Key result
MiniMed 780G with Guardian 4 yields ~73% time in range, reducing closed-loop exits vs Guardian 3.
Why the study?
Glycemic outcomes during real-world MiniMed 780G system use needed evaluation comparing the newer non-adjunctive Guardian 4 sensor to the adjunctive Guardian sensor 3.
Does the MiniMed 780G system with the Guardian 4 sensor maintain glycemic control and reduce user burden compared to the Guardian 3 sensor in patients with diabetes?
Observational (n=674)
Yes
Does the MiniMed 780G system with the Guardian 4 sensor maintain glycemic control and reduce user burden compared to the Guardian 3 sensor in patients with diabetes?
Absolute Event Rate: 73.1% vs 74.6%
The Guardian 4 sensor reduces user burden by decreasing required blood glucose measurements and system exits while maintaining glycemic control comparable to the Guardian 3 sensor.
Real-world MiniMed 780G use with Guardian 4 sensor yields consensus-aligned glycemic control; leaves open need for randomized sensor comparisons.
Objective: The MiniMed™ 780G system with the adjunctive Guardian™ sensor 3 that requires calibration has been commercially available in Europe, since October 2020. Since October 2021, the system has been available with the non-adjunctive Guardian™ 4 sensor, which does not require calibration. In this study, glycemic outcomes during real-world MiniMed™ 780G system use with both sensors were evaluated. Methods: Analyses were based on data collected on Dec 10, 2021, from consenting system users (N=674) residing in Europe with ≥days of sensor glucose (SG) data from both sensors. Glycemic outcomes including mean±SD of the glucose management indicator (GMI) and percentage of time spent in target range of 70-180mg/dL (TIR) , at <54mg/dL and <70mg/dL (TBR) and at >180mg/dL (TAR) were assessed. The time spent in AHCL, number of AHCL exits/week and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) measurements/day were also determined. Results: System use with the Guardian™ 4 sensor versus Guardian™ sensor 3 demonstrated 94±9% vs 93±11% of time in AHCL, 73.1±11.4% vs 74.6±9.8% TIR, 0.11±0.16% vs 0.51±0.58% TBR<54, 1.6±1.4% vs 2.4±1.8% TBR<70, and 25.3±11.7% vs 23.1±10.0% TAR<180. During the night (12AM-6AM) , greater glycemic control was observed: with 81.6±13.3% vs 82.8±11.0% TIR, 0.09±0.22% vs 0.42±0.69% TBR<54, 1.1±1.5% vs 1.8±1.9% TBR<70 and 17.3±13.3% vs 15.4±11.0% TAR>180. The GMI was 6.98±0.43% vs 6.84±0.38%. Closed-loop exits were 0.83±1.02 vs 1.1±1.06/week and SMBG measurements were 0.9±0.9 vs 3.3±0.9/day. Conclusion: Real-world MiniMed™ 780G system use findings indicate reduced burden related to SMBG measurements and closed-loop exits, with the Guardian™ 4 sensor, while maintaining favorable glycemic outcomes of the MiniMed™ 780G + Guardian™ sensor 3 system. Disclosure R.A. Vigersky: Employee; Medtronic. J. Castañeda: Employee; Medtronic. A. Arrieta: Employee; Medtronic. T.L. Cordero: Employee; Medtronic, Medtronic. A.S. Rhinehart: Employee; Medtronic. Stock/Shareholder; Medtronic. J. Shin: Employee; Medtronic.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vigersky et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Diabetes (n=674). MiniMed 780G system with Guardian 4 sensor vs. MiniMed 780G system with Guardian sensor 3 was evaluated on Percentage of time spent in target range of 70-180mg/dL (TIR). Real-world use of the MiniMed 780G system with the Guardian 4 sensor yielded 73.1% time in range vs 74.6% with the Guardian 3 sensor, alongside reduced SMBG measurements and closed-loop exits.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: