Head-to-Head Comparison of Two Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in Children with Type 1 Diabetes during a 2-Week Summer Camp: An Exploratory Prospective Study
Authors' conclusion
Despite the camp's challenges, both AID systems were safe and effective, meeting recommended CGM-derived treatment targets. Furthermore, AID systems showed superior glycaemic control compared to SAP.
Study context
- Population
- Children with T1D at a 14-day summer diabetes camp (July 2024); mean age 10 ± 1.3 years
- Participants
- 26 children
- Exposure
- MiniMed 780G vs CamAPS FX automated insulin delivery (AID) systems; AID vs sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAP)
- MiniMed 780Gn = 13
- CamAPS FXn = 7
- SAPn = 6reference
- Outcome
- Time in range over the camp
- Follow-up
- 14-day camp
Methodological detailshead-to-head comparison, 14-day diabetes camp
- Head-to-head comparison
- 14-day diabetes camp
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
TIR (70-180 mg/dL) · over the camp
P = 0.30
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
%
| Outcome | MiniMed 780G | CamAPS FX | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overnight time below 54 mg/dLMiniMed 780G vs CamAPS FX · less with MiniMed 780G | 0.0 (IQR 0.0–0.0%) | 0.4 (IQR 0.0–0.7%) | P = 0.024 |
- TIR, SAP vs both AID systems · over the camp · significantly lower TIR with SAP
- P = 0.006
Other glycaemic metrics and insulin dosage, MiniMed 780G vs CamAPS FX
- No significant differences
Correlation of CV with total number of steps
- Positive correlation, r
- 0.39; p = 0.0459
Original publication
Head-to-Head Comparison of Two Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in Children with Type 1 Diabetes during a 2-Week Summer Camp: An Exploratory Prospective Study. Horm Res Paediatr. Published 11 September 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →