Search

This article offers a systematic literature review (SLR) on the use of the MiniMed 780G automated insulin delivery system (MM780G) in people with type 1 diabetes (PwT1D) during Ramadan intermittent fasting. It also presents consensus recommendations on the use of MM780G during the Ramadan period. The SLR was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology. The recommendations resulted from a consensus-forming process involving a panel of experts. The process considered evidence found in the SLR as well as the expert opinions. In total, six studies were included in the SLR. The evidence and expert opinions led to recommendations related to (a) pre-Ramadan counseling of MM780G users who plan to fast; (b) suggested MM780G settings, meal announcement strategy, and safety aspects during Ramadan (including a contingency plan); and (c) post-Ramadan transition into and out of Eid-al-Fitr festivities. The SLR findings showed that the MM780G maintains glycemic control at target in PwT1D during Ramadan (meeting continuous glucose monitoring-based clinical targets proposed by the International Consensus on Time-in-Range) while ensuring low rates of hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis. Automated insulin delivery also helps PwT1D fast more days of Ramadan compared with users of other less advanced modalities of treatment. Pre-Ramadan guidance on specific aspects of the MM780G along with the International Diabetes Federation and Diabetes and Ramadan International Alliance counseling guidelines is recommended. There is still a challenge with post-Iftar hyperglycemia, which could potentially be mitigated by following the recommendations outlined in this article.

Aim: The aim was to determine the interdependence of targets for glucose management indicator (GMI), time within the ranges of 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) and 70-140 mg/dL (time in tight glucose range [TITR]), time above 180 mg/dL (TA180) and 250 mg/dL (TA250) and time below 70 mg/dL (TB70) and 54 mg/dL (TB54) and its implications for setting targets in automated insulin delivery (AID)., Materials and Methods: Real-world data from individuals with type 1 diabetes using the 780G system were used to calculate the receiver operating characteristic curves and establish interdependent targets for time in ranges based on several GMI benchmarks. Correlation, regression and principal component analysis were used to determine their association and dimensionality., Results: In individuals aged >15 years (n = 41 692), a GMI <6.5% required targets of >81%, >58%, <15% and <1.9% for TIR, TITR, TA180 and TA250, respectively, with high sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (>90%), whereas these values were poor for time in hypoglycaemia and GMI, which had a modest correlation (-0.21 to -0.43). Two dimensions emerged: (1) GMI, TIR, TITR, TA180 and TA250, and (2) TB70 and TB54, explaining 95% of total variability. GMI (or TIR) and TB70 explained >81% of the variability in the remaining continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics, providing accurate predictions. Individuals aged ≤15 years (n = 14 459) showed similar results., Conclusion: We developed a methodology to establish interdependent CGM targets for therapies with CGM data outputs. In AID with the 780G system, a GMI <7% requires time in ranges close to consensus targets. Targets for GMI, TIR, TITR, TA180 and TA250 could be reduced to targets for GMI or TIR, whereas targets for time in hypoglycaemia are not inherently tied to GMI/TIR targets., (© 2024 The Author(s). Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The aim of the study was to analyze the real-world performance of MiniMed 780G (MM780G) Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop (AHCL) system users from Poland (PL) and compare it to the European region excluding Poland (EU-PL) in order to identify factors contributing to potential differences. The former achieved some of the best Time in Range (TIR) results globally using this technology., Methods: CareLink Personal data uploaded by MM780G system users from August 2020 to December 2022 were analyzed., Results: The Polish users (N=1304) on average reached to TIR of 79.1 ± 8.7 % (vs 73.0 ± 10.0 % for EU-PL, N=55659), a TBR<54 mg/dL of 0.6 ± 0.7 % (vs 0.4 ± 0.6 %) and a TBR<70 mg/dL of 2.9 ± 2.1 % (vs 2.1 ± 1.8 %). The adoption rate of optimal settings (i.e, GT=100 mg/dL, AIT=2hr) in PL was high (19.7 % vs 6.3 %), and filtering on optimal setting users led to less pronounced differences in glycemic control between PL and EU-PL. A univariable analysis with post-AHCL TIR showed that geography itself (PL vs EU-PL) is not a significant contributor to a high post-AHCL TIR (p = 0.15), and that much of the Polish post-AHCL TIR can be explained by the high pre-AHCL TIR., Conclusion: The Polish MM780G users achieved better glycemic control than the general European population (excluding Poland). This is largely attributable to the adoption of optimal settings in Poland and the already high glycemic outcomes at system start. As these characteristics can be implemented elsewhere, we believe this outstanding result can be obtained in other countries as well., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [Bartłomiej Matejko, Tim van den Heuvel, Javier Castaneda, Arcelia Arrieta, Katarzyna Cyranka, Ohad Cohen, Maciej Małecki, Tomasz Klupa; Duality of Interest. JC, AA, TH, and OC are employees of Medtronic Europe. MM, TK – cooperation with Medtronic company: lectures, scientific support Advisory Board. BM, KC: cooperation with Medtronic company: lectures]., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: This analysis reports the findings from a predefined exploratory cohort (cohort B) from the ADAPT (ADvanced Hybrid Closed Loop Study in Adult Population with Type 1 Diabetes) study. Adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) with suboptimal glucose control were randomly allocated to an advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system or multiple daily injections of insulin (MDI) plus real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM)., Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, exploratory, open-label, randomized controlled trial, 13 participants using MDI + RT-CGM and with HbA1c ≥8.0% were randomized to switch to AHCL (n = 8) or continue with MDI + RT-CGM (n = 5) for six months. Prespecified endpoints included the between-group difference in mean change from baseline in HbA1c, CGM-derived measures of glycemic control, and safety., Results: The mean HbA1c level decreased by 1.70 percentage points in the AHCL group versus a 0.60 percentage point decrease in the MDI + RT-CGM group, with a model-based treatment effect of -1.08 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.17 to 0.00 percentage points; P = .0508) in favor of AHCL. The percentage of time spent with sensor glucose levels between 70 and 180 mg/dL in the study phase was 73.6% in the AHCL group and 46.4% in the MDI + RT-CGM group; model-based between-group difference of 28.8 percentage points (95% CI = 12.3 to 45.3 percentage points; P = .0035). No diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred in either group., Conclusions: In people with T1D with HbA1c ≥8.0%, the use of AHCL resulted in improved glycemic control relative to MDI + RT-CGM. The scale of improvement suggests that AHCL should be considered as an option for people not achieving good glycemic control on MDI + RT-CGM., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: WK has received speaker fees from Medtronic and support for travel and attending ADAPT study meetings from Medtronic. JK has received payment and honoraria for lectures and presentations from Medtronic. RR, SdP, LV, JS, JC, TvdH, RV and OC are current employees and shareholders of Medtronic. RK declares no competing interests.