Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2025 May;8(3):e70043.
doi: 10.1002/edm2.70043.

Long-Term Performance of Two Systems for Automated Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: An Observational Study

Affiliations
Observational Study

Long-Term Performance of Two Systems for Automated Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: An Observational Study

Sanne Fisker et al. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab. 2025 May.

Abstract

Aims: To compare glycaemic outcomes for two automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, the Tandem Control IQ (CIQ) and the MiniMed 780G (MM780G).

Material and methods: In this observational study, we evaluated 60 days of glycaemic data from 139 persons with type 1 diabetes (CIQ: 79 persons, MM780G: 60 persons), who had an active glucose sensor time ≥ 85%.

Results: The time with AID was median 620 (IQR, 439-755) days for CIQ users and 509 (429-744) days for MM780G users (p = 0.26). The last HbA1c before initiation of AID was 59.7 mmol/mol in CIQ and 60.1 mmol/mol in MM780G (p = 0.88). The time with an active glucose sensor was higher for CIQ than MM780G (median 98.5 (97.4-98.0)% vs. 96.5 (94.9-97.0)%, p < 0.001). Time in range (TIR, glucose 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was lower in CIQ than MM780G (mean 68.9% ± 11.4% vs. 73.7% ± 12.0%, p = 0.02) as was time in tight range (TITR) (glucose 3.9-7.8 mmol/L) (43.0% ± 12.2% vs. 48.4% ± 12.7%, p = 0.01). The difference in TIR (4.2 (95% CI 1.0-7.5)%, p = 0.01) and TITR (5.0 (1.4-8.6)%, p < 0.01) remained statistically significant in a multiple regression model controlling for various baseline variables. Time with an absolute rate of glucose change > 1.5 mmol/L/15 min was higher in CIQ than MM780G (9.4 (IQR, 7.2-13.3)% vs. 7.4 (5.2-10.4)%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: The CIQ system had a higher active glucose sensor time but a lower TIR, TITR, and a higher time with a rapid glucose rate of change than the MM780G system.

Keywords: automated insulin delivery; continuous glucose monitoring; glucose rate of change; glucose time in range; type 1 diabetes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

K.W.H. has received a grant from Abbott Diabetes Care and Novo Nordisk for an investigator‐initiated study.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Twenty‐four hour variation of glucose time in range (3.9–10.0 mmol/L) (A) and glucose presented as median (IQR). Red colour for the CIQ system and blue for the MM780G system.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Histogram of the distribution of glucose rate of changes (RoC) with indication of SD for the t location scale distribution. For the CIQ system, the curve (red) was characterised by a location parameter −0.05 (mmol/L/15 min), SD 1.05 (mmol/L/15 min), shape parameter 0.63 and degrees of freedom 3.12. For the MM780G system (blue), the mean location parameter was −0.03 (mmol/L/15 min), SD 0.98 (mmol/L/15 min), shape parameter 0.54 and degrees of freedom 2.89. The vertical dotted lines represent RoC of ± 1.5 mmol/L/15 min.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Limbert C., Kowalski A. J., and Danne T. P. A., “Automated Insulin Delivery: A Milestone on the Road to Insulin Independence in Type 1 Diabetes,” Diabetes Care 47, no. 6 (2024): 918–920. - PubMed
    1. Sherr J. L., Heinemann L., Fleming G. A., et al., “Automated Insulin Delivery: Benefits, Challenges, and Recommendations. A Consensus Report of the Joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association,” Diabetes Care 45, no. 12 (2022): 3058–3074. - PubMed
    1. Griffin T. P., Gallen G., Hartnell S., et al., “UK's Association of British Clinical Diabetologist's Diabetes Technology Network (ABCD‐DTN): Best Practice Guide for Hybrid Closed‐Loop Therapy,” Diabetic Medicine 40, no. 7 (2023): e15078. - PubMed
    1. Phillip M., Nimri R., Bergenstal R. M., et al., “Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery Technologies in Clinical Practice,” Endocrine Reviews 44, no. 2 (2023): 254–280. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Crabtree T. S. J., Griffin T. P., Yap Y. W., et al., “Hybrid Closed‐Loop Therapy in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes and Above‐Target HbA1c: A Real‐World Observational Study,” Diabetes Care 46, no. 10 (2023): 1831–1838. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types