Comparing Insulin Pump Devices in Real Life: The AWeSoMe Study Group Prospective Experience

The use of insulin pumps in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) has expanded; however, data comparing devices remain scarce. We compared glycemic control, technical difficulties, and quality of life (QOL) between pump devices of three companies.

This prospective observational trial is based on clinical data retrieved during 12 months of follow-up of pediatric patients who started pump therapy as part of their clinical care in four medical centers. The devices fully reimbursed by the national health insurance are as follows: MiniMed™ 640G, MiniMed^® Veo™, Animas^® Vibe^®, and Abbott OmniPod^®. Parameters investigated included discontinuation rate, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), mean self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), total daily dose of insulin (TDD), pump setting parameters, body mass index (BMI), frequency of technical difficulties, significant skin reactions, and QOL.

Of 113 children (mean age 9.1 ± 4.1 years, 46% females), 68 (60%) used Medtronic devices, 33 (29%) OmniPod, and 12 (11%) Animas devices. Twelve percent of the cohort stopped using the pump during the study period, with no difference according to device. There were no differences between groups regarding mean SMBG values (P = 0.86), insulin TDD (P = 0.24), BMI (P = 0.87), level of insertion site pain or local reaction (P = 0.51), technical problems (P = 0.66), and QOL (P = 0.38). Changes in HbA1c from study initiation to end were also not statistically significant for any of the devices: from 7.99% ± 1.14% to 7.93% ± 0.99% for Medtronic, from 7.71% ± 1.29% to 7.92% ± 1.38% for OmniPod, and from 8.75% ± 1.3% to 7.70% ± 1.33% for Animas (P = 0.63).

Pump devices were comparable regarding glycemic control, weight gain, and satisfaction among pediatric patients with T1D.