Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of Control-IQ and open-source AndroidAPS automated insulin delivery systems in adults with type 1 diabetes: The CODIAC study.
Do, Quoc Dat; Hásková, Aneta; Radovnická, Lucie; Konecná, Judita; Horová, Eva; Parkin, Christopher G; Grunberger, George; Prázný, Martin; Soupal, Jan.
Afiliação
  • Do QD; 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
  • Hásková A; 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
  • Radovnická L; 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
  • Konecná J; Department of Internal Medicine, Masaryk Hospital, Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic.
  • Horová E; 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
  • Parkin CG; 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
  • Grunberger G; CGParkin Communications, Inc., Henderson, Nevada, USA.
  • Prázný M; Grunberger Diabetes Institute, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, USA.
  • Soupal J; 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Diabetes Obes Metab ; 26(1): 78-84, 2024 Jan.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37743832
ABSTRACT

AIM:

To compare open-source AndroidAPS (AAPS) and commercially available Control-IQ (CIQ) automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in a prospective, open-label, single-arm clinical trial.

METHODS:

Adults with type 1 diabetes who had been using AAPS by their own decision entered the first 3-month AAPS phase then were switched to CIQ for 3 months. The results of this treatment were compared with those after the 3-month AAPS phase. The primary endpoint was the change in time in range (% TIR; 70-80 mg/dL).

RESULTS:

Twenty-five people with diabetes (mean age 34.32 ± 11.07 years; HbA1c 6.4% ± 3%) participated in this study. CIQ was comparable with AAPS in achieving TIR (85.72% ± 7.64% vs. 84.24% ± 8.46%; P = .12). Similarly, there were no differences in percentage time above range (> 180 and > 250 mg/dL), mean sensor glucose (130.3 ± 13.9 vs. 128.3 ± 16.9 mg/dL; P = .21) or HbA1c (6.3% ± 2.1% vs. 6.4% ± 3.1%; P = .59). Percentage time below range (< 70 and < 54 mg/dL) was significantly lower using CIQ than AAPS. Even although participants were mostly satisfied with CIQ (63.6% mostly agreed, 9.1% strongly agreed), they did not plan to switch to CIQ.

CONCLUSIONS:

The CODIAC study is the first prospective study investigating the switch between open-source and commercially available AID systems. CIQ and AAPS were comparable in achieving TIR. However, hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with CIQ.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 / Insulinas Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Adult / Humans / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 / Insulinas Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Adult / Humans / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article