Postprandial Glucose Control With Different Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems According to Type of Meal in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND

Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems (HCLs) may not perform optimally on postprandial glucose control. We evaluated how first-generation and advanced HCLs manage meals varying in carbohydrates, fat, and protein.

METHOD

According to a cross-sectional design, seven-day food records and HCLs reports from 120 adults with type 1 diabetes (MiniMed670G: n = 40, MiniMed780G: n = 49, Control-IQ [C-IQ]: n = 31) were analyzed. Breakfasts (n = 570), lunches (n = 658), and dinners (n = 619) were divided according to the median of their carbohydrate (g)/fat (g) protein (g) ratio (C/FP). After breakfast (4-hour), lunch (6-hour), and dinner (6-hour), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics and early and late glucose incremental area under the curves (iAUCs) and delivered insulin doses were evaluated. The association of C/FP and HCLs with postprandial glucose and insulin patterns was analyzed by univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a two-factor design.

RESULTS

Postprandial glucose time-in-range 70 to 180 mg/dL was optimal after breakfast (78.3 ± 26.9%), lunch (72.7 ± 26.1%), and dinner (70.8 ± 27.3%), with no significant differences between HCLs. Independent of C/FP, late glucose-iAUC after lunch was significantly lower in C-IQ users than 670G and 780G ( < .05), with no significant differences at breakfast and dinner. Postprandial insulin pattern (Ins Ins) differed by type of HCLs at lunch ( = .026) and dinner ( < .001), being the early insulin dose (Ins) higher than the late dose (Ins) in 670G and 780G users with an opposite pattern in C-IQ users.

CONCLUSIONS

Independent of different proportions of dietary carbohydrates, fat, and protein, postprandial glucose response was similar in users of different HCLs, although obtained through different automatic insulin delivery patterns.