The significance of coefficient of variation as a measure of hypoglycaemia risk and glycaemic control in real world users of the automated insulin delivery MiniMed 780G system
Authors' conclusion
For MM780G users, CV is a poor marker for hypoglycaemia risk and glycaemic control. We recommend using, for the former, TBR and whether the TBR target is met (and not using CV <36% as a therapeutic threshold for hypoglycaemia); for the latter, TIR, time above range, whether targets are met and a discrete description of mean SG and SD of SG values.
Study context
- Population
- Real-world users of the MiniMed 780G AID system (MM780G)MM780G users
- Participants
- 10,404 users
- Exposure
- Coefficient of variation (CV) vs SD and low blood glucose index as markers of hypoglycaemia risk and glycaemic control
- Outcome
- Contribution of CV to hypoglycaemia risk (not reaching time below range (TBR) target <1%) and to achieving TIR >70% and GMI <7%
Methodological detailsreal-world data, multivariable logistic regression
- Real-world data
- Multivariable logistic regression
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Contribution of CV to hypoglycaemia risk and glycaemic targets
- Contribution of CV was the smallest for hypoglycaemia risk (vs low blood glucose index and SD) and for TIR and GMI targets (vs SD)
- Models with SD showed the best fit in all cases
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Optimal CV cut-off discriminating users at risk of hypoglycaemia
- Optimal cut-off: CV <
- 43.4% (95% CI 42.9-43.9)
- Correct classification rate, CV <43.4%
- 87.2%
- Correct classification rate, CV <36%
- 72.9%
Original publication
The significance of coefficient of variation as a measure of hypoglycaemia risk and glycaemic control in real world users of the automated insulin delivery MiniMed 780G system. Diabetes Obes Metab. Published 29 May 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →