I have met one diabetic I know that absolutely loves his 670 in auto mode. It helped him get his A1c’s down to around 7.0 from the 8’s and 9’s. He adores it and it works well for him.
Have you met anyone that the auto mode has allowed better control than 7.0? Everyone I have heard from who has better control that that has gone to manual mode.
Thanks for contributing by the way!
I could do an informal survey over there and get some numbers for you if you would like. I’m curious too.
That would be fantastic! If there is an ideal candidate that can be identified, then it would seem to be really important information so people didn’t have to be so frustrated. My gosh, my son has only had diabetes for 3 years but the level of frustration with the 670 appears to have reached epic proportions.
OK Chris I posted a very informal survey and we’ll see what happens that’s a really good idea.
Ah ha! That’s what’s going on over there. I was wondering what had gotten into you. 
Hey so I need to look at the responses I got and put them into some sort of format to categorize the results! I don’t think I put up a very good survey but I did get some answers that are helpful. Hopefully tonight.
Really interesting results. I followed it with my own survey based on a very objective leading question of my own. 
I’ve got theories on some of those responses though… and I’d like to communicate them somehow. How to though… without talking too much…
Looking forward to it
Hi Chris, Here is how it turned out. A few obvious trends.
Please help with this Informal survey.
Auto mode specific (AM)
How long in AM? Most for the 8 months since the sensors became available
How long a T1? Not an issue at all, ranged from 3 - 50 years.
Thank you very much to all who helped out. I did not ask HOW you all are staying in AM. I know there are adjustments. Thats not part of this. This is not a big picture thing thats for sure. I can only pull together trends from those who responded.
Approx 30% agreed that their improvements were due to AM and the 670G.
The other roughly 70% who responded most always had A1Cs under 7.
It seems that for people who are normally stable with good A1C’s this pump is great, although it does takes work to figure out how it best works for you, especially at first. The others credit their improving A1Cs to AM and the 670G and thats great news! Thanks again.
Very interesting. I would not have guessed. You may be correct that the people who are most stable are the ones it helps. I was wondering how the A1c figured in, but it doesn’t seem to be the case.
So perhaps it is the stability that is most important. I think it is great that so many are able to get an A1c in the 6’s with automode, but clearly not everyone can.
Too bad, it would have been nice to identify an “easy” answer. But like diabetes, the answers aren’t always simple, even if my mind is.
Thank you for doing this, very interesting results.
@mattie, if I may… I really don’t think this is entirely accurate. Not your actual tally of results… I think the survey tally is great, but I wonder if the sample maybe isn’t truly reflective of the general 670G population. Or at least part of it might not be. I absolutely, 100% agree that how stable your blood sugar is, in general, will have a huge impact on how well auto will perform for you. Because the delivery depends on the sensor, which oftens presents with a lag, the people who have a tendency to swing frequently will just be subjected to a less appropriate insulin delivery. These are the people who don’t get any insulin even as they pass through a 160 and continue to climb or those who continue to get boluses even as they’ve dropped below 50. The delay is tough.
The part I hesitate on is the conclusion that people with good control going in will transition well. I think there’s a difference between naturally stable blood sugar and stable blood sugar as a result of good control. Those who really have good command over their settings seem to make up the group that appears to be most unhappy. For those who are used to coasting at 90, they no longer can.
This isn’t to bash auto… since I dabble in that from time to time… because there’s another group that wasn’t covered in the survey who I think is the group to benefit the most out of its use. In fact, I think the survey JUST misses them. There’s a group with a pre-existing a1c range of 9-12 who seems to be just what this mode was made for. That was my group. So many people in this group move over and experience a huge drop in a1c… from 10 to 7.6 or 9 to 7.3… it’s a very common story. When it comes to “time in range”, this group is the winner.
I really hope this doesn’t come across as argumentative, Mattie. I’m just debating stuff… and I’ll come back with my own survey results and conclusions for your critiquing and debating pleasure. Except I wasn’t critiquing anything that I recall…so be nice. Now let me go fix some results…
Hey Nicky
Your points are very well-made. This in no way covers all the members of the group. The group who responded made up 4.5% of all the members. 29 of 647. You have more traction which is as it should be. Another more succinct survey targeting those folks you point out could be done. I think there may be a google app that works for this. 30% self identify as the 670 G being the reason for their improved A1 C’s. The others stated that there A1 C’s were always pretty good. I hope there are more!
If you are looking for a survey tool, survey monkey has free accounts that let you get pretty sophisticated.
@mattie, I think the survey you put out there got a good response, and honestly I had a pre-conceived notion that your survey blew out of the water. So I think it was a cracking success!
Although the larger question of who is it successful for is still an interesting one, but might be a pretty tough nut to crack.
Thanks! I was surprised and encouraged by the results!
@mattie, @Nickyghaleb, what an interesting survey result, thanks so much for doing it! I am like @Chris, I did not expect the result.
I moved all the survey posts into their own thread here, hope it’s OK!
