Endocrinologia, diabetes y nutricion · 2025
Active insulin time setting in MiniMed™ 780G: Impact on glucose control and patient perception.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Enciso Izquierdo Fidel Jesús, Amaya García María José, Gómez Turégano Paula, Luengo Andrada María, Cordero Vaquero Ana Alejandra, Lucas Gamero José Antonio, Garrido Domínguez Sergio, Álvarez Reyes Irene
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The active insulin time (AIT) is an adjustable parameter of the MiniMed™ 780G (MM780G) system. We analyze glucose outcomes and patient perception at different AIT settings.
METHOD: We conducted a quasi-experimental study on type 1 diabetes mellitus patients treated with MM780G, seen consecutively in our center. AIT was set at 2, 3 and 4h consecutively, during a 2-week period each. Glucose metrics, insulin delivery and a questionnaire about patient perception were evaluated. At the end, results were discussed with the patient and the most appropriate AIT was agreed upon.
RESULTS: A total of 58 users were included, aged 18-65 years, 58.6% of whom were women. At baseline, 2-h AIT was set in 6.70% of the patients, >2-h AIT and ≤3-h AIT in 24.67%, >3-h AIT and ≤4-h AIT in 58.62%, and >4-h AIT in 10.34%. Under the 2-h AIT, TIR increased by 2.28% and 6.35% vs 3- and 4-h AIT, respectively. The auto-correction boluses percentage was 21.19% at 2-h AIT, 16.90% at 3-h AIT and 14.40% at 4-h AIT. A total of 41.4% of the users considered that 3h was the AIT that most met their needs and 43.1% felt safer and less vulnerable to hypoglycemia at this setting. After trying on different AIT durations, 2h increased from 6.7% of participants to 62%.
CONCLUSION: At 2-h AIT, the system delivers more auto-correction insulin and improves TIR vs 3- and 4-h AIT. Patients feel safer and less susceptible to hypoglycemia at 3-h AIT, but 2 out of 3 would rather choose the 2-h AIT after knowing glycemic outcomes.
METHOD: We conducted a quasi-experimental study on type 1 diabetes mellitus patients treated with MM780G, seen consecutively in our center. AIT was set at 2, 3 and 4h consecutively, during a 2-week period each. Glucose metrics, insulin delivery and a questionnaire about patient perception were evaluated. At the end, results were discussed with the patient and the most appropriate AIT was agreed upon.
RESULTS: A total of 58 users were included, aged 18-65 years, 58.6% of whom were women. At baseline, 2-h AIT was set in 6.70% of the patients, >2-h AIT and ≤3-h AIT in 24.67%, >3-h AIT and ≤4-h AIT in 58.62%, and >4-h AIT in 10.34%. Under the 2-h AIT, TIR increased by 2.28% and 6.35% vs 3- and 4-h AIT, respectively. The auto-correction boluses percentage was 21.19% at 2-h AIT, 16.90% at 3-h AIT and 14.40% at 4-h AIT. A total of 41.4% of the users considered that 3h was the AIT that most met their needs and 43.1% felt safer and less vulnerable to hypoglycemia at this setting. After trying on different AIT durations, 2h increased from 6.7% of participants to 62%.
CONCLUSION: At 2-h AIT, the system delivers more auto-correction insulin and improves TIR vs 3- and 4-h AIT. Patients feel safer and less susceptible to hypoglycemia at 3-h AIT, but 2 out of 3 would rather choose the 2-h AIT after knowing glycemic outcomes.