Comparative Effectiveness of Hybrid Closed-Loop Automated Insulin Delivery Systems Among Patients with Type 1 Diabetes
Authors' conclusion
There were significant reductions in HbA1c in CIQ and OP5. TIR was similar across pumps, but TBR was highest with MT. The %time in automated delivery likely explains differences in change in HbA1c but not TBR between HCL systems.
Study context
- Population
- Adults >18 years with T1D new to any hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system, with a pump download within three months, academic endocrinology practice, January 1, 2018–November 18, 2022
- Participants
- 176 adults
- Exposure
- Medtronic 670G/770G vs Tandem Control IQ vs Omnipod 5 HCL systems
- MTn = 47
- Control IQ (CIQ)n = 74
- OP5n = 55
- Outcome
- Change in HbA1c
- Follow-up
- 91 to 180 days
Methodological detailssingle academic endocrinology practice, real-world
- Single academic endocrinology practice
- Real-world
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
MT
−0.1
median · 25%, 75% −0.8–0.3 · %
CIQ
−0.6
median · 25%, 75% −1.1–-0.15 · %
OP5
−0.55
median · 25%, 75% −0.98–0 · %
P = 0.04
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
TIR 70 to 180 mg/dL · 90 days — between MT and CIQ · across MT, CIQ and OP5
P = 0.95
TBR <70 mg/dL · 90 days — between MT and CIQ · across MT, CIQ and OP5
P = 0.002
Adjusted predictors (incl. %time in automated delivery)
- %time in automated delivery was associated with time in range (TIR) and change in HbA1c
- After adjustment, HCL type was not an independent predictor of change in HbA1c nor TIR but remained a significant predictor of time below range (TBR)
Original publication
Comparative Effectiveness of Hybrid Closed-Loop Automated Insulin Delivery Systems Among Patients with Type 1 Diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. Published 1 April 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →