Gestational diabetes & diabetes in pregnancy
A Real-World Study Comparing Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems During Pregnancy in Women with Type 1 Diabetes
Authors' conclusion
In this multicenter observational study, CamAPS FX and Control-IQ users achieved better glycemic metrics and lower odds of delivering LGA infants compared with those using MiniMed 780G. These findings warrant investigation to confirm associations and inform individualized clinical decision-making in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes.
Study context
- Population
- Pregnant women with T1D using advanced hybrid closed-loop (aHCL), 27 hospitals in Spain
- Participants
- 137 women
- Exposure
- CamAPS FX and Control-IQ vs MiniMed 780G aHCL systems
- MiniMed 780Gn = 85reference
- CamAPS FXn = 38
- Control-IQn = 14
- Outcome
- HbA1c
- Follow-up
- Third trimester
Methodological detailsreal-world, multicenter, adjusted models
- Real-world
- Multicenter
- Adjusted models
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Βadjusted
−4.77 mmol/mol
95% CI −7.40 to −2.13
CamAPS FX · lower with CamAPS FX
Βadjusted
−4.79
95% CI −8.53 to −1.06
Control-IQ · lower with Control-IQ
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
| Outcome | aOR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Large-for-gestational-age (LGA) infantsCamAPS FXvs MiniMed 780G | 0.25 (0.08–0.77) | |
| Large-for-gestational-age (LGA) infantsControl-IQvs MiniMed 780G | 0.10 (0.01–0.99) | |
| 0.050.21520Adjusted odds ratio (log scale) |
| Outcome | βadjusted (%) (95% CI) |
|---|---|
| TIR (3.5-7.8 mmol/L) · second trimesterCamAPS FX vs MiniMed 780G · higher with CamAPS FX | +5.88 (1.09–10.67) |
| TAR · second trimesterCamAPS FX vs MiniMed 780G · lower with CamAPS FX | −6.36 (−11.46 to −1.26) |
TIR (3.5-7.8 mmol/L) · second trimester
- No other significant differences in other trimesters
Original publication
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →