CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 230Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes and associated disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Safety and Glycemic Outcomes During the MiniMed™ Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Pivotal Trial in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Open access
Carlson, Anders L., Sherr, Jennifer L., Shulman, Dorothy I., Garg, Satish K., Pop-Busui, Rodica, Bode, Bruce W., Lilenquist, David R., Brazg, Ron L., Kaiserman, Kevin B., Kipnes, Mark S., Thrasher, James R., Reed, John H. Chip, Slover, Robert H., Philis-Tsimikas, Athena, Christiansen, Mark, Grosman, Benyamin, Roy, Anirban, Vella, Melissa, Jonkers, Richard A.M., Chen, Xiaoxiao, Shin, John, Cordero, Toni L., Lee, Scott W., Rhinehart, Andrew S., Vigersky, Robert A., for the MiniMed™ AHCL Study Group·2022·Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
DOI 10.1089/dia.2021.0319PMC PMC8971997
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction: This trial assessed safety and effectiveness of an advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system with automated basal (Auto Basal) and automated bolus correction (Auto Correction) in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Materials and Methods: This multicenter single-arm study involved an intent-to-treat population of 157 individuals (39 adolescents aged 14–21 years and 118 adults aged ≥22–75 years) with T1D. Study participants used the MiniMed™ AHCL system during a baseline run-in period in which sensor-augmented pump +/− predictive low glucose management or Auto Basal was enabled for ∼14 days. Thereafter, Auto Basal and Auto Correction were enabled for a study phase (∼90 days), with glucose target set to 100 or 120 mg/dL for ∼45 days, followed by the other target for ∼45 days. Study endpoints included safety events and change in mean A1C, time in range (TIR, 70–180 mg/dL) and time below range (TBR, <70 mg/dL). Run-in and study phase values were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test or paired t -test. Results: Overall group time spent in closed loop averaged 94.9% ± 5.4% and involved only 1.2 ± 0.8 exits per week. Compared with run-in, AHCL reduced A1C from 7.5% ± 0.8% to 7.0% ± 0.5% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, n = 155), TIR increased from 68.8% ± 10.5% to 74.5% ± 6.9% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test), and TBR reduced from 3.3% ± 2.9% to 2.3% ± 1.7% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Similar benefits to glycemia were observed for each age group and were more pronounced for the nighttime (12 AM–6 AM). The 100 mg/dL target increased TIR to 75.4% ( n = 155), which was further optimized at a lower active insulin time (AIT) setting (i.e., 2 h), without increasing TBR. There were no severe hypoglycemic or diabetic ketoacidosis events during the study phase. Conclusions: These findings show that the MiniMed AHCL system is safe and allows for achievement of recommended glycemic targets in adolescents and adults with T1D. Adjustments in target and AIT settings may further optimize glycemia and improve user experience. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03959423.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/dia.2021.0319

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

FIG. 1. Study flow. The study schedule included a run-in period (Visits 1–4) with SAP with or without predictive low glucose management or automated basal (Auto Basal) use for ∼14 days, and a study phase (Visits 5–18) with Auto Basal and automated bolus correction (Auto Correction) enabled for ∼90 days. A glucose target of 100 or 120 mg/dL was set during the first 45 ± 5 days of the study phase, which was followed by a switch to the other glucose target for the remaining 45 ± 5 days. AHCL, advanced hybrid closed loop; PLGM, predictive low glucose management; SAP, sensor-augmented/integrated pump.
FIG. 1. Study flow. The study schedule included a run-in period (Visits 1–4) with SAP with or without predictive low glucose management or automated basal (Auto Basal) use for ∼14 days, and a study phase (Visits 5–18) with Auto Basal and automated bolus correction (Auto Correction) enabled for ∼90 days. A glucose target of 100 or 120 mg/dL was set during the first 45 ± 5 days of the study phase, which was followed by a switch to the other glucose target for the remaining 45 ± 5 days. AHCL, advanced hybrid closed loop; PLGM, predictive low glucose management; SAP, sensor-augmented/integrated pump.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIG. 2. Participant disposition.
FIG. 2. Participant disposition.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIG. 3. Cumulative distributions of participants achieving A1C <7.0% and TIR >70%. The proportion of overall, adolescent, and adult participants with A1C of <7.0% (top panel) and time spent in target glucose range (TIR) of >70% (bottom panel) are shown for the baseline/run-in period (red), the overall study phase when both the 100 and 120 mg/dL targets were set and factored (blue) and when only the 100 mg/dL glucose target was set (green). System use during the run-in period included SAP, PLGM, or Auto Basal therapy, whereas that for the study phase included Auto Basal and Auto Correction. During baseline run-in, Auto Correction bolus was inadvertently delivered on six systems.
FIG. 3. Cumulative distributions of participants achieving A1C <7.0% and TIR >70%. The proportion of overall, adolescent, and adult participants with A1C of <7.0% (top panel) and time spent in target glucose range (TIR) of >70% (bottom panel) are shown for the baseline/run-in period (red), the overall study phase when both the 100 and 120 mg/dL targets were set and factored (blue) and when only the 100 mg/dL glucose target was set (green). System use during the run-in period included SAP, PLGM, or Auto Basal therapy, whereas that for the study phase included Auto Basal and Auto Correction. During baseline run-in, Auto Correction bolus was inadvertently delivered on six systems.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIG. 4. SG and insulin delivered profiles, during the run-in period and study phase. The median and IQRs of SG levels (top panel) and the units of insulin delivered during the run-in period (middle panel) and study phase (bottom panel), across the 24-h day for the overall, adolescent (14–21 years), and adult (>21–75 years) groups are shown. For SG, medians (solid), and IQR intervals (dotted) of the run-in period (gray) and study phase (pink) appeared to vary most during the nighttime period (12 AM–6 AM). For insulin delivered, the units of total basal (blue), user-initiated bolus (orange), and automated correction bolus (gray) are shown. The study phase Auto Correction bolus averaged 20% of total bolus for all groups. System use during the run-in period included SAP, PLGM, or Auto Basal therapy, whereas that for the study phase included Auto Basal and Auto Correction. During baseline run-in period, Auto Correction bolus was inadvertently delivered on six systems. IQRs, interquartile ranges; SG, sensor glucose.
FIG. 4. SG and insulin delivered profiles, during the run-in period and study phase. The median and IQRs of SG levels (top panel) and the units of insulin delivered during the run-in period (middle panel) and study phase (bottom panel), across the 24-h day for the overall, adolescent (14–21 years), and adult (>21–75 years) groups are shown. For SG, medians (solid), and IQR intervals (dotted) of the run-in period (gray) and study phase (pink) appeared to vary most during the nighttime period (12 AM–6 AM). For insulin delivered, the units of total basal (blue), user-initiated bolus (orange), and automated correction bolus (gray) are shown. The study phase Auto Correction bolus averaged 20% of total bolus for all groups. System use during the run-in period included SAP, PLGM, or Auto Basal therapy, whereas that for the study phase included Auto Basal and Auto Correction. During baseline run-in period, Auto Correction bolus was inadvertently delivered on six systems. IQRs, interquartile ranges; SG, sensor glucose.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 43 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–229 of 229

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Carlson, A. L., Sherr, J. L., Shulman, D. I., Garg, S. K., Pop-Busui, R., Bode, B. W., Lilenquist, D. R., Brazg, R. L., Kaiserman, K. B., Kipnes, M. S., Thrasher, J. R., Reed, J. H. C., Slover, R. H., Philis-Tsimikas, A., Christiansen, M., Grosman, B., Roy, A., Vella, M., Jonkers, R. A. M., Chen, X., Shin, J., Cordero, T. L., Lee, S. W., Rhinehart, A. S., Vigersky, R. A., & for the MiniMed™ AHCL Study Group
Affiliations
  • HealthPartners (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • Barbara Davis Center of Childhood Diabetes, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
  • Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology and Diabetes, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
  • Atlanta Diabetes Associates (US)
  • Rocky Mountain Diabetes and Osteoporosis Center, Idaho Falls, Idaho, USA.
  • Rainier Clinical Research Center, Renton, Washington, USA.
  • SoCal Diabetes, Torrance, California, USA.
  • Diabetes & Glandular Disease Clinic (US)
  • Arkansas Diabetes and Endocrinology Center, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.
  • Endocrine Research Solutions (United States) (US)
  • Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, La Jolla, California, USA.
  • Diablo Clinical Research (US)
  • Medtronic (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Carlson, Anders L.
ORCID
Venue
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2022-03
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
178-189
ISSN
  • 1520-9156 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-8593
DOI
10.1089/dia.2021.0319
PMC
PMC8971997
OpenAlex
W3210094726
Cited by
230
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 34
FWCI
28.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK020572, P30DK045735, P30DK111022)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, hybrid closed-loop system, glycemic control, HbA1c, time in range, time below range, sensor-augmented pump, adolescents, adults, clinical trial safety, glycemic outcomes
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Insulin Infusion Systems, Middle Aged, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review