Bombaci Bruno, Passanisi Stefano, Valenzise Mariella, Macrì Fabio, Calderone Marco, Hasaj Senad, Zullo Sofia, Salzano Giuseppina, Lombardo Fortunato
Department of Human Pathology in Adult and Developmental Age "Gaetano Barresi," University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2025 Jan;19(1):98-104. doi: 10.1177/19322968231185115. Epub 2023 Jul 11.
The aim of this single-center observational study was to assess the real-world performance of first- and second-generation automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in a cohort of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes over a one-year follow-up.
Demographic, anamnestic, and clinical data of the study cohort were collected at the start of automatic mode. Data on continuous glucose monitoring metrics, system settings, insulin requirements, and anthropometric parameters at three different time points (start period, six months, 12 months) were retrospectively gathered and statistically analyzed.
Fifty-four individuals (55.6% of females) aged 7 to 18 years switching to AID therapy were included in the analysis. Two weeks after starting automatic mode, subjects using advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) showed a better response than hybrid closed-loop (HCL) users in terms of time in range ( = .016), time above range 180 to 250 mg/dl ( = .022), sensor mean glucose ( = .047), and glycemia risk index ( = .012). After 12 months, AHCL group maintained better mean sensor glucose ( = .021) and glucose management indicator ( = .027). Noteworthy, both HCL and AHCL users achieved the recommended clinical targets over the entire study period. The second-generation AID system registered longer time spent with automatic mode activated and fewer shifts to manual mode at every time point ( < .001).
Both systems showed sustained and successful glycemic outcomes in the first year of use. However, AHCL users achieved tighter glycemic targets, without an increase of hypoglycemia risk. Improved usability of the device may also have contributed to optimal glycemic outcomes by ensuring better continuity of the automatic mode activation.
这项单中心观察性研究的目的是评估第一代和第二代自动胰岛素输送(AID)系统在1型糖尿病儿童和青少年队列中进行一年随访的真实世界表现。
在自动模式开始时收集研究队列的人口统计学、既往史和临床数据。回顾性收集并统计分析三个不同时间点(起始期、六个月、12个月)的连续血糖监测指标、系统设置、胰岛素需求和人体测量参数数据。
分析纳入了54名7至18岁开始使用AID治疗的个体(55.6%为女性)。开始自动模式两周后,在血糖达标时间(P = 0.016)、血糖高于180至250 mg/dl的时间(P = 0.022)、传感器平均血糖(P = 0.047)和血糖风险指数(P = 0.012)方面,使用高级混合闭环(AHCL)的受试者比混合闭环(HCL)使用者表现更好。12个月后,AHCL组维持了更好的平均传感器血糖(P = 0.021)和血糖管理指标(P = 0.027)。值得注意的是,HCL和AHCL使用者在整个研究期间均达到了推荐的临床目标。第二代AID系统在每个时间点的自动模式激活时间更长,手动模式转换次数更少(P < 0.001)。
两种系统在使用的第一年都显示出持续且成功的血糖控制结果。然而,AHCL使用者实现了更严格的血糖目标,且低血糖风险并未增加。设备易用性的提高也可能通过确保自动模式激活的更好连续性,对最佳血糖控制结果有所贡献。