Transitioning between automated insulin delivery systems: A focus on personalisation

IF 6.1 3区医学 Q1 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM

Diabetes research and clinical practice Pub Date : 2025-02-26 DOI:10.1016/j.diabres.2025.112070

Pilar Isabel Beato-Víbora , Ana Chico , Jesus Moreno-Fernandez , Sharona Azriel-Mira , Lia Nattero-Chávez , Rosario Vallejo Mora , Núria Alonso-Carril , Olga Simó-Servat , Eva Aguilera-Hurtado , Luz María Reyes Céspedes , Marisol Ruiz de Adana , Marta Domínguez , Rosa Márquez-Pardo , Gonzalo Díaz-Soto , María Asunción Martínez-Brocca , Khusama Alkadi Fernández , Macarena Alpañés Buesa , Martín Cuesta Hernández , Carmen Quirós

{"title":"Transitioning between automated insulin delivery systems: A focus on personalisation","authors":"Pilar Isabel Beato-Víbora , Ana Chico , Jesus Moreno-Fernandez , Sharona Azriel-Mira , Lia Nattero-Chávez , Rosario Vallejo Mora , Núria Alonso-Carril , Olga Simó-Servat , Eva Aguilera-Hurtado , Luz María Reyes Céspedes , Marisol Ruiz de Adana , Marta Domínguez , Rosa Márquez-Pardo , Gonzalo Díaz-Soto , María Asunción Martínez-Brocca , Khusama Alkadi Fernández , Macarena Alpañés Buesa , Martín Cuesta Hernández , Carmen Quirós","doi":"10.1016/j.diabres.2025.112070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems are the most effective treatment for type 1 diabetes (T1D). When targets are not achieved, transitioning between AID systems is an option. The aim was to assess the impact of switching between systems on glucose control and user satisfaction.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A multicenter, cross-sectional analysis was conducted. T1D subjects who had switched between AID systems were included. Glycaemic control was compared before the switch, after 14 days, and after 3 months of use of the new system. The participants completed a satisfaction survey.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>96 subjects were included (age: 40.8 ± 11.5 years, 73 % female, HbA1c: 6.94 ± 0.68 % (52.3 ± 7 mmol/mol)). The AID systems evaluated included MiniMed<sup>TM</sup>-780G, Diabeloop-DBLG1, Tandem-t:slim-x2<sup>TM</sup>-Control-IQ<sup>TM</sup>, and CamAPS-FX. GMI improved from 6.92 ± 0.49 % to 6.71 ± 0.37 % after 14 days and to 6.68 ± 0.36 % after 3 months and Time in Range 70–180 mg/dl increased from 70.53 ± 11.43 % to 75.73 ± 8.33 % after 14 days and to 75.65 ± 7.64 % after 3 months (p < 0.001 to baseline). The majority of the participants reported higher satisfaction. The factors that most affected satisfaction were the size of the system, the performance of the sensor, and the specificities of the control algorithm.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Transitioning between AID systems can enhance glucose control and user satisfaction without compromising glycaemic stability during the adjustment period.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11249,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes research and clinical practice","volume":"222 ","pages":"Article 112070"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes research and clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168822725000841","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems are the most effective treatment for type 1 diabetes (T1D). When targets are not achieved, transitioning between AID systems is an option. The aim was to assess the impact of switching between systems on glucose control and user satisfaction.

Methods

A multicenter, cross-sectional analysis was conducted. T1D subjects who had switched between AID systems were included. Glycaemic control was compared before the switch, after 14 days, and after 3 months of use of the new system. The participants completed a satisfaction survey.

Results

96 subjects were included (age: 40.8 ± 11.5 years, 73 % female, HbA1c: 6.94 ± 0.68 % (52.3 ± 7 mmol/mol)). The AID systems evaluated included MiniMed^TM-780G, Diabeloop-DBLG1, Tandem-t:slim-x2^TM-Control-IQ^TM, and CamAPS-FX. GMI improved from 6.92 ± 0.49 % to 6.71 ± 0.37 % after 14 days and to 6.68 ± 0.36 % after 3 months and Time in Range 70–180 mg/dl increased from 70.53 ± 11.43 % to 75.73 ± 8.33 % after 14 days and to 75.65 ± 7.64 % after 3 months (p < 0.001 to baseline). The majority of the participants reported higher satisfaction. The factors that most affected satisfaction were the size of the system, the performance of the sensor, and the specificities of the control algorithm.

Conclusion

Transitioning between AID systems can enhance glucose control and user satisfaction without compromising glycaemic stability during the adjustment period.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Diabetes research and clinical practice 医学-内分泌学与代谢

CiteScore

10.30

自引率

3.90%

发文量

862

审稿时长

32 days

期刊介绍： Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice is an international journal for health-care providers and clinically oriented researchers that publishes high-quality original research articles and expert reviews in diabetes and related areas. The role of the journal is to provide a venue for dissemination of knowledge and discussion of topics related to diabetes clinical research and patient care. Topics of focus include translational science, genetics, immunology, nutrition, psychosocial research, epidemiology, prevention, socio-economic research, complications, new treatments, technologies and therapy.