ArticleActa diabetologica2025
Pregnancy outcomes with the pregestational use of Minimed 780G compared to Minimed 640G: findings from a multicenter cohort study.
Article in Acta diabetologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- HbA1c improvement in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes using the CamAPS FX automated insulin delivery (AID) system: Clinical and economic outcomes.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026Article
- Metrics in pregnancy: is it the time for new glycaemic goals for pregnant women with type 1 diabetes? An experience with advanced hybrid closed loop.Acta diabetologica · 2026Article
- Challenges in glycaemic control among women with type 1 diabetes and the role of MiniMed 780G system: A narrative review.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Review
- Research Gaps, Challenges, and Opportunities in Automated Insulin Delivery Systems.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025Review
- Research Gaps, Challenges, and Opportunities in Automated Insulin Delivery Systems.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare glycemic control and maternal-fetal outcomes of women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using Minimed™ 780G (MM780G) with those women using Minimed™ 640G (MM640G) since before pregnancy.
methodsMulticenter prospective cohort study of pregnant women with T1D in Spain. We evaluated HbA1c, time spent within (TIRp), below (TBRp) and above (TARp) the pregnancy-specific glucose range 3.5-7.8 mmol/L (63-140 mg/dL) and glucose variability (CV).
resultsSixty-nine women were included (MM780G n = 40). At baseline, MM640G users had higher rates of severe hypoglycemia before pregnancy, without other between-group differences. The MM780G group had higher TIRp and lower TARp, TBRp and CV, but similar HbA1c in the first trimester of gestation. TBRp and CV remained significantly higher in the MM640G group throughout pregnancy. Higher HbA1c was observed in the MM780G group compared to the MM640G (6.28 ± 0.53% [45.1 ± 5.8 mmol/mol] vs. 5.97 ± 0.62 [41.8 ± 6.8], p = 0.003) in the second trimester. There were no differences in the mean change in HbA1c from the first to the third trimester of gestation between groups. MM780G users were more likely to have large-for-gestational-age infants (OR
conclusionsPregestational use of MM780G led to an initial improvement in TIRp, but this was not sustained in the second and third trimesters, with a 4-fold increased risk of delivering a LGA infant and undergoing cesarean section compared to MM640G users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.