, diabetes duration: 21 +/- 12 years). An increase in TIR was found, from 67.26 +/- 11.80 % at baseline to 77.41 +/- 8.85 % after one year (p < 0.001). All the subgroups showed a significant improvement in TIR, time > 180 mg/dl and > 250 mg/dl. At the 1-year evaluation, no significant differences were found, between previous pump users and MDI subjects. Children and young adults had a lower time < 70 mg/dl than adults. Subjects with a high risk of hypoglycaemia at baseline had a higher time spent at < 70 mg/dl and < 54 mg/dl than low-risk individuals.Conclusion: The initial benefit provided by the AHCL system is sustained in the long term. MDI subjects obtain the same outcomes as subjects with pump experience.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available