MiniMed 780G System Outperforms Other Automated Insulin Systems Due to Algorithm Design, Not Bias – Response to Inaccurate Allegations

Tim van den Heuvel,Javier Castañeda,Arcelia Arrieta,Isabeau Thijs,Lou Lintereur,John Shin,Ohad Cohen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2024.0121

2024-04-03

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:Diabetes Technology &Therapeutics, Volume 0, Issue ja, -Not available-.

endocrinology & metabolism

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Response to: MiniMed 780G System Outperforms Other Automated Insulin Systems Due to Algorithm Design, Not Bias – Response to Inaccurate Allegations

Gregory P. Forlenza,Jennifer L Sherr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2024.0125

2024-03-22

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:Diabetes Technology &Therapeutics, Volume 0, Issue ja, -Not available-.

endocrinology & metabolism
A Peek Under the Hood: Explaining the MiniMedTM 780G Algorithm with Meal Detection Technology

Benyamin Grosman,Anirban Roy,Louis Lintereur,Kamuran Turksoy,Andrea Benedetti,Toni L. Cordero,Robert A. Vigersky,Jennifer McVean,Andrew S. Rhinehart,Ohad Cohen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2023.0446

2024-02-21

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:The MiniMedTM 780G system (780G) received Conformité Européenne mark in June 2020 and was, recently, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (April 2023). Clinical trials and real-world analyses have demonstrated MiniMedTM 780G system safety and effectiveness and that glycemic outcomes (i.e., time in range) improve with recommended settings use. In this publication, we will explain the iterative development of the 780G algorithm and how this technology has simplified diabetes management.

endocrinology & metabolism
Improved Glycemic Outcomes With Medtronic MiniMed Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Delivery: Results From a Randomized Crossover Trial Comparing Automated Insulin Delivery With Predictive Low Glucose Suspend in People With Type 1 Diabetes

Olivia J Collyns,Renee A Meier,Zara L Betts,Denis S H Chan,Chris Frampton,Carla M Frewen,Niranjala M Hewapathirana,Shirley D Jones,Anirban Roy,Benyamin Grosman,Natalie Kurtz,John Shin,Robert A Vigersky,Benjamin J Wheeler,Martin I de Bock,Olivia J. Collyns,Renee A. Meier,Zara L. Betts,Denis S.H. Chan,Carla M. Frewen,Niranjala M. Hewapathirana,Shirley D. Jones,Robert A. Vigersky,Benjamin J. Wheeler,Martin I. de Bock

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-2250

2021-02-12

Diabetes Care

Abstract:OBJECTIVE To study the MiniMed Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) system, which includes an algorithm with individualized basal target set points, automated correction bolus function, and improved Auto Mode stability. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This dual-center, randomized, open-label, two-sequence crossover study in automated-insulin-delivery–naive participants with type 1 diabetes (aged 7–80 years) compared AHCL to sensor-augmented pump therapy with predictive low glucose management (SAP + PLGM). Each study phase was 4 weeks, preceded by a 2- to 4-week run-in and separated by a 2-week washout. RESULTS The study was completed by 59 of 60 people (mean age 23.3 ± 14.4 years). Time in target range (TIR) 3.9–10 mmol/L (70–180 mg/dL) favored AHCL over SAP + PLGM (70.4 ± 8.1% vs. 57.9 ± 11.7%) by 12.5 ± 8.5% (P < 0.001), with greater improvement overnight (18.8 ± 12.9%, P < 0.001). All age-groups (children [7–13 years], adolescents [14–21 years], and adults [>22 years]) demonstrated improvement, with adolescents showing the largest improvement (14.4 ± 8.4%). Mean sensor glucose (SG) at run-in was 9.3 ± 0.9 mmol/L (167 ± 16.2 mg/dL) and improved with AHCL (8.5 ± 0.7 mmol/L [153 ± 12.6 mg/dL], P < 0.001), but deteriorated during PLGM (9.5 ± 1.1 mmol/L [17 ± 19.8 mg/dL], P < 0.001). TIR was optimal when the algorithm set point was 5.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) compared with 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL), 72.0 ± 7.9% vs. 64.6 ± 6.9%, respectively, with no additional hypoglycemia. Auto Mode was active 96.4 ± 4.0% of the time. The percentage of hypoglycemia at baseline (<3.9 mmol/L [70 mg/dL] and ≤3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) was 3.1 ± 2.1% and 0.5 ± 0.6%, respectively. During AHCL, the percentage time at <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) improved to 2.1 ± 1.4% (P = 0.034) and was statistically but not clinically reduced for ≤3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) (0.5 ± 0.5%; P = 0.025). There was one episode of mild diabetic ketoacidosis attributed to an infusion set failure in combination with an intercurrent illness, which occurred during the SAP + PLGM arm. CONCLUSIONS AHCL with automated correction bolus demonstrated significant improvement in glucose control compared with SAP + PLGM. A lower algorithm SG set point during AHCL resulted in greater TIR, with no increase in hypoglycemia.

endocrinology & metabolism
A comparison of the usage of an open-source automated insulin delivery system and the MiniMedTM 780 G system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in real-world settings: the AWeSoMe study group

Zohar Landau,Yael Lebenthal,Kineret Mazor-Aronovitch,Avivit Brener,Noah Levek,Talia Jacobi-Polishook,Tal Ben Ari,Shirly Abiri,Alon Haim,Judith Nir,Marianna Rachmiel,Orit Pinhas-Hamiel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-024-03683-w

2024-01-17

Endocrine

Abstract:In recent years there has been a noticeable increase in the use of advanced hybrid closed-loop systems (AHCLs) for managing type 1 diabetes (T1D) among youth. However, there is a lack of comparison between the open-source automated insulin delivery (AID) system and the MiniMedTM 780 G system (780 G).

endocrinology & metabolism
Early Real-World Performance of the MiniMedTM 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System and Recommended Settings Use in the United States

James R. Thrasher,Arcelia Arrieta,Fang Niu,Katherine R. Cameron,Toni L. Cordero,John Shin,Andrew S. Rhinehart,Robert A. Vigersky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2023.0453

2024-02-21

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:Background: The MiniMedTM 780G system (MM780G) with GuardianTM 4 sensor includes a 100 mg/dL glucose target (GT) and automated insulin corrections up to every 5 min and was recently approved for use in the United States. In the present study, early real-world MM780G performance and the use of recommended system settings (100 mg/dL GT with an active insulin time of 2 h), by individuals with type 1 diabetes, were evaluated. Methods: CareLinkTM personal data uploaded between the launch of the MM780G to August 22, 2023 were aggregated and underwent retrospective analysis (based on user consent) and if users had ≥10 days of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data. The 24-h day CGM metrics, including mean glucose, percentage of time spent in (%TIR), above (%TAR), and below (%TBR) target range (70–180 mg/dL), in addition to delivered insulin and closed-loop (CL) exits, were compared between an overall group ( n = 7499) and individuals who used recommended settings (each, for >95% of the time). An analysis of the same metrics for MiniMedTM 770G system (MM770G) users ( n = 3851) who upgraded to the MM780G was also conducted (paired t -test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < 0.05 considered statistically significant). Results: For MM780G users, CGM use, and time in CL were >90% and all MM780G CGM metrics exceeded consensus-recommended goals. With recommended settings (22% of all users), mean %TIR and %TITR (70–140 mg/dL) were 81.4% and 56.4%, respectively. For individuals who upgraded from the MM770G, %TIR and %TITR increased from 73.2% to 78.3% and 45.8% to 52.6%, respectively, while %TAR reduced from 25.1% to 20.2% ( P < 0.001, for all three). CL exits/week averaged <1, for all MM780G users. Conclusions: Early real-world MM780G use in the United States demonstrated a high percentage of time in range with low time above and below range. These outcomes are similar to those observed for real-world MM780G use in other countries.

endocrinology & metabolism
Reducing Diabetes Burden in Medtronic's Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

Gregory P. Forlenza,Zheng Dai,Fang Niu,John J. Shin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2023.0459

2024-02-21

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:Background: The MiniMedTM 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop system (MM780G) builds on the basal automation and low-glucose protection features of the MiniMedTM 670G and 770G systems. While previous publications have focused on glycemic control improvements with MM780G, burden reduction has not been fully described. Methods: Data from two 3-month pivotal trials for the MM670G with GuardianTM Sensor 3 (GS3) (104 adults; 125 children) and MM780G with GuardianTM 4 Sensor (G4S) (67 adults;109 children) were compared. Real-world data (RWD) from United States users ( N = 3851) transitioning from MM770G+GS3 to MM780G+G4S were also analyzed. Analyses included a new metric for diabetes management burden (i.e., pentagon composite metric), glycemic outcomes and system burden (e.g., closed-loop exits and fingersticks per day). Results: Diabetes burden metric (−22.8% and −28.5%), time in range (+3.1% [* P = 0.035] and +6.4% [ P < 0.001]) and time below range (−1.8% [* P < 0.001] and −0.7% [* P < 0.001]) significantly improved, compared to MM670G for adult and pediatric participants, respectively. The pediatric mean sensor glucose (SG) reduced by −8.6 mg/dL (* P < 0.001), while the adults' saw no change. Closed-loop use significantly increased for both cohorts (+17.1% [* P < 0.001] and +20.5% [* P < 0.001]). Closed-loop exits were significantly reduced to about 1 per week (−0.5 [* P < 0.001] and −0.7 [* P < 0.001]); fingerstick tests were also reduced (−6.2 [* P < 0.001] and −6.9 [* P < 0.001]). Similar outcomes were observed from U.S. RWD. Conclusions: MiniMedTM 780G with G4S use was associated with significant reduction in diabetes management burden with fewer closed-loop exits, fingersticks and other interactions, and improvements in glycemic control when compared to the MiniMedTM 670G with GS3.

endocrinology & metabolism
Excellence in the management of Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems: Lessons from the Polish cohort

Bartłomiej Matejko,Tim van den Heuvel,Javier Castaneda,Arcelia Arrieta,Katarzyna Cyranka,Ohad Cohen,Maciej Małecki,Tomasz Klupa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2024.111832

Abstract: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.
Glycemic Outcomes During Early Use of the MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System with Guardian™ 4 Sensor

Toni L Cordero,Zheng Dai,Arcelia Arrieta,Fang Niu,Melissa Vella,John Shin,Andrew S Rhinehart,Jennifer McVean,Scott W Lee,Robert H Slover,Gregory P Forlenza,Dorothy I Shulman,Rodica Pop-Busui,James R Thrasher,Mark S Kipnes,Mark P Christiansen,Bruce A Buckingham,Catherine Pihoker,Jennifer L Sherr,Kevin B Kaiserman,Robert A Vigersky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2023.0123

Abstract:Background: Safety and significant improvement in overall glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and percentage of time spent in (TIR), below (TBR), and above (TAR) glucose range were demonstrated in the pivotal trial of adolescents and adults using the MiniMed™ advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system with the adjunctive, calibration-required Guardian™ Sensor 3. The present study evaluated early outcomes of continued access study (CAS) participants who transitioned from the pivotal trial investigational system to the approved MiniMed™ 780G system with the non-adjunctive, calibration-free Guardian™ 4 Sensor (MM780G+G4S). Study data were presented alongside those of real-world MM780G+G4S users from Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Methods: The CAS participants (N = 109, aged 7-17 years and N = 67, aged >17 years) used the MM780G+G4S for 3 months and data of real-world MM780G+G4S system users (N = 10,204 aged ≤15 years and N = 26,099 aged >15 years) were uploaded from September 22, 2021 to December 02, 2022. At least 10 days of real-world continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data were required for analyses. Glycemic metrics, delivered insulin and system use/interactions underwent descriptive analyses. Results: Time in AHCL and CGM use were >90% for all groups. AHCL exits averaged 0.1/day and there were few blood glucose measurements (BGMs) (0.8/day-1.0/day). Adults in both cohorts met most consensus recommendations for glycemic targets. Pediatric groups met recommendations for %TIR and %TBR, although not those for mean glucose variability and %TAR, possibly due to low use of recommended glucose target (100 mg/dL) and active insulin time (2 h) settings (28.4% in the CAS cohort and 9.4% in the real-world cohort). The CAS pediatric and adult A1C were 7.2% ± 0.7% and 6.8% ± 0.7%, respectively, and there were no serious adverse events. Conclusions: Early clinical use of the MM780G+G4S was safe and involved minimal BGMs and AHCL exits. Consistent with real-world pediatric and adult use, outcomes were associated with achievement of recommended glycemic targets. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03959423.
Simplified Meal Management in Adults Using an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System

Noga Minsky,Roy Shalit,Andrea Benedetti,Maya Laron-Hirsh,Ohad Cohen,Natalie Kurtz,Anirban Roy,Benyamin Grosman,Amir Tirosh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2024.0224

2024-08-22

Abstract:Background: The advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm combines automated basal rates and corrections yet requires meal announcement for optimal performance, which poses a challenge for some. We aimed to compare glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using the MiniMedTM 780G AHCL system, utilizing simplified meal announcement versus precise carbohydrate (CHO) counting. Methods: In a study involving 14 adults with T1D, we evaluated glycemic control during a 13-week "precise phase," followed by two 3- to 4-week simplified meal announcement phases: "fixed one-step" (preset of one personalized fixed CHO amount) and "multistep" (entry of multiples of one, two, or three of these presets depending on meal size estimate). Results: The mean age was 45.7 ± 12.4, and 10 participants were male (71%). Mean baseline HbA1c was 6.8% ± 1.2% and time in range (TIR) was 67.5% ± 16.7%. Comparing the fixed one-step to the precise study phase, TIR was similar (75.4 ± 13% vs. 77.7 ± 9%, P = 0.12), and glucose management indicator (GMI) was slightly higher (6.8 ± 0.4 vs. 6.6 ± 0, P = 0.01). Furthermore, there was less level 1 and 2 hypoglycemia (1.6 ± 1% vs. 2.8 ± 2%, P = 0.03 and 0.3 ± 5% vs. 0.65 ± 1%, P = 0.08) but slightly more level 1 and 2 hyperglycemia (17.1 ± 8% vs. 15.0 ± 7%, P = 0.05 and 5.5 ± 5% vs. 3.6 ± 3%, P = 0.04). When comparing the multistep with the precise phase, GMI was identical (6.6%) and TIR superior (80.5 ± 10% vs. 77.7 ± 9%, P = 0.02). Additionally, there was less level 1 hypoglycemia (1.9 ± 1% vs. 2.8 ± 2%, P = 0.01) and a trend for less level 2 hypoglycemia (0.4 ± 0.7% vs. 0.65 ± 1%, P = 0.08). Conclusions: A simplified meal announcement strategy for adults using the MiniMed 780G system, relying on three increments of a fixed one-step CHO amount, may offer a way to improve glycemic control and ease self-care. For patients with more limitations, using one fixed one-step CHO amount could be a safe alternative to meeting most consensus glycemic targets.
Real-life Achievements of MiniMedTM 780G Advanced Closed Loop System in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes: AWeSoMe Study Group Multi-Center Prospective Trial

Noah Gruber,Avigail Wittenberg,Avivit Brener,Shirli Abiri,Kineret Mazor-Aronovitch,Michal Yackobovitch-Gavan,Shay Averbuch,Tal Ben-Ari,Noah Levek,Neriya Levran,Zohar Landau,Marianna Rachmiel,Orit Pinhas-Hamiel,Yael Lebenthal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2024.0148

2024-05-18

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:Diabetes Technology &Therapeutics, Volume 0, Issue ja, -Not available-.

endocrinology & metabolism
Celebrating the Data from 100,000 Real-World Users of the MiniMedTM 780G System in Europe, Middle East, and Africa Collected Over 3 Years: From Data to Clinical Evidence

Pratik Choudhary,Arcelia Arrieta,Tim van den Heuvel,Javier Castañeda,Vittorino Smaniotto,Ohad Cohen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2023.0433

2024-02-21

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:Introduction: The present report celebrates the benchmarking of 100,000 MiniMedTM 780G system users in Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) and summarizes the major insights into the usability and outcomes of this system. Methods: Carelink Personal data (August 2020–August 2023) of users living in EMEA were analyzed. Continuous glucose monitoring-based endpoints were aggregated for (1) the full cohort and (2) a 12-month longitudinal cohort. Subanalyses were done for users on optimal settings (those spending ≥95% of time with glucose target of 100 mg/dL, and ≥95% of time with active insulin time of 2 h), for self-reported age groups (≤15 and ≥56 years) and for various countries/regions. Results: Data from 101,629 users (34 countries) were analyzed. Mean time in range (TIR) was 72.3%, glucose management indicator (GMI) was 7%, time below 70 mg/dL (TBR70) was 2.0% and time below 54 mg/dL (TBR54) was 0.4%. In terms of international targets, 59.6% of users achieved a GMI 70%, 88.4% a TBR70 < 4%, and 90.0% a TBR54 70% = 86.3%) while safety remained (TBR70 = 2.2% and TBR54 = 0.4%). Data showed consistency across self-reported age groups and geographies. In the longitudinal cohort, TIR reached 75.5% in the first month and remained 73.3% or higher over the 12-month period. Conclusion: Over 100,000 users of the MiniMedTM 780G system have demonstrated consistency in achieving target control of glycemia.

endocrinology & metabolism
62-OR: Six Months Experience on Meal Announcement with Three Personalized Presets of Carbohydrates vs. Precise Carbohydrate Counting in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Using the MiniMed 780G System

GORAN PETROVSKI,JUDITH CAMPBELL,KHALID HUSSAIN,MAHEEN F. PASHA,SIDRA DIABETES GROUP

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/db23-62-or

IF: 7.7

2023-06-20

Diabetes

Abstract:Objective: To compare six months glycemic control in adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) on MiniMed 780G system that used simplified meal announcement to those that used precise carbohydrate counting. Research Design and Methods: 34 participants (12-18 years) with T1D that initiated MiniMed 780G system were randomly assigned to the Fix group (simplified meal announcement by preset of 3 personalized fixed carbohydrate amounts) or the Flex group (precise carbohydrate counting). After 3 months, participants in Fix group could choose to continue with the same regimen, or to switch to precise carbohydrate counting. HbA1c, Time in Ranges, insulin and sensor data were analyzed after 3 and 6 months. Results: TIR was 73.5±6.7% in the Fix and 80.3±7.4% in the Flex group (p=0.043) at 3 months. 88% of participants (n=15) in Fix group continued to use same regime for the additional 3 months (TIR of 72.7±7.8% in Fix group and 79.4±6.9 in Flex group, p=0.006). HbA1c below 7% was achieved in both groups, without a group difference during the study. Conclusion: Adolescents on the MiniMed 780G system using simplified meal announcement can reach and maintain international targets of glycemic control. This method may be a valuable alternative to precise carbohydrate counting in users, challenged by precise carbohydrate counting. Disclosure G.Petrovski: None. J.Campbell: None. K.Hussain: None. M.F.Pasha: None. Sidra diabetes group: n/a.

endocrinology & metabolism
MiniMed 780G system use in type 1 diabetes during Ramadan intermittent fasting: a systematic literature review and expert recommendations

Nancy Samir Elbarbary,Abdullah Alguwaihes,Hawazen Zarif,Mohammed Hassanein,Asma Deeb,Goran Petrovski,Raed Al Dahash,Reem Al Amoudi,Sufyan Hussain,Mahmoud Ibrahim,Shehla Shaikh,Sueziani Binte Zainudin,Wael Chaar,Tim Van den Heuvel,Mohammed Al-Sofiani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2024.0200

2024-07-27

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:Diabetes Technology &Therapeutics, Volume 0, Issue ja, -Not available-.

endocrinology & metabolism
Automated Insulin Delivery for Young People with Type 1 Diabetes and Elevated A1c

Alisa Boucsein,Yongwen Zhou,Venus Michaels,Jillian J Haszard,Craig Jefferies,Esko Wiltshire,Ryan G Paul,Amber Parry-Strong,Maheen Pasha,Goran Petrovski,Martin I de Bock,Benjamin J Wheeler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDoa2400185

Abstract:Background: Automated insulin delivery is the treatment of choice in adults with type 1 diabetes. Data are needed on the efficacy and safety of automated insulin delivery for children and youth with diabetes and elevated glycated hemoglobin levels. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial, we assigned patients with type 1 diabetes in a 1:1 ratio either to use an automated insulin delivery system (MiniMed 780G) or to receive usual diabetes care of multiple daily injections or non--automated pump therapy (control). The patients were children and youth (defined as 7 to 25 years of age) with elevated glycemia (glycated hemoglobin ≥8.5% with no upper limit). The primary outcome was the baseline-adjusted between-group difference in glycated hemoglobin at 13 weeks. Results: A total of 80 patients underwent randomization (37 to automated insulin delivery and 43 to control) and all patients completed the trial. At 13 weeks, the mean (±SD) glycated hemoglobin decreased from 10.5±1.9% to 8.1±1.8% in the automated insulin delivery group but remained relatively consistent in the control group, changing from 10.4±1.6% to 10.6±1.8% (baseline-adjusted between-group difference, -2.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.1 to -1.8; P<0.001). Patients in the automated insulin delivery group spent on average 8.4 hours more in the target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dl than those in the control group. One severe hypoglycemia event and two diabetic ketoacidosis events occurred in the control group, with no such events in the automated insulin delivery group. Conclusions: In this trial of 80 children and youth with elevated glycated hemoglobin, automated insulin delivery significantly reduced glycated hemoglobin compared with usual diabetes care, without resulting in severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis events. (Funded by Lions Clubs New Zealand District 202F and others; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12622001454763.).
Insulin dose optimization using an automated artificial intelligence-based decision support system in youths with type 1 diabetes

Revital Nimri,Tadej Battelino,Lori M. Laffel,Robert H. Slover,Desmond Schatz,Stuart A. Weinzimer,Klemen Dovc,Thomas Danne,Moshe Phillip,Shlomit Shalitin,Rachel Bello,Michal Nevo-Shenker,Naama Fisch-Shvalb,Galit Shiovitch-Mantzuri,Orit Choresh,Irit Drutz,Yehiel Nava,Alona Hemo,Orna Hermon,Rachel Nave,Natasa Bratina,Darja Smigoe-Schweiger,Brigita Mali,Ana Gianini,Urska Sever,Barbara Murn Berkopec,Michelle Katz,Elvira Isganaitis,Sanjeev Mehta,Heidi Quinn,Nisha Naik,Zijing Guo,Lisa Volkening,Gregory Forlenza,R. Paul Wadwa,G. Todd Alonso,Laurel Messer,Lindsey Towers,Katie Thivener,Cari Berget,Samantha Lange,Emily Jost,Maria Rossick-Solis,Michael Haller,Paul Hiers,Laura Jacobsen,Madison Smith,Anastasia O’Neill,Jennifer Hosford,Alexis Perry,Eda Cengiz,Jennifer Sherr,Kathryn Gibbons,Lori Carria,Melinda Zgorski,Torben Biester,Olga Kordonouri,Thekla von dem Berge,Sarah Biester,Kerstin Remus,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-1045-7

IF: 82.9

2020-09-01

Nature Medicine

Abstract:Despite the increasing adoption of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring devices, most people with type 1 diabetes do not achieve their glycemic goals<a href="/articles/s41591-020-1045-7#ref-CR1">1</a>. This could be related to a lack of expertise or inadequate time for clinicians to analyze complex sensor-augmented pump data. We tested whether frequent insulin dose adjustments guided by an automated artificial intelligence-based decision support system (AI-DSS) is as effective and safe as those guided by physicians in controlling glucose levels. ADVICE4U was a six-month, multicenter, multinational, parallel, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial in 108 participants with type 1 diabetes, aged 10–21 years and using insulin pump therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT03003806). Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive remote insulin dose adjustment every three weeks guided by either an AI-DSS, (AI-DSS arm, n = 54) or by physicians (physician arm, n = 54). The results for the primary efficacy measure—the percentage of time spent within the target glucose range (70–180 mg dl−1 (3.9–10.0 mmol l−1))—in the AI-DSS arm were statistically non-inferior to those in the physician arm (50.2 ± 11.1% versus 51.6 ± 11.3%, respectively, P < 1 × 10−7). The percentage of readings below 54 mg dl−1 (<3.0 mmol l−1) within the AI-DSS arm was statistically non-inferior to that in the physician arm (1.3 ± 1.4% versus 1.0 ± 0.9%, respectively, P < 0.0001). Three severe adverse events related to diabetes (two severe hypoglycemia, one diabetic ketoacidosis) were reported in the physician arm and none in the AI-DSS arm. In conclusion, use of an automated decision support tool for optimizing insulin pump settings was non-inferior to intensive insulin titration provided by physicians from specialized academic diabetes centers.

biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology,medicine, research & experimental
A European Cost-Utility Analysis of the MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Versus Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring with Multiple Daily Insulin Injections in People Living with Type 1 Diabetes

Johan Jendle,Maria Ida Buompensiere,Asli Zeynep Ozdemir Saltik,Simona de Portu,Jayne Smith-Palmer,Richard F Pollock,Ohad Cohen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2023.0297

Abstract:Background: Advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) automated insulin delivery systems are the most effective therapy in terms of assisting people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to achieve glycemic targets; however, the cost can represent a barrier to uptake. In this study, a cost-utility analysis of the MiniMed™ 780G AHCL system (MM780G) versus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (is-CGM) plus multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) in people with T1D not achieving glycemic goals was performed across six European countries. Methods: Clinical input data were sourced from the ADAPT trial. Assuming a baseline HbA1c of 9.04%, HbA1c reductions of 1.54% for AHCL and 0.2% for is-CGM+MDI were modeled. The analyses were performed from a payer perspective over a time horizon of 40 years and an annual discount rate of 3% was applied. Results: Across all countries, the use of AHCL was projected to result in an incremental gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy of >2 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus is-CGM+MDI. Lifetime direct costs were higher with AHCL resulting in incremental cost-utility ratios for AHCL versus is-CGM+MDI ranging from EUR 11,765 per QALY gained in Austria to EUR 43,963 per QALY gained in Italy. Conclusions: For people with T1D managed with is-CGM+MDI not achieving glycemic targets, initiation of the MM780G system was projected to improve long-term clinical outcomes; however, due to differences in health care costs between countries, the health economic outcomes differed. In all included countries, AHCL is likely to be cost-effective relative to is-CGM+MDI for people not achieving glycemic goals with is-CGM+MDI. The ADAPT trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04235504.
Improving blood glucose level predictability using machine learning

Yonit Marcus,Roy Eldor,Mariana Yaron,Sigal Shaklai,Maya Ish‐Shalom,Gabi Shefer,Naftali Stern,Nehor Golan,Amit Z. Dvir,Ofir Pele,Mira Gonen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.3348

2020-06-14

Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews

Abstract:AimsThis study was designed to improve blood glucose (BG) level predictability and future hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic event alerts through a novel patient‐specific supervised‐machine‐learning (SML) analysis of glucose level based on a continuous‐glucose‐monitoring system (CGM) that needs no human intervention, and minimizes false‐positive alerts. Materials And MethodsThe CGM data over 7‐50 nonconsecutive days from 11 type‐1 diabetic patients aged 18‐39 with a mean HbA1C of 7.5 ± 1.2% were analyzed using four SML models. The algorithm was constructed to choose the best‐fit model for each patient. Several statistical parameters were calculated to aggregate the magnitudes of the prediction errors. ResultsThe personalized solutions provided by the algorithm were effective in predicting glucose levels 30 minutes after the last measurement. The average root‐mean‐square‐error was 20.48 mg/dL and the average absolute‐mean‐error was 15.36 mg/dL when the best‐fit‐model was selected for each patient. Using the best‐fit‐model, the true‐positive‐hypoglycemia‐prediction‐rate was 64%, whereas the false‐positive‐ rate was 4.0%, and the false‐negative‐rate was 0.015%. Similar results were found even when only CGM samples below 70 were considered. The true‐positive‐hyperglycemia‐prediction‐rate was 61%. ConclusionsState‐of‐the‐art SML tools are effective in predicting the glucose level values of patients with type‐1diabetes and notifying these patients of future hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events, thus improving glycemic control. The algorithm can be used to improve the calculation of the basal insulin rate and bolus insulin, and suitable for a closed loop "artificial pancreas" system. The algorithm provides a personalized medical solution that can successfully identify the best‐fit method for each patient.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
1901-LB: Safety and Glycemic Outcomes Using the MiniMed 780G System with a Disposable All-in-One Sensor with Transmitter

GREGORY P. FORLENZA,SARAH A. MACLEISH,DOROTHY I. SHULMAN,BENJAMIN U. NWOSU,SIHAM ACCACHA,SATISH K. GARG,ANDERS L. CARLSON,KRISTIN N. CASTORINO,BRYNN E. MARKS,RAYHAN LAL,CATHERINE PIHOKER,JAMES THRASHER,LORI M. LAFFEL,BHUVANA SUNIL,BRUCE W. BODE,JENNIFER L. SHERR,LAYA EKHLASPOUR,JOHN H. REED,M. JENNIFER ABUZZAHAB,MEI MEI CHURCH,ZHENG DAI,HAOXI MA,JED SOLOMON,YURI TREMINIO,JOHN SHIN,ANDREW S. RHINEHART,JENNIFER MCVEAN,ROBERT A. VIGERSKY,FOR THE SUCCEED STUDY GROUP

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/db24-1901-lb

IF: 7.7

2024-06-14

Diabetes

Abstract:Objective: The present study assessed impact of the MiniMedTM 780G (MM780G) advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system on glycemic metrics and safety when used with the disposable all-in-one Simplera SyncTM sensor*. Methods: Youths (aged 7-17yrs) and adults (aged 18-80yrs) with T1D were enrolled in a single-arm study (24 U.S. sites) with a ~2-week run-in where HCL (Auto Basal only) or open-loop delivery was used. This was followed by a three-month study period with AHCL activated. Glycemic outcomes and insulin delivered during the last 6-7 weeks of the study, in which system settings were optimized at investigator’s discretion, were compared to those of the run-in. Impact of recommended optimal settings (ROS, 100 mg/dL glucose target [GT] with a 2hr active insulin time [AIT]), was explored. Results: All groups showed significantly increased TIR and TITR and significantly reduced TAR, compared to run-in (Table). Use of ROS further improved TIR, TITR and TAR, in part, due to >60% automated basal and bolus delivery. No episodes of device-related severe hypoglycemia or DKA occurred. Conclusion: Use of the MM780G with the Simplera SyncTM sensor was safe and demonstrated improved glycemic outcomes, compared with run-in, and compared to glycemic outcomes of the pivotal trials1,2. Similarly, a lower GT and shorter AIT were associated with a further increased TIR and reduced TAR and, here, an increased TITR. Disclosure G.P. Forlenza: Research Support; Abbott, Dexcom, Inc. Consultant; Dexcom, Inc. Research Support; Insulet Corporation. Consultant; Insulet Corporation. Research Support; Medtronic. Advisory Panel; Medtronic. Research Support; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. Consultant; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. S.A. MacLeish: Speaker's Bureau; Insulet Corporation. Advisory Panel; Prevention Bio. D.I. Shulman: Advisory Panel; Medtronic. Research Support; Medtronic. S. Accacha: Speaker's Bureau; Azurity. S.K. Garg: Research Support; Eli Lilly and Company. Advisory Panel; Medtronic. Research Support; Medtronic. Advisory Panel; Novo Nordisk. Research Support; DarioHealth Corp., Dexcom, Inc., Diasome. Advisory Panel; Roche Diabetes Care. A.L. Carlson: Research Support; Medtronic, Insulet Corporation, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi. Other Relationship; Novo Nordisk. Advisory Panel; MannKind Corporation. Research Support; Dexcom, Inc. K.N. Castorino: Research Support; Abbott, Dexcom, Inc. Speaker's Bureau; Dexcom, Inc. Research Support; Lilly Diabetes, Medtronic, MannKind Corporation, Insulet Corporation. Consultant; Medscape. B.E. Marks: Research Support; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Dexcom, Inc., Medtronic, Digostics. Advisory Panel; International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, American Diabetes Association, T1D Exchange. Board Member; Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF). R. Lal: Consultant; Abbott, Adaptyx Biosciences, Biolinq, Capillary Biomedical, Inc., Deep Valley Labs, Gluroo, PhysioLogic Devices, Portal Insulin, Tidepool. Advisory Panel; Lilly Diabetes. C. Pihoker: None. J. Thrasher: Advisory Panel; Medtronic. Board Member; Medtronic. Research Support; Medtronic. Speaker's Bureau; Medtronic. Research Support; Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk. Speaker's Bureau; Bayer Inc. L.M. Laffel: Consultant; Dexcom, Inc. Advisory Panel; Medscape, Medtronic, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated. Consultant; Novo Nordisk. Advisory Panel; Lilly Diabetes, Provention Bio, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., MannKind Corporation. B. Sunil: None. B.W. Bode: Research Support; Omnipod. Speaker's Bureau; Omnipod. Research Support; Medtronic. Advisory Panel; Medtronic. J.L. Sherr: Consultant; Medtronic. Advisory Panel; Medtronic, Insulet Corporation. Speaker's Bureau; Insulet Corporation. Advisory Panel; Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, MannKind Corporation, StartUp Health T1D Moonshot, Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc., Cecelia Health. Speaker's Bureau; Zealand Pharma A/S. L. Ekhlaspour: Advisory Panel; Medtronic. Consultant; Medtronic, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. Advisory Panel; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. Research Support; Medtronic, MannKind Corporation. Advisory Panel; Sequel. Other Relationship; National Institutes of Health. Research Support; Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF). Speaker's Bureau; Insulet Corporation. J.H. Reed: None. M. Abuzzahab: Research Support; Ascendis Pharma A/S. Consultant; Ascendis Pharma A/S. Research Support; Medtronic, MannKind Corporation, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Consultant; Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Research Support; Novo Nordisk. M. Church: None. Z. Dai: Employee; Medtronic. H. Ma: None. J. Solomon: None. Y. Treminio: Employee; Medtronic. J. Shin: None. A.S. Rhinehart: Employee; Medtronic. Stock/Shareholder; Medtronic. J. McVean: Employee; Medtronic. R.A. Vigersky: Employee; Medtronic.

endocrinology & metabolism
Beneficial effects of automated insulin delivery over one-year follow-up in real life for youths and adults with type 1 diabetes irrespective of patient characteristics

Zoé Henry,Sylvie Villar Fimbel,Nathalie Bendelac,Kevin Perge,Charles Thivolet

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.15344

Abstract:Aim: To investigate glycaemic outcomes in youths and adults with type 1 diabetes with either MiniMed™ 780G or Tandem t:slim X2™ control-IQ automated insulin delivery (AID) systems and to evaluate clinical factors that migrate, mitigate the achievement of therapeutic goals. Materials and methods: This retrospective, real-world, observational study was conducted in a specialized university type 1 diabetes centre with patients observed for 3-12 months post-initiation of an AID system. Primary outcomes were the percentage time in the target glucose range [TIR70-180 mg/dl (3.9-10 mmol/L)] as measured by continuous glucose monitoring, mean glucose management indicator (GMI) and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. Results: Our study cohort consisted of 48 adolescents and 183 adults (55% females) aged 10-77 years. The mean (95% confidence interval) TIR70-180 mg/dl after 30 days was higher than baseline and by 14% points after 360 days with 71.33% (69.4-73.2) (n = 123, p < .001). HbA1c levels decreased by 0.7% and GMI by 0.6% after 360 days. The proportion of time spent <70 mg/dl (3.9 mmol/L) was not significantly different from baseline. During follow-up, 780G users had better continuous glucose monitoring results than control-IQ users but similar HbA1c levels, and an increased risk of weight gain. Age at onset influenced TIR70-180 mg/dl in univariate analysis but there was no significant relationship after adjusting on explanatory variables. Baseline body mass index did not influence the performance of AID systems. Conclusions: This analysis showed the beneficial effects of two AID systems for people with type 1 diabetes across a broad spectrum of participant characteristics. Only half of the participants achieved international recommendations for glucose control with TIR70-180 mg/dl >70%, HbA1c levels or GMI <7%, which outlines the need to maintain strong educational and individual strategies.
12-month real-life efficacy of the Minimed 780G Advanced Closed Loop system in patients living with Type 1 diabetes: a French observational, retrospective, multicentric study

Sandrine LABLANCHE,Johanna Delagenière,Manon Jalbert,Emmanuel SONNET,Muriel Benichou,Nathalie Arnol,Anne Spiteri,Jean-Philippe Le Berre,Eric Renard,Chevalier Nicolas,Sophie Borot,elisabeth Gilbert-Bonnemaison,Christine Coffin,Marie-Pierre Teissier,Pierre Yves Benhamou,Jean-Christian Borel,Alfred Penfornis,michael joubert,Laurence Kessler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2023.0414

2024-01-19

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:Aim: To evaluate the evolution of glycemic outcomes in patients living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) after one year of use of the Minimed 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop system (AHCL). Methods: We conducted an observational, retrospective, multicentric study in 20 centers in France. The primary objective was to evaluate the improvement in glycemic control after one year of use of AHCL. The primary endpoint was the variation of TIR between pre-AHCL and after one-year use of AHCL. Secondary objectives were to analyze the glycemic outcomes after 3, 6, and 12 months of AHCL use, the safety, and the long-term observance of AHCL. Results: 220 patients were included, and 200 were analyzed for the primary endpoint. 92.7% of patients continued to use AHCL. After one year of use of AHCL, TIR was 72.5 ± 10.6% (+ 9.1 %; IC95 [7.6; 10.5] as compared to pre-AHCL initiation, p<0.001), HbA1c 7.1% ± 0.7 (-0.5% IC 95 [-0.6; -0.4]; p<0.001), TBR 2.0 % [1.0; 3.0] (0.0% [-2.0; 0.0], p<0.001), TAR 24.8% ± 10.9 (-7.3% IC 95 [-8.8; -5.7]; p<0.001). More patients achieved the glycemic treatment goals of HBA1c <7.0% (45.1% vs. 18.1%, p 70% (59.0% vs. 29.5% p <0.001) when compared with pre-AHCL. 5 patients experienced severe hypoglycemia events and 2 patients experienced keto-acidosis. Conclusion: After one year of use of AHCL, people living with T1D safely improved their glucose control and a higher proportion of them achieved optimal glycemic control.

endocrinology & metabolism

MiniMed 780G System Outperforms Other Automated Insulin Systems Due to Algorithm Design, Not Bias – Response to Inaccurate Allegations

Response to: MiniMed 780G System Outperforms Other Automated Insulin Systems Due to Algorithm Design, Not Bias – Response to Inaccurate Allegations

A Peek Under the Hood: Explaining the MiniMedTM 780G Algorithm with Meal Detection Technology

Improved Glycemic Outcomes With Medtronic MiniMed Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Delivery: Results From a Randomized Crossover Trial Comparing Automated Insulin Delivery With Predictive Low Glucose Suspend in People With Type 1 Diabetes

A comparison of the usage of an open-source automated insulin delivery system and the MiniMedTM 780 G system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in real-world settings: the AWeSoMe study group

Early Real-World Performance of the MiniMedTM 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System and Recommended Settings Use in the United States

Reducing Diabetes Burden in Medtronic's Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

Excellence in the management of Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems: Lessons from the Polish cohort

Glycemic Outcomes During Early Use of the MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System with Guardian™ 4 Sensor

Simplified Meal Management in Adults Using an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System

Real-life Achievements of MiniMedTM 780G Advanced Closed Loop System in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes: AWeSoMe Study Group Multi-Center Prospective Trial

Celebrating the Data from 100,000 Real-World Users of the MiniMedTM 780G System in Europe, Middle East, and Africa Collected Over 3 Years: From Data to Clinical Evidence

62-OR: Six Months Experience on Meal Announcement with Three Personalized Presets of Carbohydrates vs. Precise Carbohydrate Counting in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Using the MiniMed 780G System

MiniMed 780G system use in type 1 diabetes during Ramadan intermittent fasting: a systematic literature review and expert recommendations

Automated Insulin Delivery for Young People with Type 1 Diabetes and Elevated A1c

Insulin dose optimization using an automated artificial intelligence-based decision support system in youths with type 1 diabetes

A European Cost-Utility Analysis of the MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Versus Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring with Multiple Daily Insulin Injections in People Living with Type 1 Diabetes

Improving blood glucose level predictability using machine learning

1901-LB: Safety and Glycemic Outcomes Using the MiniMed 780G System with a Disposable All-in-One Sensor with Transmitter

Beneficial effects of automated insulin delivery over one-year follow-up in real life for youths and adults with type 1 diabetes irrespective of patient characteristics

12-month real-life efficacy of the Minimed 780G Advanced Closed Loop system in patients living with Type 1 diabetes: a French observational, retrospective, multicentric study