Study looked at older technology but results still reflect benefit
Among the rtCGM plus insulin pump group were 264 participants (5% of the total study population) recorded in the database as using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, also known as the artificial pancreas, although this is likely an undercount as the presence of communication between the two devices was not automatically recorded, Dr. Dovc explained.
Those individuals recorded as using AIDs had a higher unadjusted time in range compared with non-AID users (66.3% vs. 59.0%) and lower time above range (30.1% vs. 37.0%) but didn’t differ in time below range (2.9% vs. 3.0%).
Dr. Dovc told this news organization: “While automated systems are becoming more common, there are still many individuals who do not have access to glucose-responsive devices.” Reasons include lack of reimbursement, or decisions not to use them, he said.
But, he added, “Despite the low reported numbers of AID users, results achieved in the pump with real-time CGM [group] are admirable and approaching recommended consensus targets with a clinically meaningful difference towards all other treatment modalities. As our findings may not be directly applicable to all participants using automated systems, they may still provide useful insights into the factors that influence glycemic control.”
Similarly, the intermittently scanned CGMs used by most in the study, and particularly in the earlier period, didn’t have low- or high-glucose alarms as do later versions. And an even more recent version also doesn’t require scanning either, so is essentially also “real-time.”
Dr. Dovc noted, “in the first half of our observational period only first generation of intermittently-scanned CGM was generally available, and we can speculate that only a small proportion started to use second generation towards the end of our observational period. The exact number of second-generation users was not available in this analysis.”
He acknowledged that because the study was observational and not randomized, patient choice of device could have influenced the outcomes.
“For example, participants who choose to use a more expensive device may have more resources or support available to them, which could influence their ability to manage their diabetes effectively. Additionally, individuals who choose to use a particular device may be more motivated or engaged in their diabetes care, which could also impact their outcomes. It would be important for future studies to explore the impact of device selection on device effectiveness and to control for this potential confounding factor in the analysis.”
This study was supported by the international Better Control in Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes: Working to Create Centers of Reference (SWEET) corporate members, including Abbott Laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Insulet, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Sanofi, and the Slovenian National Research Agency. Dr. Dovc disclosed ties with Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. He served as a member of the European Commission Expert Panel for Medical Devices for Endocrinology and Diabetes.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.