Suppr超能文献

1型糖尿病的精准医学:根据患者特征比较Control-IQ和MiniMed 780G的代谢结果。

Precision medicine in type 1 diabetes: comparing metabolic outcomes of Control-IQ and MiniMed 780G according to patient characteristics.

作者信息

Gargouri Imene, Charfi Hana, Belabed Wafa, Outenah Cécilia, Pochat Armelle, Touimer Menaouar, Huynh Pascaline, Petit Catherine, Lejeune Marie, Eroukhmanoff Juliette, Ly Sall Khadijatou, Penfornis Alfred, Amadou Coralie

机构信息

Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Sud-Francilien Hospital, Corbeil-Essonnes, France.

Paris-Saclay University, Kremlin-Bicêtre Medical School, Kremlin Bicêtre, France.

出版信息

Diabetes Obes Metab. 2025 Mar;27(3):1233-1241. doi: 10.1111/dom.16118. Epub 2024 Dec 17.

Abstract

AIMS

This study aimed to compare 12-month metabolic outcomes in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with either MiniMed 780G (Guardian 4) or Control-IQ (Dexcom G6) automated insulin delivery (AID) systems and identify interaction with patient characteristics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a single-centre, retrospective study including all patients (aged ≥16) with T1D who were started on either MiniMed 780G or Control-IQ between January 2021 and October 2022 and continued for ≥12 months. We used propensity score matching to compare the average marginal effects between MiniMed 780G and Control-IQ regarding the primary outcome (time in range [TIR]) and secondary outcomes (time below range [TBR], glucose monitoring indicator [GMI] and coefficient of variation [CV]) after 12 months. We tested for interaction effects between baseline characteristics (age, sex, socio-professional background, body mass index, insulin daily dose, carbohydrate counting practice) and treatment effect.

RESULTS

We included 245 patients (58% women): 178 treated with Control-IQ and 67 with MiniMed 780G. The mean ± SD age and haemoglobin A1c were 39 ± 15 years and 8.7 ± 1.8% (72 ± 20 mmol/mol) respectively. In the propensity score-matched sample (n = 221), we observed significant differences in 12-month TIR (MiniMed 780G minus Control-IQ [95% CI]: 6.4 [3.4;9.5]), GMI (-0.42 [-0.59; -0.25]) and CV (-2.12 [-3.68; -0.55]), while TBR showed no significant difference (-0.04 [-0.47; +0.40]). The 12-month TIR difference was consistent across subgroups, including baseline carbohydrate counting characteristics.

CONCLUSION

MiniMed 780G is associated with moderate metabolic superiority compared to Control-IQ, without interaction with patient characteristics. These results suggest that neither model is more appropriate for certain populations, particularly patients without carbohydrate counting practice.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较使用美敦力780G(Guardian 4)或Control-IQ(德康G6)自动胰岛素输送(AID)系统治疗的1型糖尿病(T1D)患者12个月的代谢结果,并确定与患者特征的相互作用。

材料与方法

我们进行了一项单中心回顾性研究,纳入了2021年1月至2022年10月期间开始使用美敦力780G或Control-IQ且持续使用≥12个月的所有T1D患者(年龄≥16岁)。我们使用倾向评分匹配法比较美敦力780G和Control-IQ在12个月后关于主要结局(血糖在目标范围内的时间 [TIR])和次要结局(血糖低于目标范围的时间 [TBR]、血糖监测指标 [GMI] 和变异系数 [CV])的平均边际效应。我们测试了基线特征(年龄、性别、社会职业背景、体重指数、每日胰岛素剂量、碳水化合物计数习惯)与治疗效果之间的相互作用效应。

结果

我们纳入了245例患者(58% 为女性):178例接受Control-IQ治疗,67例接受美敦力780G治疗。平均 ± 标准差年龄和糖化血红蛋白分别为39 ± 15岁和8.7 ± 1.8%(72 ± 20 mmol/mol)。在倾向评分匹配样本(n = 221)中,我们观察到12个月的TIR(美敦力780G减去Control-IQ [95% CI]:6.4 [3.4;9.5])、GMI(-0.42 [-0.59; -0.25])和CV(-2.12 [-3.68; -0.55])存在显著差异,而TBR无显著差异(-0.04 [-0.47; +0.40])。12个月的TIR差异在各亚组中一致,包括基线碳水化合物计数特征。

结论

与Control-IQ相比,美敦力780G具有中等程度的代谢优势,且与患者特征无相互作用。这些结果表明,两种模式对特定人群均无更合适之分,尤其是对于没有碳水化合物计数习惯的患者。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/949c/11802389/e159869c89c0/DOM-27-1233-g002.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验