• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Anybody waiting for Minimed 670G?

D

diabetest2

Member
Messages
6
Type of diabetes
Type 2
It is supposed to be revolutionary with automatic basal injections. Does anybody know somebody who used it?
I quite like the 0.5% drop in A1c in the trials, can't really believe that only automation will do that tho.

Best,
Jon
 
diabetest2 said:
can't really believe that only automation will do that tho.
Click to expand...
Recruiting test subjects with high HbA1cs for your trial, then teaching them about diabetes helps...

Cynical? Me?

It's not officially released yet, so anyone using it probably signed a non disclosure agreement.


Anyway, to answer the question; I'd love a proper fully artificial pancreas (once I learned to trust it), but I don't think the 670g does it all yet. There's low suspend and treatment of hypers, but I didn't think it did the rest of it for you.

For now, as a self funder, the sooner I'm NHS backed, the better. I'm not waiting for it.
 
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. The majority of Triallists in the US requested permission from the FDA to continue using the 670G once their trials had completed.

I've not used it exactly, but I do use a hybrid closed loop that works in a similar fashion and while it hasn't dropped my Hba1C as I already had that at a good level, it has meant that I could keep it there with very little effort and no need to sugar surf.

So it it worth it? I think so yes. It's not just about dropping Hba1C, it's about making life a whole lot easier. This is what I think in more detail: http://www.diabettech.com/cgm/the-b...ybrid-closed-loop-or-openaps-wearenotwaiting/
 
Tim, that's a great article! I especially love the graphs. Did Medtronic already released this data? The only graphs about the actual glucose levels of patients I found were at MiniMed 670G site and even there is it had to hear the data of the charts.

The drop of A1c because of automation...is it because Type 1 patients are not responding to their alarms on older 530G and 630G models? I like how 670G makes life easier but cannot see why it would be that much better in A1c performance. As far as I understand it, it just injects you a basal automatically - in older devices you have to do it yourself. So performance-wise there should be a negligible difference. Please do correct me :)
 
just wondered, is the 670 an update to the 640? I'm just about to choose my first pump and at the moment the 640 is my first choice (ahead of the Vibe). This will be NHS funded (but not the CGM); if this is an update, do Medtronic upgrade peoples pumps, or would I be on the 640G for the 4 years stated by my local NHS?
Apologies if these are daft questions, but I'm on a big steep learning curve at the moment and struggling to make my final choice for the pump.
Thanks
 
@asa35 You'd be on the 640 for 4 years as the pump has been paid for.

Even once a new pump is officially released, individual hospitals will need to go through their own internal processes to put the pump on their 'approved' list and this may not be instantaneous, so be aware of this if you're thinking of waiting. (I had a chat with my pump coordinator on Wednesday about this - I've picked the Vibe, but I know that a new version that is compatible with the Dexcom G5, which I use, is coming out next year some time.)
 
diabetest2 said:
Tim, that's a great article! I especially love the graphs. Did Medtronic already released this data? The only graphs about the actual glucose levels of patients I found were at MiniMed 670G site and even there is it had to hear the data of the charts.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear here, that data on my blog is from me using OpenAPS and Loop, not the 670. I compared the self reported data from OpenAPS with the Medtronic Study here: http://www.diabettech.com/medtronic...id-closed-loop-system-what-does-the-data-say/ The data in this latter one is from the presentation that Medtronic gave at EASD2016, which was promptly not allowed to be shared.

diabetest2 said:
The drop of A1c because of automation...is it because Type 1 patients are not responding to their alarms on older 530G and 630G models? I like how 670G makes life easier but cannot see why it would be that much better in A1c performance. As far as I understand it, it just injects you a basal automatically - in older devices you have to do it yourself. So performance-wise there should be a negligible difference. Please do correct me :)
Click to expand...
The main difference between using a Hybrid Closed loop and something with a predictive low suspend is how it looks ahead. The Hybrid Closed loop has a model against which it compares the data you enter for meals, the change in glucose levels it sees and what it knows the background basal rate to be. If the actual glucose deviates from the prediction, then it either adds or removes basal rate to bring the actual value in line with the predicted value. Typically it looks out for the Insulin Duration time in the Open Source platforms.

Even with the best will in the world, by sugar surfing and glancing at your CGM, you have to do it a lot to maintain the same Hba1C and variability. What the loop does is make a decision when your glucose level is in a normal range, not when an alarm is sounding, so it takes effect that much earlier. It works very effectively.

asa35 said:
just wondered, is the 670 an update to the 640? I'm just about to choose my first pump and at the moment the 640 is my first choice (ahead of the Vibe). This will be NHS funded (but not the CGM); if this is an update, do Medtronic upgrade peoples pumps, or would I be on the 640G for the 4 years stated by my local NHS?
Click to expand...
The conversation I had with Medtronic on this point suggested that it may be possible that 640s wouldn't be replaced with 640s if they broke, once the 670 was available.
 
tim2000s said:
The conversation I had with Medtronic on this point suggested that it may be possible that 640s wouldn't be replaced with 640s if they broke, once the 670 was available.
Click to expand...
Wow. If that's the case I can see a lot of 'accidentally' damaged 640s... (Just remember to call Medtronic to get a replacement sent out before you hit your old pump with a hammer ;-) ).
 
CapnGrumpy said:
Wow. If that's the case I can see a lot of 'accidentally' damaged 640s... (Just remember to call Medtronic to get a replacement sent out before you hit your old pump with a hammer ;-) ).
Click to expand...
Umm. I don't think "break" and "hit with hammer" will be treated the same way.... ;)
 
Animas have the same policy, if you are on an older model and it needs replacing then you have the upgrade.
 
I'm watching with interest I must say. Animas are releasing something that sounds similar next year
 
Engineer88 said:
I'm watching with interest I must say. Animas are releasing something that sounds similar next year
Click to expand...
They've been working on that pump for some years now; Hypo-Hyper Minimiser, catchy eh? It
will be compatible with the G5 system apparently, which will beat Medtronic hands down in terms of price for the equivalent CGM features. Suspend before going low (smart guard as Medtronic call it), hyper correction, etc. Whether it will be compatible with the G6 sensors when they come out is another question, apparently they boast a "10 day wear" which could be dragged out to possibly 28 days if we're getting up to 21 from the G4 and G5 just now?

Looks like it'll offer some stiff competition!
 
Last chat I had with an Animas rep suggested that it would be a 2 stage release. Initially low suspend, then hyper treatment would be included at a later date. They were (understandably) a little cagey on how it would work for 'end users' in terms of upgrades/firmware patches.

Apparently the rep at my hospital is a n00b. Poor chap. Will pump him (pun totally intended) for info.
 
The other issue is, of course, that Animas have not yet submitted anything for regulatory approval, so we're talking a little while before anything is available from them. There was supposed to be some sort of announcement in September, which got pulled.
 
Back
Top