Minsky Noga, Shalit Roy, Benedetti Andrea, Laron-Hirsh Maya, Cohen Ohad, Kurtz Natalie, Roy Anirban, Grosman Benyamin, Tirosh Amir
Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer, Israel.
Medtronic, Northridge, California, USA.
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2025 Jan;27(1):27-33. doi: 10.1089/dia.2024.0224. Epub 2024 Aug 22.
The advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm combines automated basal rates and corrections yet requires meal announcement for optimal performance, which poses a challenge for some. We aimed to compare glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using the MiniMed 780G AHCL system, utilizing simplified meal announcement versus precise carbohydrate (CHO) counting. In a study involving 14 adults with T1D, we evaluated glycemic control during a 13-week "precise phase," followed by two 3- to 4-week simplified meal announcement phases: "fixed one-step" (preset of one personalized fixed CHO amount) and "multistep" (entry of multiples of one, two, or three of these presets depending on meal size estimate). The mean age was 45.7 ± 12.4, and 10 participants were male (71%). Mean baseline HbA1c was 6.8% ± 1.2% and time in range (TIR) was 67.5% ± 16.7%. Comparing the fixed one-step to the precise study phase, TIR was similar (75.4 ± 13% vs. 77.7 ± 9%, = 0.12), and glucose management indicator (GMI) was slightly higher (6.8 ± 0.4 vs. 6.6 ± 0, = 0.01). Furthermore, there was less level 1 and 2 hypoglycemia (1.6 ± 1% vs. 2.8 ± 2%, = 0.03 and 0.3 ± 5% vs. 0.65 ± 1%, = 0.08) but slightly more level 1 and 2 hyperglycemia (17.1 ± 8% vs. 15.0 ± 7%, = 0.05 and 5.5 ± 5% vs. 3.6 ± 3%, = 0.04). When comparing the multistep with the precise phase, GMI was identical (6.6%) and TIR superior (80.5 ± 10% vs. 77.7 ± 9%, = 0.02). Additionally, there was less level 1 hypoglycemia (1.9 ± 1% vs. 2.8 ± 2%, = 0.01) and a trend for less level 2 hypoglycemia (0.4 ± 0.7% vs. 0.65 ± 1%, = 0.08). A simplified meal announcement strategy for adults using the MiniMed 780G system, relying on three increments of a fixed one-step CHO amount, may offer a way to improve glycemic control and ease self-care. For patients with more limitations, using one fixed one-step CHO amount could be a safe alternative to meeting most consensus glycemic targets.
先进的混合闭环(AHCL)算法结合了自动基础率和校正功能,但为实现最佳性能仍需要进行进餐告知,这对一些人来说是一项挑战。我们旨在比较使用美敦力780G AHCL系统的1型糖尿病(T1D)成人患者的血糖控制情况,采用简化进餐告知与精确碳水化合物(CHO)计数的方法。在一项涉及14名T1D成人患者的研究中,我们在为期13周的“精确阶段”评估了血糖控制情况,随后是两个为期3至4周的简化进餐告知阶段:“固定单步”(预设一个个性化的固定CHO量)和“多步”(根据估计的进餐量输入这些预设量的一、二或三倍)。平均年龄为45.7±12.4岁,10名参与者为男性(71%)。平均基线糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)为6.8%±1.2%,血糖在目标范围内的时间(TIR)为67.5%±16.7%。将固定单步阶段与精确研究阶段进行比较,TIR相似(75.4±13%对77.7±9%,P=0.12),血糖管理指标(GMI)略高(6.8±0.4对6.6±0,P=0.01)。此外,1级和2级低血糖事件较少(1.6±1%对2.8±2%,P=0.03;0.3±5%对0.65±1%,P=0.08),但1级和2级高血糖事件略多(17.1±8%对15.0±7%,P=0.05;5.5±5%对3.6±3%,P=0.04)。将多步阶段与精确阶段进行比较,GMI相同(6.6%),TIR更优(80.5±10%对77.7±9%,P=0.02)。此外,1级低血糖事件较少(1.9±1%对2.8±2%,P=0.01),2级低血糖事件有减少趋势(0.4±0.7%对0.65±1%,P=0.08)。对于使用美敦力780G系统的成人患者,采用基于固定单步CHO量的三个增量的简化进餐告知策略,可能为改善血糖控制和简化自我护理提供一种方法。对于限制更多的患者,使用一个固定的单步CHO量可能是实现大多数共识血糖目标的安全替代方法。