The MiniMed™ 780G system (MM780G) with Guardian™ 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:
CareLink™ 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 MiniMed™ 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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
YapanisM, JamesS, CraigME, et al.Complications of diabetes and metrics of glycemic management derived from continuous glucose monitoring. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2022; 107:e2221–e2236.
2.
Mizokami-StoutKR, LiZ, FosterNC, et al.The contemporary prevalence of diabetic neuropathy in type 1 diabetes: Findings from the T1D Exchange. Diabetes Care, 2020; 43:806–812.
3.
PerkinsBA, BebuI, de BoerIH, et al.Risk factors for kidney disease in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2019; 42:883–890.
4.
BeckRW, BergenstalRM, RiddlesworthTD, et al.Validation of time in range as an outcome measure for diabetes clinical trials. Diabetes Care, 2019; 42:400–405.
5.
MurphyHR. Continuous glucose monitoring targets in type 1 diabetes pregnancy: Every 5% time in range matters. Diabetologia, 2019; 62:1123–1128.
6.
NathanDM, McGeeP, SteffesMW, et al.Relationship of glycated albumin to blood glucose and HbA1c values and to retinopathy, nephropathy, and cardiovascular outcomes in the DCCT/EDIC study. Diabetes, 2014; 63:282–290.
7.
Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) Study ResearchGroup, NathanDM, GenuthS, et al.The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med, 1993; 329:977–986.
8.
NathanDM. Realising the long-term promise of insulin therapy: The DCCT/EDIC study. Diabetologia, 2021; 64:1049–1058.
9.
FosterNC, BeckRW, MillerKM, et al.State of type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D Exchange in 2016–2018. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2019; 21:66–72.
10.
MillerKM, HermannJ, FosterN, et al.Longitudinal changes in continuous glucose monitoring use among individuals with type 1 diabetes: International comparison in the German and Austrian DPV and U.S. T1D Exchange registries. Diabetes Care, 2020; 43:e1–e2.
11.
ElSayedNA, AleppoG, ArodaVR, et al.: 7. Diabetes technology: Standards of care in diabetes-2023. Diabetes Care, 2023; 46:S111–S127.
12.
Bionic Pancreas ResearchG, RussellSJ, BeckRW, et al.Multicenter, randomized trial of a bionic pancreas in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2022; 387:1161–1172.
13.
BoughtonCK, HartnellS, ThabitH, et al.Hybrid closed-loop glucose control compared with sensor augmented pump therapy in older adults with type 1 diabetes: An open-label multicentre, multinational, randomised, crossover study. Lancet Healthy Longev, 2022; 3:e135–e142.
14.
ForlenzaGP, BuckinghamBA, BrownSA, et al.First outpatient evaluation of a tubeless automated insulin delivery system with customizable glucose targets in children and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2021; 23:410–424.
15.
BenhamouPY, FrancS, ReznikY, et al.Closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes in real-life conditions: A 12-week multicentre, open-label randomised controlled crossover trial. Lancet Digit Health, 2019; 1:e17–e25.
16.
GargSK, WeinzimerSA, TamborlaneWV, et al.Glucose outcomes with the in-home use of a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2017; 19:155–163.
17.
BrownSA, KovatchevBP, RaghinaruD, et al.Six-month randomized, multicenter trial of closed-loop control in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2019; 381:1707–1717.
18.
ForlenzaGP, EkhlaspourL, DiMeglioLA, et al.Glycemic outcomes of children 2–6 years of age with type 1 diabetes during the pediatric MiniMed 670G system trial. Pediatr Diabetes, 2022; 23:324–329.
19.
ForlenzaGP, Pinhas-HamielO, LiljenquistDR, et al.Safety evaluation of the MiniMed 670G system in children 7–13 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2019; 21:11–19.
20.
Beato-ViboraPI, Gallego-GameroF, Lazaro-MartinL, et al.Prospective analysis of the impact of commercialized hybrid closed-loop system on glycemic control, glycemic variability, and patient-related outcomes in children and adults: A focus on superiority over predictive low-glucose suspend technology. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020; 22:912–919.
21.
PetrovskiG, Al KhalafF, CampbellJ, et al.One-year experience of hybrid closed-loop system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes previously treated with multiple daily injections: Drivers to successful outcomes. Acta Diabetol, 2021; 58:207–213.
22.
GargSK, GrunbergerG, WeinstockR, et al.Improved glycemia with hybrid closed-loop versus continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2023; 25:1–12.
23.
McAuleySA, de BockMI, SundararajanV, et al.Effect of 6 months of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes: A randomised controlled trial protocol. BMJ Open, 2018; 8:e020274.
24.
Da SilvaJ, BosiE, JendleJ, et al.Real-world performance of the MiniMed 670G system in Europe. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2021; 23:1942–1949.
25.
StoneMP, AgrawalP, ChenX, et al.Retrospective analysis of 3-month real-world glucose data after the MiniMed 670G system commercial launch. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:689–692.
26.
BombaciB, PassanisiS, ValenziseM, et al.Real-world performance of first- versus second-generation automated insulin delivery systems on a pediatric population with type 1 diabetes: A one-year observational study. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2023:19322968231185115.
27.
ArunachalumS, VeladoK, VigerskyRA, et al.Glycemic outcomes during real-world hybrid closed-loop system use by individuals with type 1 diabetes in the United States. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2023; 17:951–958.
28.
UsohCO, JohnsonCP, SpeiserJL, et al.Real-world efficacy of the hybrid closed-loop system. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2022; 16:659–662.
29.
PeiY, KeW, LuJ, et al.Safety event outcomes and glycemic control with a hybrid closed-loop system used by Chinese adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2023; 25(10):718–725.
30.
GrosmanB, ParikhN, RoyA, et al.In silico evaluation of the Medtronic 780G system while using the GS3 and its calibration-free successor, the G4S sensor. Ann Biomed Eng, 2023; 51:211–224.
31.
PetrovskiG, CampbellJ, PashaM, et al.Simplified meal announcement versus precise carbohydrate counting in adolescents with type 1 diabetes using the MiniMed 780G advanced hybrid closed loop system: A randomized controlled trial comparing glucose control. Diabetes Care, 2023; 46:544–550.
32.
CorderoTL, DaiZ, ArrietaA, et al.Glycemic outcomes during early use of the MiniMed 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop system with Guardian 4 sensor. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2023; 25:652–658.
33.
MatejkoB, JuzaA, Kiec-WilkB, et al.One-year follow-up of advanced hybrid closed-loop system in adults with type 1 diabetes previously naive to diabetes technology: The effect of switching to a calibration-free sensor. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2023; 25:554–558.
34.
ShinJ, ArrietaA, CastañedaJ, et al.Performance of the MiniMed 780G system with the Guardian 4 sensor- Impact on the first 1,570 real-world users. Diabetes, 2022; 71.
35.
GrassiB, GomezAM, CalliariLE, et al.Real-world performance of the MiniMed 780G advanced hybrid closed loop system in Latin America: Substantial improvement in glycaemic control with each technology iteration of the MiniMed automated insulin delivery system. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2023; 25:1688–1697.
36.
Food and Drug Administration—Center for Devices and Radiological Health. MiniMed 780G system approval letter (P160017/S091). April 21, 2023. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/recently-approved-devices/minimed-780g-system-p160017s091 [Last accessed: August18, 2023].
37.
ElSayedNA, AleppoG, ArodaVR, et al.: 6. Glycemic targets: Standards of care in diabetes-2023. Diabetes Care, 2023; 46:S97–S110.
38.
BattelinoT, DanneT, BergenstalRM, et al.Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: Recommendations from the International Consensus on Time in Range. Diabetes Care, 2019; 42:1593–1603.
39.
CarlsonAL, SherrJL, ShulmanDI, et al.Safety and glycemic outcomes during the MiniMed advanced hybrid closed-loop system pivotal trial in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2022; 24:178–189.
40.
CastañedaJ, MathieuC, AanstootHJ, et al.Predictors of time in target glucose range in real-world users of the MiniMed 780G system. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2022; 24:2212–2221.
41.
VigerskyRA, BodeBW, BrazgRL, et al.Glycemic control using recommended settings in youth and adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) -MiniMed 780G system with the calibration-free Guardian 4 sensor results. Diabetes, 2022; 71.
42.
ArrietaA, BattelinoT, ScaramuzzaAE, et al.Comparison of MiniMed 780G system performance in users aged younger and older than 15 years: Evidence from 12 870 real-world users. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2022; 24:1370–1379.
43.
SlatteryD, AmielSA, ChoudharyP. Optimal prandial timing of bolus insulin in diabetes management: A review. Diabet Med, 2018; 35:306–316.
44.
ShalitR, MinskyN, Laron-HirshM, et al.Unannounced meal challenges using an advanced hybrid closed-loop system. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2023; 25:579–588.
45.
LalRA, EkhlaspourL, HoodK, et al.Realizing a closed-loop (artificial pancreas) system for the treatment of type 1 diabetes. Endocr Rev, 2019; 40:1521–1546.
46.
AlwanH, WilinskaME, RuanY, et al.Real-world evidence analysis of a hybrid closed-loop system. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2023:19322968231185348.
47.
BenhamouPY, AdenisA, LebbadH, et al.One-year real-world performance of the DBLG1 closed-loop system: Data from 3706 adult users with type 1 diabetes in Germany. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2023; 25:1607–1613.
48.
BretonMD, KovatchevBP. One year real-world use of the Control-IQ advanced hybrid closed-loop technology. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2021; 23:601–608.
49.
LumJW, BaileyRJ, Barnes-LomenV, et al.A real-world prospective study of the safety and effectiveness of the Loop open source automated insulin delivery system. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2021; 23:367–375.
50.
RodbardD. Continuous glucose monitoring metrics (mean glucose, time above range and time in range) are superior to glycated haemoglobin for assessment of therapeutic efficacy. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2023; 25:596–601.
51.
Gomez-PeraltaF, ChoudharyP, CossonE, et al.Understanding the clinical implications of differences between glucose management indicator and glycated haemoglobin. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2022; 24:599–608.
52.
VigerskyRA, McMahonC. The relationship of hemoglobin A1C to time-in-range in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2019; 21:81–85.
53.
BeckRW, BergenstalRM, ChengP, et al.The relationships between time in range, hyperglycemia metrics, and HbA1c. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2019; 13:614–626.
54.
PhillipM, NimriR, BergenstalRM, et al.Consensus recommendations for the use of automated insulin delivery technologies in clinical practice. Endocr Rev, 2023; 44:254–280.
55.
GrunbergerG, SherrJ, AllendeM, et al.American Association of Clinical Endocrinology clinical practice guideline: The use of advanced technology in the management of persons with diabetes mellitus. Endocr Pract, 2021; 27:505–537.
56.
SherrJL, SchoelwerM, Dos SantosTJ, et al.ISPAD clinical practice consensus guidelines 2022: Diabetes technologies: Insulin delivery. Pediatr Diabetes, 2022; 23:1406–1431.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
