One year follow up comparison of two advanced hybrid closed loop systems in adolescent patients with type 1 diabetes
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2023 |
| Type | Conference abstract |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Description | Introduction: Tandem Control-IQ and MiniMed 780G are currently the two advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) systems most commonly used in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the Czech Republic. Adolescents and young adults are the group with the highest HbA1C values, often unable to reach recommended glycemic targets. Objectives: The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare data from continuous glucose monitoring in adolescent patients one year after initiation of AHCL (Tandem Control-IQ and MiniMed 780G ) therapy. Methods: Thirty-four adolescent (15 Tandem system, 19 MiniMed 780G system, M: F 16: 18, mean age 15 years, diabetes duration > 1 year) with T1D, previously treated with Predictive Low Glucose Suspend (PLGS) systems or Multiple Daily Injections (MDI) and then upgraded to AHCL have been enrolled. Glycemic control (GMI and time in ranges, mean glucose value, standard deviation, coefficient of variation) and AHCL characteristic (total insulin dose, basal/bolus ratio, total carbohydrates) were analyzed at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months after initiation of the AHCL system. Results: For both AHCL systems, there was a significant increase in time in range (TIR) after 3 months of treatment from 65.1 to 80.1% (p < 0.0004) and from 74.8 to 79.6% (p < 0.021 ). The MiniMed 780 group achieved significant increase in TIR over the year as well as a reduction in total time below range (TBR). For the Tandem Control-IQ group, there was a significant reduction in TBR during the whole year. Severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis were not observed. Conclusions: Tandem Control-IQ and MiniMed 780 G systems lead to improved glycemic control in adolescent patients with T1D especially during the first 3 months after initiation of AHCL therapy. The comparison between the two evaluated systems in our study did not show significant diferences in all monitor parameters after 12 months from the start of the therapy. |