Diabetes research and clinical practice · 2025
Transitioning between automated insulin delivery systems: A focus on personalisation.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Beato-Víbora Pilar Isabel, Chico Ana, Moreno-Fernandez Jesus, Azriel-Mira Sharona, Nattero-Chávez Lia, Mora Rosario Vallejo, Alonso-Carril Núria, Simó-Servat Olga, Aguilera-Hurtado Eva, Reyes Céspedes Luz María, de Adana Marisol Ruiz, Domínguez Marta, Márquez-Pardo Rosa, Díaz-Soto Gonzalo, Martínez-Brocca María Asunción, Fernández Khusama Alkadi, Buesa Macarena Alpañés, Hernández Martín Cuesta, Quirós Carmen
Аннотация
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 MiniMedTM-780G, Diabeloop-DBLG1, Tandem-t:slim-x2TM-Control-IQTM, 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.
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 MiniMedTM-780G, Diabeloop-DBLG1, Tandem-t:slim-x2TM-Control-IQTM, 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.