Glucose Outcomes with the In-Home Use of a Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery System in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

A Systematic Review of Commercial Hybrid Closed-Loop Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

INTRODUCTION

Several different forms of automated insulin delivery systems (AID systems) have recently been developed and are now licensed for type 1 diabetes (T1D). We undertook a systematic review of reported trials and real-world studies for commercial hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems.

METHODS

Pivotal, phase III and real-world studies using commercial HCL systems that are currently approved for use in type 1 diabetes were reviewed with a devised protocol using the Medline database.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies were included in the systematic review (19 for 670G; 8 for 780G; 11 for Control-IQ; 14 for CamAPS FX; 4 for Diabeloop; and 3 for Omnipod 5). Twenty were real-world studies, and 39 were trials or sub-analyses. Twenty-three studies, including 17 additional studies, related to psychosocial outcomes and were analysed separately.

CONCLUSIONS

These studies highlighted that HCL systems improve time In range (TIR) and arouse minimal concerns around severe hypoglycaemia. HCL systems are an effective and safe option for improving diabetes care. Real-world comparisons between systems and their effects on psychological outcomes require further study.

A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trial Outcomes for the t:slim X2 Insulin Pump with Control-IQ Technology in Youth and Adults from Age 2 to 72

Objective: To evaluate the effect of hybrid-closed loop Control-IQ technology (Control-IQ) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in subgroups based on baseline characteristics such as race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), prestudy insulin delivery modality (pump or multiple daily injections), and baseline glycemic control. Methods: Data were pooled and analyzed from 3 RCTs comparing Control-IQ to a Control group using continuous glucose monitoring in 369 participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D) from age 2 to 72 years old. Results: Time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) in the Control-IQ group (n = 256) increased from 57% ± 17% at baseline to 70% ± 11% during follow-up, and in the Control group (n = 113) was 56% ± 15% and 57% ± 14%, respectively (adjusted treatment group difference = 11.5%, 95% confidence interval +9.7% to +13.2%, P < 0.001), an increase of 2.8 h/day on average. Significant reductions in mean glucose, hyperglycemia metrics, hypoglycemic metrics, and HbA1c were also observed. A statistically similar beneficial treatment effect on time in range 70-180 mg/dL was observed across the full age range irrespective of race-ethnicity, household income, prestudy continuous glucose monitor use, or prestudy insulin delivery method. Participants with the highest baseline HbA1c levels showed the greatest improvements in TIR and HbA1c. Conclusion: This pooled analysis of Control-IQ RCTs demonstrates the beneficial effect of Control-IQ in T1D across a broad spectrum of participant characteristics, including racial-ethnic minority, lower SES, lack of prestudy insulin pump experience, and high HbA1c levels. The greatest benefit was observed in participants with the worst baseline glycemic control in whom the auto-bolus feature of the Control-IQ algorithm appears to have substantial impact. Since no subgroups were identified that did not benefit from Control-IQ, hybrid-closed loop technology should be strongly considered for all youth and adults with T1D. Clinical Trials Registry: clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03563313, NCT03844789, and NCT04796779.

Early and sustained increase in time in range 1 year after initiation of hybrid close loop therapy via telemedicine in type 1 diabetes patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Evidence supports the efficacy and safety of the Hybrid Close loop (HCL) system in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, limited data are available on the long-term outcomes of patients on HCL with telemedicine follow-up.

METHODS

A prospective observational cohort study including T1D patients, who were upgrading to HCL system. Virtual training and follow-up were done through telemedicine. CGM data were analyzed to compare the baseline time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR), glycemic variability and auto mode (AM), with measurements performed at 3, 6 and 12 months.

RESULTS

134 patients were included with baseline A1c 7.6% ± 1.1. 40.5% had a severe hypoglycemia event in the last year. Baseline TIR, measured two weeks after starting AM was 78.6 ± 9.94%. No changes were evident at three (Mean difference - 0.15;CI-2.47,2.17;p = 0.96), six (MD-1.09;CI-3.42,1.24;p = 0.12) and 12 months (MD-1.30;CI-3.64,1.04;p = 0.08). No significant changes were found in TBR or glycemic variability throughout the follow-up. Use of AM was 85.6 ± 17.5% and percentage of use of sensor was 88.75 ± 9.5% at 12 months. No severe hypoglycemic (SH) events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

HCL systems allow to improve TIR, TBR and glycemic variability safely, early and sustained up to 1 year of follow-up in patients with T1D and high risk of hypoglycemia followed through telemedicine.

Maximizing Glycemic Benefits of Using Faster Insulin Formulations in Type 1 Diabetes: In Silico Analysis Under Open- and Closed-Loop Conditions

Background: Ultrarapid-acting insulin analogs that could improve or even prevent postprandial hyperglycemia are now available for both research and clinical care. However, clear glycemic benefits remain elusive, especially when combined with automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. In this work, we study two insulin formulations in silico and highlight adjustments of both open-loop and closed-loop insulin delivery therapies as a critical step to achieve clinically meaningful improvements. Methods: Subcutaneous insulin transport models for two faster analogs, Fiasp (Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark) and AT247 (Arecor, Saffron Walden, United Kingdom), were identified using data collected from prior clamp experiments, and integrated into the UVA/Padova type 1 diabetes simulator (adult cohort, N = 100). Pump therapy parameters and the aggressiveness of our full closed-loop algorithm were adapted to the new insulin pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles through a sequence of in silico studies. Finally, we assessed these analogs' glycemic impact with and without modified therapy parameters in simulated conditions designed to match clinical trial data. Results: Simply switching to faster insulin analogs shows limited improvements in glycemic outcomes. However, when insulin acceleration is accompanied by therapy adaptation, clinical significance is found comparing time-in-range (70-180 mg/dL) with Aspart versus AT247 in open-loop (+5.1%); and Aspart versus Fiasp (+5.4%) or AT247 (+10.6%) in full closed-loop with no clinically significant differences in the exposure to hypoglycemia. Conclusion: In silico results suggest that properly adjusting intensive insulin therapy profiles, or AID tuning, to faster insulin analogs is necessary to obtain clinically significant improvements in glucose control.

Emerging Diabetes Technologies: Continuous Glucose Monitors/Artificial Pancreases

Over the past decade there have been many advances in diabetes technologies, such as continuous glucose monitors (CGM s), insulin-delivery devices, and hybrid closed loop systems . Now most CGMs (Medtronic-Guardian, Dexcom-G6, and Abbott-Libre-2) have MARD values of < 10%, in contrast to two decades ago when the MARD used to be > 20%. In addition, the majority of the new CGMs do not require calibrations, and the latest CGMs last for 10-14 days. An implantable 6-months CGM by Eversense-3 is now approved in the USA and Europe. Recently, the FDA approved Libre 3 which provides real-time glucose values every minute. Even though it is approved as an iCGM it is not interoperable with automatic-insulin-delivery (AID) systems. The newer CGMs that are likely to be launched in the next few months in the USA include the 10-11 days Dexcom G7 (60% smaller than the existing G6), and the 7-days Medtronic Guardian 4. Most of the newer CGM have several features like automatic initialization, easy insertion, predictive alarms, and alerts. It has also been noticed that an arm insertion site might have better accuracy than abdomen or other sites, like the buttock for kids. Lag time between YSI and different sensors have been reported differently, sometimes it is down to 2-3 min; however, in many instances, it is still 15-20 min, especially when the rate of change of glucose is > 2 mg/min. We believe that in the next decade there will be a significant increase in the number of people who use CGM for their day-to-day diabetes care.

Comparisons of school-day glycemia in different settings for children with type 1 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring

Objective

Using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), we examined patterns in glycemia during school hours for children with type 1 diabetes, exploring differences between school and non-school time.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of CGM metrics in children 7-12 years (n=217, diabetes duration 3.5±2.5 years, hemoglobin A1c 7.5±0.8%). Metrics were obtained for weekday school hours (8 AM to 3 PM) during four weeks in fall 2019. Two comparison settings included weekend (fall 2019) and weekday (spring 2020) data when children had transitioned to virtual school due to COVID-19. We used multilevel mixed models to examine factors associated with time in range (TIR) and compare glycemia between in-school, weekends, and virtual school.

Results

Though CGM metrics were clinically similar across settings, TIR was statistically higher, and time above range (TAR), mean glucose, and standard deviation (SD) lower, for weekends and virtual school (p<0.001). Hour and setting exhibited a significant interaction for several metrics (p<0.001). TIR in-school improved from a mean of 40.9% at the start of the school day to 58.0% later in school, with a corresponding decrease in TAR. TIR decreased on weekends (60.8 to 50.7%) and virtual school (62.2 to 47.8%) during the same interval. Mean glucose exhibited a similar pattern, though there was little change in SD. Younger age (p=0.006), lower hemoglobin A1c (p<0.001), and insulin pump use (p=0.02) were associated with higher TIR in-school.

Conclusion

Although TIR was higher for weekends and virtual school, glycemic metrics improve while in-school, possibly related to beneficial school day routines.

Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery Technologies in Clinical Practice

The significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers, and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past 6 years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage.

Ankle Fractures in Diabetic Patients: A Critical Analysis

»

Patients with diabetes are at higher risk for complications after surgical fixation of unstable fractures due to impaired neurovascular functioning and wound-healing capabilities.

»

Patients with uncontrolled diabetes have higher rates of complications when compared with patients with controlled diabetes.

»

Despite higher rates of complications, operative fixation of unstable ankle fractures in diabetic patients reliably leads to a functional lower extremity with an overall lower rate of complications than nonoperative management.

»

Operatively and nonoperatively managed ankle fractures in patients with diabetes should remain non-weight-bearing for an extended period of time.

»

Discussion of risk of poor outcomes including deep infection, loss of reduction, return to the operating room, and risk of arthrodesis or amputation should be explicitly discussed with patients and families when managing unstable ankle fractures in diabetic patients.

Expert Guidance on Off-Label Use of Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy in Pregnancies Complicated by Diabetes

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have established benefits in terms of glycemic control, health outcomes, and quality of life and are strongly recommended for people with type 1 diabetes outside of pregnancy. While evidence for use of investigational AID systems during pregnancy is promising, data and guidance are still needed regarding use of commercially available systems during pregnancy. Unfortunately, none of the hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems that are currently available in the United States have glucose targets that are as aggressive as pregnancy glycemic targets, none have a pregnancy-specific algorithm, and none are approved for use during pregnancy. As such, any use of these systems during pregnancy is considered off-label in the United States and would be "assisted" by provider/user techniques. Despite these limitations, many women conceive while using clinically available HCL systems and may be hesitant to cease use during pregnancy. Achievement of strict pregnancy glycemic targets can be difficult, and it is conceivable that selective off-label use of clinically available HCL systems in some women could lead to improved glycemia. We herein offer expert guidance based on clinical experience and available case reports on how to identify appropriate candidates for HCL therapy in pregnancy, how to counsel pregnant women with diabetes on the potential risks and benefits of HCL therapy during pregnancy, and how to manage commercially available systems off-label throughout gestation in an assisted HCL approach.

Interruption of CGM: Frequency and Adverse Consequences

BACKGROUND

Removal of diabetes devices, including insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), is a common practice due to hospital policies, interference with imaging studies, medications, and surgical interventions. Furthermore, these devices are inherently prone to malfunction, adhesive failure, and issues with insertion that can lead to a reduction in wear time. Prescription and dispensing practices provide an exact number of sensors per month without redundancy to account for the realities of daily CGM use.

METHODS

A RedCap survey was completed by adult patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (T1D or T2D) who utilize CGM followed in the Diabetes Center at Washington University in St Louis.

RESULTS

Of 384 surveys sent, 99 were completed. Participants had a mean age of 54 years, T1D 69%, female 70%, White 96%, non-Hispanic 96%, and a mean duration of diabetes mellitus (DM) 28 years. Of the cohort, 100% used CGM (80.2% Dexcom, 13.5% Freestyle Libre, 6.3% Medtronic), 61% insulin pump, and 41% Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems. CGM-related disruption events included device malfunction (in 85.4% of participants), insertion problems (63.5%), and falling off (61.4%). Medical care-related disruption occurred most frequently in the setting of imaging (41.7%), followed by surgery/procedures (11.7%) and hospitalization (4.4%). Adverse glycemic events attributed to CGM disruption, including hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, occurred ≥4 times in 36.5% and 12.4% of the cohort, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Disruption in CGM use is common. Lack of redundancy of CGM supplies contributes to care disruption and adverse glycemic events.

Safety, metabolic and psychological outcomes of Medtronic MiniMed 670G in children, adolescents and young adults: a systematic review

Hybrid closed loop (HCL) systems are the combination of a pump for insulin delivery and a glucose sensor for continuous glucose monitoring. These systems are managed by an algorithm, which delivers insulin on the basis of the interstitial glucose levels. The MiniMed™ 670G system was the first HCL system available for clinical purpose. In this paper, we reviewed the literature about metabolic and psychological outcomes in children, adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes treated with MiniMed™ 670G. Only 30 papers responded to the inclusion criteria and thus were considered. All the papers show that the system is safe and effective in managing glucose control. Metabolic outcomes are available up to 12 months of follow-up; longer study period are lacking. This HCL system may improve HbA1c up to 7.1% and time in range up to 73%. The time spent in hypoglycaemia is almost neglectable. Better improvement in blood glucose control is observed in patients with higher HbA1c at HCL system start and larger daily use of auto-mode functionality.     Conclusion: The Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G is safe and well accepted, without any increase in the burden for patients. Some papers report an improvement in the psychological outcomes, but other papers do not confirm this finding. So far, it significantly improves the management of diabetes mellitus in children, adolescents and young adults. Proper training and support by the diabetes team are mandatory. Studies for a period longer than 1 year would be appreciated to better understand the potentiality of this system. What is Known: • The Medtronic MiniMed^TM 670G is a hybrid closed loop system which combines a continuous glucose monitoring sensor with an insulin pump. • It has been the first hybrid closed loop system available for clinical purpose. Adequate training and patients support play a key role in diabetes management. What is New: • The Medtronic MiniMed^TM 670G may improve HbA1c and CGM metrics up to 1-year of follow-up, but the improvement appears lower than advanced hybrid closed loop systems. This system is effective to prevent hypoglycaemia. • The psychosocial effects remain less understood in terms of improvement of psychosocial outcomes. The system has been considered to provide flexibility and independence by the patients and their caregivers. The workload required to use this system is perceived as a burden by the patients who decrease the use of auto-mode functionality over time.

Real-world performance of the MiniMed 780G advanced hybrid closed loop system in Latin America: Substantial improvement in glycaemic control with each technology iteration of the MiniMed automated insulin delivery system

AIM

We studied real-world performance of MiniMed (MM) 780G system users from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Chile (geographical analysis), and the effect of each technology iteration of the MM system on glycaemic control (technology iteration analysis).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CareLink data from August 2020 to September 2022 were extracted. Endpoints included continuous glucose monitoring metrics. For the geographical analysis, aggregated endpoints for MM780G system users were calculated. For the technology iteration analysis, MM780G system user outcomes were compared with outcomes when the same individuals were still using the MM640G or MM670G system.

RESULTS

On average, 1025 MM780G system users from the geographical analysis were followed for 136 (SD 135) days, spent 91.5 (14.3)% in advanced hybrid closed loop, showed a glucose management indicator (GMI) of 6.7 (0.3)%, a time in range between 70 and 180 mg/dl (TIR) of 76.5 (9.0)%, and a time below range 70 mg/dl (TBR) of 2.7 (2.1)%. The percentage of users reaching targets of GMI <7%, TIR >70% and TBR <4% was 80.8%, 78.1% and 80.1%, respectively. The technology iteration analysis on users transitioning from MM640G to MM780G system (N = 381) showed 0.4% decrease in GMI (7.1% to 6.7%, p < .0001), 10.7% increase in TIR (65.9% to 76.6%, p < .0001), while TBR remained. The percentage of insulin delivered automatically increased as well (47.5%-57.7%, p < .0001). Users transitioning from MM670G system (N = 78) showed a similar but less pronounced pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world Latin American MM780G users on average showed good glucose control, achieving international targets. Glycaemic control increased with every technology iteration of the MM system, providing more automation each time.

Near-optimal feedback control for postprandial glucose regulation in type 1 diabetes

This paper is focused on feedback control of postprandial glucose levels for patients with type 1 Diabetes Mellitus. There are two important limitations that make this a challenging problem. First, the slow subcutaneous insulin pharmacokinetics that introduces a significant lag into the control loop. Second, the positivity constraint on the control action, meaning that it is not possible to remove insulin from the body. In this paper, both issues are explicitly considered in the design process using the internal model control framework, to derive a near-optimal feedback controller. Optimality is understood here as minimizing the blood glucose peak after a meal intake and, at the same time, preventing glucose values below a prescribed threshold. It is shown how the proposed controller approaches the optimal closed-loop performance as a limit case. The theoretical results are supported by a numerical example and the feasibility of the overall strategy under uncertainties is illustrated using an extended version UVa/Padova metabolic simulator.

The Medtronic 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop system achieves and maintains good glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes adults despite previous treatment

INTRODUCTION

Improvements in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in recent years have changed the treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D) by permitting the automation of glucose control. The Minimed 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop (ACHL) system adapts basal infusion rates and delivers auto-correction boluses in order to achieve a user-decided glucose target (100, 110 or 120mg/dL). This study set out to evaluate the effectiveness of the Medtronic 780G system in real-life conditions over 6 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective study that included T1D subjects previously treated with insulin pump without CGM (pump group) or with sensor-augmented pump with predictive low-glucose suspend (SAP-PLGS group) who started with the Minimed 780G system. Sensor and pump data from baseline, and at 1, 3 and 6 months were downloaded and HbA1c was recorded at baseline and at 6 months.

RESULTS

Fifty T1D subjects were included; 25 were previous SAP-PLGS 640G users and 25 used 640G without CGM. 66% were female, 48.6 (40-57) years of age with 20 (12-31.5) years of diabetes duration. Time in range (TIR) improved in the total cohort from baseline to 6 months (69% (57.7-76) vs. 74% (70-82); p=0.01 as did HbA1c (7.6% (7.1-7.8) vs. 7.0% (6.8-7.5); p<0.001), with improvement in times <54, >180 and >250mg/dL. Outcomes at 6 months did not differ between groups, although the SAP-PLGS subjects were prone to hypoglycaemia and the pump group mainly presented suboptimal metabolic control.

CONCLUSION

The AHCL Medtronic Minimed 780G system achieves and maintains good glycaemic control over 6 months in real-life conditions in different profiles of T1D subjects.

Automated insulin delivery systems: from early research to routine care of type 1 diabetes

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, so-called closed-loop systems or artificial pancreas, are based upon the concept of insulin supply driven by blood glucose levels and their variations according to body glucose needs, glucose intakes and insulin action. They include a continuous glucose monitoring device which provides a signal to a control algorithm tuning insulin delivery from an infusion pump. The control algorithm is the key of the system since it commands insulin administration in order to maintain blood glucose in a predefined target range and close to a near-normal glucose level. The last two decades have shown dramatic advances toward the use in free life of AID systems for routine care of type 1 diabetes through step-by-step demonstrations of feasibility, safety and efficacy in successive hospital, transitional and outpatient trials. Because of the constraints of pharmacokinetics and dynamics of subcutaneous insulin delivery, the currently available AID systems are all 'hybrid' or 'semi-automated' insulin delivery systems with a need of meal and exercise announcements in order to anticipate rapid glucose variations through pre-meal bolus or pre-exercise reduction of infusion rate. Nevertheless, these AID systems significantly improve time spent in a near-normal range with a reduction of the risk of hypoglycemia and the mental load of managing diabetes in everyday life, representing a milestone in insulin therapy. Expected progression toward fully automated, further miniaturized and integrated, possibly implantable on long-term and more physiological closed-loop systems paves the way for a functional cure of type 1 diabetes.

In Silico Evaluation of the Medtronic 780G System While Using the GS3 and Its Calibration-Free Successor, the G4S Sensor

In silico simulation studies using 5807 virtual patients with insulin dependent diabetes have been conducted to estimate the risk and efficacy with the closed-loop 780G pump when switching between Medtronic Guardian Sensor 3 (GS3) and Medtronic Guardian 4 Sensor (G4S), next generation calibration free glucose sensor. To demonstrate by utilizing a case study that captures the merits of in silico studies with single hormone insulin dependent virtual patients that include variability in pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, age, gender, insulin sensitivity and BMIs. Also, to show that in silico studies can uniquely isolate the effect of a single variable on clinical outcomes. Simulation studies results were compared to clinical and commercial data and were separated by age groups and pump settings. The commercial data, the clinical study data and the simulation studies predicted that switching between GS3 to G4S will introduce a change in glucose average, percentage time between 70 and 180 mg/dL, and percentage time below 70 mg/dL of: 5.2, 3.4, and 3.1 mg/dL, - 1.1, 0.2, and - 1.1%, and - 0.6, - 1.0, and - 0.3%, respectively. We demonstrated that our simulation studies were able to predict the difference in glycemic outcomes when switching between different sensors in real world setting, better than a small clinical controlled study. As predicted, switching between GS3 and G4S sensors with the 780G system does not introduce clinical risk and maintain the clinical outcomes of the sensor. We demonstrated the ability of insulin dependent diabetes virtual patients to predict clinical outcomes and to augment or even replace some small clinical studies.

Improved Glycemia with Hybrid Closed-Loop Versus Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: To evaluate safety and effectiveness of MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed loop (HCL) in comparison with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy for 6 months in persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Adults (aged 18-80 years), adolescents, and children (aged 2-17 years) with T1D who were using CSII therapy were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to 6 months of HCL intervention (n = 151, mean age of 39.9 ± 19.8 years) or CSII without continuous glucose monitoring (n = 151, 35.7 ± 18.4 years). Primary effectiveness endpoints included change in A1C for Group 1 (baseline A1C >8.0%), from baseline to the end of study, and difference in the end of study percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL (%TBR <70 mg/dL) for Group 2 (baseline A1C ≤8.0%), to show superiority of HCL intervention versus control. Secondary effectiveness endpoints were change in A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 2 and Group 1, respectively, to show noninferiority of HCL intervention versus control. Primary safety endpoints were rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Results: Change in A1C and difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for the overall group were significantly improved, in favor of HCL intervention. In addition, a significant mean (95% confidence interval) change in A1C was observed for both Group 1 (-0.8% [-1.1% to -0.4%], P < 0.0001) and Group 2 (-0.3% [-0.5% to -0.1%], P < 0.0001), in favor of HCL intervention. The same was observed for difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 1 (-2.2% [-3.6% to -0.9%]) and Group 2 (-4.9% [-6.3% to -3.6%]) (P < 0.0001 for both). There was one DKA event during run-in and six severe hypoglycemic events: two during run-in and four during study (HCL: n = 0 and CSII: n = 4 [6.08 per 100 patient-years]). Conclusions: This RCT demonstrates that the MiniMed 670G HCL safely and significantly improved A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL compared with CSII control in persons with T1D, irrespective of baseline A1C level.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Automated insulin delivery: benefits, challenges, and recommendations. A Consensus Report of the Joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association

A technological solution for the management of diabetes in people who require intensive insulin therapy has been sought for decades. The last 10 years have seen substantial growth in devices that can be integrated into clinical care. Driven by the availability of reliable systems for continuous glucose monitoring, we have entered an era in which insulin delivery through insulin pumps can be modulated based on sensor glucose data. Over the past few years, regulatory approval of the first automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has been granted, and these systems have been adopted into clinical care. Additionally, a community of people living with type 1 diabetes has created its own systems using a do-it-yourself approach by using products commercialised for independent use. With several AID systems in development, some of which are anticipated to be granted regulatory approval in the near future, the joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association has created this consensus report. We provide a review of the current landscape of AID systems, with a particular focus on their safety. We conclude with a series of recommended targeted actions. This is the fourth in a series of reports issued by this working group. The working group was jointly commissioned by the executives of both organisations to write the first statement on insulin pumps, which was published in 2015. The original authoring group was comprised by three nominated members of the American Diabetes Association and three nominated members of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Additional authors have been added to the group to increase diversity and range of expertise. Each organisation has provided a similar internal review process for each manuscript prior to submission for editorial review by the two journals. Harmonisation of editorial and substantial modifications has occurred at both levels. The members of the group have selected the subject of each statement and submitted the selection to both organisations for confirmation.

Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Pump Technology Can Be Safely Used in the Inpatient Setting

BACKGROUND

Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems, also known as automated insulin delivery systems, are a rapidly growing technology in diabetes management. Because more patients are using these systems in the outpatient setting, it is important to also assess inpatient safety to determine whether HCL use can be continued when those patients become hospitalized.

METHODS

The records of patients using HCL technology on admission to our hospital between June 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021, were analyzed.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 71 patients divided into 3 categories based on their pump use as an inpatient: (1) HCL users; (2) manual pump users; and (3) pump removed. All cohorts were similar in age, sex, race, hemoglobin A1C at admission, and in Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group. Pairwise comparisons indicated that patient-stay mean glucose levels, frequency of patient-specific hyperglycemic measurements, and frequency of hypoglycemic events were similar between all groups. No adverse events, particularly occurrences of diabetic ketoacidosis, pump site complications or infection, or equipment malfunction, were reported.

CONCLUSION

This preliminary case series review indicates that continued use of HCL technology in the hospital is safe. Moreover, glycemic control in HCL users was comparable with that in those using insulin pump with manual settings and those converted to basal-bolus insulin therapy.

Performance of Fast-Acting Aspart Insulin as Compared to Aspart Insulin in Insulin Pump for Managing Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

No meta-analysis has analysed efficacy and safety of fast-acting aspart insulin (FIAsp) with insulin pump in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving T1DM patients on insulin pump receiving FIAsp in intervention arm, and placebo/active comparator insulin in control arm. Primary outcome was to evaluate changes in 1- and 2-hour post-prandial glucose (1hPPG and 2hPPG). Secondary outcomes were to evaluate alterations in percentage time with blood glucose <3.9 mmol/L (hypoglycaemia), time in range (TIR) blood glucose 3.9 to 10 mmol/L, insulin requirements and adverse events.

RESULTS

Data from four RCTs involving 640 patients was analysed. FIAsp use in insulin pump was associated with significantly greater lowering of 1hPPG (mean difference [MD], -1.35 mmol/L; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.72 to -0.98; P<0.01; I2=63%) and 2hPPG (MD, -1.19 mmol/L; 95% CI, -1.38 to -1.00; P<0.01; I2=0%) as compared to controls. TIR was comparable among groups (MD, 1.06%; 95% CI, -3.84 to 5.96; P=0.67; I2=70%). Duration of blood glucose <3.9 mmol/L was lower in FIAsp group, approaching significance (MD, -0.91%; 95% CI, -1.84 to 0.03; P=0.06; I2=0%). Total hypoglycaemic episodes (risk ratio [RR], 1.35; 95% CI, 0.55 to 3.31; P=0.51; I2=0%), severe hypoglycaemia (RR, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.77 to 6.66; P=0.14), infusion site reactions (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.63 to 2.93; P=0.77; I2=0%), and treatment-emergent adverse events (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.60; P=0.50; I2=0%) were comparable.

CONCLUSION

FIAsp use in insulin pump is associated with better post-prandial glycaemic control with no increased hypoglycaemia or glycaemic variability.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusions: Closing the loop

CONTEXT

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusions (CSIIs) and continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) have revolutionized the management of diabetes mellitus (DM). Over the last two decades the development of advanced, small, and user-friendly technology has progressed substantially, essentially closing the loop in the fasting and post-absorptive state, nearing the promise of an artificial pancreas. The momentum was mostly driven by the diabetes community itself, to improve its health and quality of life.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Literature regarding CSII and CGM was reviewed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Management of DM aims to regulate blood glucose to prevent long term micro and macrovascular complications. CSIIs combined with CGMs provide an integrated system to maintain tight glycemic control in a safe and uninterrupted fashion, while minimizing hypoglycemic events. Recent advances have allowed to 'close the loop' by better mimicking endogenous insulin secretion and glucose level regulation. Evidence supports sustained improvement in glycemic control with reduced episodes of hypoglycemia using these systems, while improving quality of life. Ongoing work in delivery algorithms with or without counterregulatory hormones will allow for further layers of regulation of the artificial pancreas.

CONCLUSION

Ongoing efforts to develop an artificial pancreas have created effective tools to improve the management of DM. CSIIs and CGMs are useful in diverse populations ranging from children to the elderly, as well as in various clinical contexts. Individually and more so together, these have had a tremendous impact in the management of DM, while avoiding treatment fatigue. However, cost and accessibility are still a hindrance to its wider application.

Automated Insulin Delivery: Benefits, Challenges, and Recommendations. A Consensus Report of the Joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association

A technological solution for the management of diabetes in people who require intensive insulin therapy has been sought for decades. The last 10 years have seen substantial growth in devices that can be integrated into clinical care. Driven by the availability of reliable systems for continuous glucose monitoring, we have entered an era in which insulin delivery through insulin pumps can be modulated based on sensor glucose data. Over the past few years, regulatory approval of the first automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has been granted, and these systems have been adopted into clinical care. Additionally, a community of people living with type 1 diabetes has created its own systems using a do-it-yourself approach by using products commercialized for independent use. With several AID systems in development, some of which are anticipated to be granted regulatory approval in the near future, the joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association has created this consensus report. We provide a review of the current landscape of AID systems, with a particular focus on their safety. We conclude with a series of recommended targeted actions. This is the fourth in a series of reports issued by this working group. The working group was jointly commissioned by the executives of both organizations to write the first statement on insulin pumps, which was published in 2015. The original authoring group was comprised by three nominated members of the American Diabetes Association and three nominated members of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Additional authors have been added to the group to increase diversity and range of expertise. Each organization has provided a similar internal review process for each manuscript prior to submission for editorial review by the two journals. Harmonization of editorial and substantial modifications has occurred at both levels. The members of the group have selected the subject of each statement and submitted the selection to both organizations for confirmation.

Continuous Glucose Monitor, Insulin Pump, and Automated Insulin Delivery Therapies for Type 1 Diabetes: An Update on Potential for Cardiovascular Benefits

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The incidence of type 1 diabetes (T1D) is rising in all age groups. T1D is associated with chronic microvascular and macrovascular complications but improving glycemic trends can delay the onset and slow the progression of these complications. Utilization of technological devices for diabetes management, such as continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and insulin pumps, is increasing, and these devices are associated with improvements in glycemic trends. Thus, device use may be associated with long-term prevention of T1D complications, yet few studies have investigated the direct impacts of devices on chronic complications in T1D. This review will describe common diabetes devices and combination systems, as well as review relationships between device use and cardiovascular outcomes in T1D.

RECENT FINDINGS

Findings from existing cohort and national registry studies suggest that pump use may aid in improving cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension and dyslipidemia. Furthermore, pump users have been shown to have lower arterial stiffness and better measures of myocardial function. In registry and case-control longitudinal data, pump use has been associated with fewer cardiovascular events and reduction of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality. CVD is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in T1D. Consistent use of diabetes devices may protect against the development and progression of macrovascular complications such as CVD through improvement in glycemic trends. Existing literature is limited, but findings suggest that pump use may reduce acute cardiovascular risk factors as well as chronic cardiovascular complications and overall mortality in T1D.

Pathophysiology and management of hypoglycemia in diabetes

In the century since the discovery of insulin, diabetes has changed from an early death sentence to a manageable chronic disease. This change in longevity and duration of diabetes coupled with significant advances in therapeutic options for patients has fundamentally changed the landscape of diabetes management, particularly in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. However, hypoglycemia remains a major barrier to achieving optimal glycemic control. Current understanding of the mechanisms of hypoglycemia has expanded to include not only counter-regulatory hormonal responses but also direct changes in brain glucose, fuel sensing, and utilization, as well as changes in neural networks that modulate behavior, mood, and cognition. Different strategies to prevent and treat hypoglycemia have been developed, including educational strategies, new insulin formulations, delivery devices, novel technologies, and pharmacologic targets. This review article will discuss current literature contributing to our understanding of the myriad of factors that lead to the development of clinically meaningful hypoglycemia and review established and novel therapies for the prevention and treatment of hypoglycemia.

Positive Impact of the Bionic Pancreas on Diabetes Control in Youth 6-17 Years Old with Type 1 Diabetes: A Multicenter Randomized Trial

Objective: To evaluate the insulin-only configuration of the iLet® bionic pancreas (BP) in youth 6-17 years old with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Research Design and Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, 165 youth with T1D (6-17 years old; baseline HbA1c 5.8%-12.2%; 35% using multiple daily injections, 36% using an insulin pump without automation, 4% using an insulin pump with low glucose suspend, and 25% using a hybrid closed-loop system before the study) were randomly assigned 2:1 to use BP (n = 112) with insulin aspart or insulin lispro (BP group) or to a control group (n = 53) using their personal standard care insulin delivery (SC group) plus real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The primary outcome was HbA1c at 13 weeks. Results: Mean HbA1c decreased from 8.1% ± 1.2% at baseline to 7.5% ± 0.7% at 13 weeks with BP versus 7.8% ± 1.1% at both baseline and 13 weeks with SC (adjusted difference = -0.5%, 95% CI -0.7% to -0.2%, P < 0.001). Participants with baseline HbA1c ≥9.0% (n = 34) decreased mean HbA1c from 9.7% ± 0.8% to 7.9% ± 0.6% after 13 weeks with BP compared with 9.7% ± 0.5% to 9.8% ± 0.8% with SC. Over 13 weeks, mean time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL increased by 10% (2.4 h per day) and mean CGM glucose was reduced by 15 mg/dL with BP compared with SC (P < 0.001). Analyses of time >180 mg/dL, time >250 mg/dL, and standard deviation of CGM glucose favored BP (P < 0.001). Time <54 mg/dL was low at baseline (median 0.2%) and not significantly different between groups over 13 weeks (P = 0.24). A severe hypoglycemia event occurred in 3 (2.7%) participants in the BP group and in 1 (1.9%) in the SC group. Conclusions: In youth 6-17 years old with T1D, use of insulin-only configuration of BP improved HbA1c, TIR, and hyperglycemic metrics without increasing CGM-measured hypoglycemia compared with standard of care. Improvement in glycemic metrics was most pronounced in participants with high baseline HbA1c levels. Clinical Trial Registry: clinicaltrials.gov; NCT04200313.

The Insulin-Only Bionic Pancreas Pivotal Trial Extension Study: A Multi-Center Single-Arm Evaluation of the Insulin-Only Configuration of the Bionic Pancreas in Adults and Youth with Type 1 Diabetes

Objective: To evaluate a transition from standard-of-care (SC) management of type 1 diabetes (any insulin delivery method including hybrid closed-loop systems plus real-time continuous glucose monitoring [CGM]) to use of the insulin-only configuration of the iLet® bionic pancreas (BP) in 90 adults and children (age 6-71 years). Research Design and Methods: After the SC group completed the randomized controlled trial (RCT) portion of the Insulin-Only BP Pivotal Trial, 90 of the 107 participants participated in a 13-week study using the BP. The key outcomes were change from baseline in HbA1c and CGM metrics after 13 weeks on the BP. Results: Using the BP, mean HbA1c decreased from 7.7% ± 1.0% (61 ± 10.9 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7.1% ± 0.6% (54 ± 6.6 mmol/mol) at 13 weeks (mean change -0.55% ± 0.72% [-6 ± 7.9 mmol/mol], P < 0.001), time in range 70-180 mg/dL increased by 12.0% ± 12.5% (from 53% ± 17% to 65% ± 9%, P < 0.001), and mean glucose decreased by -18 ± 23 mg/dL (from 182 ± 32 to 164 ± 15 mg/dL, P < 0.001). The higher the baseline HbA1c level, the greater the change in HbA1c. Results were similar in the adult (N = 42) and pediatric (N = 48) cohorts. Time <70 mg/dL decreased from baseline over the 13 weeks by -0.50% ± 1.86% (P = 0.02), and time <54 mg/dL was similar (change from baseline -0.08% ± 0.59%, P = 0.24). Two severe hypoglycemia events (in same participant) and one diabetic ketoacidosis event occurred. Conclusions: Glycemic control improved after adult and pediatric participants in the SC arm in the Insulin-Only BP Pivotal Trial transitioned to use of the BP. Improvement using the BP was of similar magnitude to that observed during the RCT. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04200313.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

Outpatient Randomized Crossover Comparison of Zone Model Predictive Control Automated Insulin Delivery with Weekly Data Driven Adaptation Versus Sensor-Augmented Pump: Results from the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial 4

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have proven effective in increasing time-in-range during both clinical trials and real-world use. Further improvements in outcomes for single-hormone (insulin only) AID may be limited by suboptimal insulin delivery settings. Methods: Adults (≥18 years of age) with type 1 diabetes were randomized to either sensor-augmented pump (SAP) (inclusive of predictive low-glucose suspend) or adaptive zone model predictive control AID for 13 weeks, then crossed over to the other arm. Each week, the AID insulin delivery settings were sequentially and automatically updated by an adaptation system running on the study phone. Primary outcome was sensor glucose time-in-range 70-180 mg/dL, with noninferiority in percent time below 54 mg/dL as a hierarchical outcome. Results: Thirty-five participants completed the trial (mean age 39 ± 16 years, HbA1c at enrollment 6.9% ± 1.0%). Mean time-in-range 70-180 mg/dL was 66% with SAP versus 69% with AID (mean adjusted difference +2% [95% confidence interval: -1% to +6%], P = 0.22). Median time <70 mg/dL improved from 3.0% with SAP to 1.6% with AID (-1.5% [-2.4% to -0.5%], P = 0.002). The adaptation system decreased initial basal rates by a median of 4% (-8%, 16%) and increased initial carbohydrate ratios by a median of 45% (32%, 59%) after 13 weeks. Conclusions: Automated adaptation of insulin delivery settings with AID use did not significantly improve time-in-range in this very well-controlled population. Additional study and further refinement of the adaptation system are needed, especially in populations with differing degrees of baseline glycemic control, who may show larger benefits from adaptation.

Evaluation of real-life clinical outcomes in Australian youth with type 1 diabetes on hybrid closed-loop therapy: A retrospective study

AIM

To determine the clinical outcomes and evaluate the perspectives of children with Type 1 diabetes (T1D) and their parents managing their child on hybrid closed-loop (HCL) therapy.

METHODS

Children with T1D on HCL attending a tertiary diabetes centre between April 2019 and July 2021 were included. A retrospective analysis of glycaemic data was conducted to determine the clinical outcomes. Time spent in closed loop, time in target glucose range (TIR 3.9-10 mmol/L), hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia were collected at baseline, 4 weeks, 3 and 6 months post-HCL. User experience was assessed by questionnaires administered to parents of children with T1D.

RESULTS

Seventy-one children, mean (SD) age of 12.2 (3.2) years were commenced on HCL. Ten (14%) discontinued HCL use, with 60% discontinuing within the first 6 months. Glycaemic outcomes were analysed in 52 children. Time spent in closed loop was 78 (21) % at 4 weeks, declined to 69 (28) % at 3 months (P = 0.037) and 63 (34) % at 6 months (P = 0.001). The mean %TIR increased from 59.8 at baseline to 67.6 at 3 months and 65.6 at 6 months with a mean adjusted difference of 7.8% points [95% CI 3.6, 11.9] and 5.5% points [95% CI 1.4, 9.5], respectively. There was a reduction in time > 10 mmol/L and time < 3.9 mmol/L from baseline to 6 months. Although families faced challenges with technology, better glucose control with reduced glycaemic fluctuations were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

HCL therapy is associated with improved glycaemia; however, adequate support and education are required for best outcomes.

A Comparison of Postprandial Glucose Control in the Medtronic Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Versus 670G

Background: We recently reported that use of an "advanced" hybrid closed-loop system reduced hyperglycemia without increasing hypoglycemia compared to a first-generation system. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate whether this improved performance was specifically related to better mealtime glycemic control. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of postprandial glycemic control in an open-label, multinational, randomized crossover trial of 112 participants with type 1 diabetes, aged 14-29, of the Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed-loop system (670G) versus the Medtronic advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system, for 12 weeks each. We compared glycemic and insulin delivery metrics over a 3 h horizon across all meals to assess system performance and outcomes. Results: Overall meal size and premeal insulin on board were similar during run-in and between 670G and AHCL arms. Compared with 670G arm, premeal, peak, and mean glucose levels were numerically lower in the AHCL arm (167 ± 23, 231 ± 23, and 177 ± 20 mg/dL vs. 175 ± 23, 235 ± 23, and 180 ± 19 mg/dL, respectively), with a trend to lower hyperglycemia level 2 in AHCL arm. Adjusting for premeal glucose level, all postmeal outcomes between 670G and AHCL were statistically similar. Prandial insulin delivery also was similar in both treatment arms (21 ± 9 vs. 23 ± 10 U), with a shift in basal/bolus ratio from 28%/71% in 670G arm to 20%/80% in AHCL arm. Conclusions: Reduced hyperglycemia with AHCL compared to 670G was not related to early postprandial glycemic excursions after adjusting for premeal glucose level (<3 h after meal), but likely to later (>3 h) postprandial or overnight improvements. Further refinements to mealtime bolus algorithms and strategies may more optimally control prandial glycemic excursions.

Childhood diabetes and sleep

Sleep modulates glucose metabolism, both in healthy states and in disease. Alterations in sleep duration (insufficient and excessive) and obstructive sleep apnea may have reciprocal ties with obesity, insulin resistance and Type 2 diabetes, as demonstrated by emerging evidence in children and adolescents. Type 1 diabetes is also associated with sleep disturbances due to the influence of wide glycemic fluctuations upon sleep architecture, the need to treat nocturnal hypoglycemia, and the need for glucose monitoring and insulin delivery technologies. In this article, we provide an extensive and critical review on published pediatric literature regarding these topics, reviewing both epidemiologic and qualitative data, and provide an overview of the pathophysiology linking sleep with disorders of glucose homeostasis.

Glycemic Effects and Predictors of Increased Time-in-Range After Initiating MiniMed 670G: A 12-Month Observational Study

We aimed to evaluate the glycemic effect and detect any predictors of improved time-in-range (TIR) in persons with type 1 diabetes after initiating hybrid closed-loop (HCL) treatment with MiniMed 670G in a 12-month retrospective observational study. Before starting HCL treatment, the 62 participants followed a Steno-developed training program; 7 participants (6.5%) discontinued the HCL therapy; the remaining 55 (58% female) had an age (mean ± standard deviation) of 45.6 ± 12.6 years and diabetes duration of 28.2 ± 10.9 years. After 12 months' HCL therapy, glycated hemoglobin A1c decreased from 7.4% +0.7% to 7.1% +0.5%, TIR increased from 59.3% ± 13.5% to 72% ± 9.3%, time in 54-70 mg/dL (3.0-3.9 mM) decreased from 2.4% ± 2.0% to 1.4% ± 1.0%, and time in 180-250 mg/dL (10.0-13.9 mM) decreased from 26.4% ± 8.3% to 20.8% ± 5.5%, all P < 0.001. Improvement in TIR was significantly associated with lower total daily insulin dose, higher amount of total carbohydrate, and more time spent in Auto Mode. Our findings support the promising results on glycemic outcomes seen with HCL treatment.

Subcutaneous insulin administration by deep reinforcement learning for blood glucose level control of type-2 diabetic patients

BACKGROUND

Type-2 diabetes mellitus is characterized by insulin resistance and impaired insulin secretion in the human body. Many endeavors have been made in terms of controlling and reducing blood glucose via the medium of automated controlling tools to increase precision and efficiency and reduce human error. Recently, reinforcement learning algorithms are proved to be powerful in the field of intelligent control, which was the motivation for the current study.

METHODS

For the first time, a reinforcement algorithm called normalized advantage function (NAF) algorithm has been applied as a model-free reinforcement learning method to regulate the blood glucose level of type-2 diabetic patients through subcutaneous injection. The algorithm has been designed and developed in a model-free approach to avoid additional inaccuracies and parameter uncertainty introduced by the mathematical models of the glucoregulatory system. Insulin doses constitute the control action that is designed to be stated directly in clinical language with the unit IU. In this regard, a new environment state is considered in addition to the glucose level to take into account the delayed effect of insulin elimination under the skin. Finally, a simple but practical reward function is developed to be used with the NAF algorithm to correct the glucose level and maintain it in the desired range.

RESULTS

The simulation environment was set up to imitate the basal-bolus process accurately. Results for 30 days of simulation of the designed controller on three different average virtual patients verify the feasibility and effectiveness of the method and reveal our proposed controller's learning ability. Moreover, as the insulin elimination dynamic was taken into account, a more complete and more realistic model than the previously studied models has emerged.

CONCLUSION

NAF has proved a promising control approach, able to successfully regulate and significantly reduce the fluctuation of the blood glucose without meal announcements, compared to standard optimized open-loop basal-bolus therapies. The method and its results, which are directly in the clinical language, are applicable in real-time clinical situations.

Spanish Translation and Linguistic Validation of the Glucose Monitoring Experiences Questionnaire (GME-Q) in Continuous Glucose Monitoring Users

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has become standard practice in people with type 1 diabetes. The evaluation of user satisfaction is crucial. The Glucose Monitoring Experiences questionnaire (GME-Q) includes 23 items with a 5-point Likert scale to produce a total satisfaction score and three subscale scores. The study aimed to translate the GME-Q from English into Spanish and to validate its use in Spanish-speaking CGM users with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

The linguistic translation and validation process of the GME-Q was established. T1D CGM users were asked to complete the produced Spanish version of the GME-Q and interviewed about difficulties or misunderstandings. Total satisfaction, effectiveness, convenience and intrusiveness subscales and internal consistency reliability were computed.

RESULTS

Forward and backward translations and cognitive debriefing produced a final version of the GME-Q in Spanish. Ninety-eight subjects with type 1 diabetes were selected (age: 40 ± 12 years, 63% females, Hb1c: 7.2 ± 0.9% (55 ± 10 mmol/l), pump users: 78%, CGM use: 3.7 ± 2.6 years). The completion rate was 99% and the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.8. The total satisfaction score was 3.9 ± 0.4 (effectiveness: 4.1 ± 0.6, convenience: 3.8 ± 0.6, intrusiveness: 2.2 ± 0.7).

CONCLUSION

The GME-Q was translated into Spanish and validated for Spanish-speaking CGM users with type 1 diabetes.

Comparison of MiniMed 780G system performance in users aged younger and older than 15 years: Evidence from 12 870 real-world users

AIM

To investigate real-world glycaemic outcomes and goals achieved by users of the MiniMed 780G advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system aged younger and older than 15 years with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data uploaded by MiniMed 780G system users from 27 August 2020 to 22 July 2021 were aggregated and retrospectively analysed based on self-reported age (≤15 years and >15 years) for three cohorts: (a) post-AHCL initiation, (b) 6-month longitudinal post-AHCL initiation and (c) pre- versus post-AHCL initiation. Analyses included mean percentage of time spent in AHCL and at sensor glucose ranges, insulin delivered and the proportion of users achieving recommended glucose management indicator (GMI < 7.0%) and time in target range (TIR 70-180 mg/dl > 70%) goals.

RESULTS

Users aged 15 years or younger (N = 3211) achieved a GMI of 6.8% ± 0.3% and TIR of 73.9% ± 8.7%, while spending 92.7% of time in AHCL. Users aged older than 15 years (N = 8874) achieved a GMI of 6.8% ± 0.4% and TIR of 76.5% ± 9.4% with 92.3% of time in AHCL. Time spent at less than 70 mg/dl was within the recommended target of less than 4% (3.2% and 2.3%, respectively). Similar outcomes were observed for each group (N = 790 and N = 1642, respectively) in the first month following AHCL initiation, and were sustained over the 6-month observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world analysis shows that more than 75% of users with T1D aged 15 years or younger using the MiniMed 780G system achieved international consensus-recommended glycaemic control, mirroring the achievements of the population aged older than 15 years.

Minimed Medtronic 780G optimizes glucose control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The new advanced hybrid closed loop insulin infusion systems have the potential to significantly improve glycaemic control. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Minimed 780G system in 59 patients with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Glucose control obtained by using the system in automatic mode at 1-2 months of activation, at 2-4 months, at 4-6 months, and beyond 6 month was compared with those obtained with the system in manual mode. A significant improvement in time-in-range and in time-above-range throughout the follow-up was observed, as well as a significant reduction in time-below-range (<54 mg/dl) after 6 months, a significant reduction of the glucose variability and of HbA1c. After switching the mode, all target percentages lied on the average within the recommended ranges by literature consensus and no severe hypoglycemia nor ketoacidosis episodes were recorded.

CONCLUSION

The Minimed 780G allowed a rapid and progressive improvement of the overall glucose control.

In-home use of a hybrid closed loop achieves time-in-range targets in preschoolers and school children: Results from a randomized, controlled, crossover trial

AIM

To obtain additional information on the incremental differences between using a sensor-augmented pump (SAP) without automated insulin delivery (AID), using it with predictive low-glucose management (PLGM) or as hybrid closed loop (HCL), in preschool and school children.

METHODS

We conducted a monocentric, randomized, controlled, two-phase crossover study in 38 children aged 2-6 and 7-14 years. The primary endpoint was the percentage of time in range (TIR) of 70-180 mg/dl. Other continuous glucose sensor metrics, HbA1c, patient-related outcomes (DISABKIDS questionnaire, Fear of Hypoglycaemia Survey) and safety events were also assessed. Results from 2 weeks of SAP, 8 weeks of PLGM and 8 weeks of HCL were compared using a paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

Overall, we found a high rate of TIR target (>70%) achievement with HCL in preschool (88%) and school children (50%), with average times in Auto Mode of 93% and 87%, respectively. Preschool children achieved a mean TIR of 73% ± 6% (+8% vs. SAP, +6% vs. PLGM) and school children 69% ± 8% (+15% vs. SAP and + 14% vs. PLGM). Overall, HbA1c improved from 7.4% ± 0.9% to 6.9% ± 0.5% (P = .0002). Diabetes burden and worries and fear of hypoglycaemia remained at low levels, without significant changes versus PLGM. No events of severe hypoglycaemia or diabetic ketoacidosis occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Preschool children profit from AID at least as much as those aged 7 years and older. To ensure safe use and prescribing modalities, regulatory approval is also required for young children.

Friend or Foe: a Narrative Review of the Impact of Diabetes Technology on Sleep

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to present a review of sleep science, the relationship between sleep and type 1 diabetes, and highlight the current literature on sleep outcomes in adult and pediatric diabetes technology research.

RECENT FINDINGS

Sleep quality is associated with glycemic outcomes, diabetes self-management, and mental health in people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes technologies, including insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, and hybrid closed-loop systems improve glycemic outcomes. However, many people find this technology challenging for a variety of reasons, including increased burden and frequent alarms, especially during the night. The impact of different devices on sleep quality and quantity has been mixed. The newest technology, the hybrid closed-loop systems, offers the best opportunity for nocturnal glycemic regulation and has improved patient and family perspectives on sleep quality. However, objective sleep assessment has not shown significant improvement on sleep duration. Sleep quality and quantity in people with type 1 diabetes are widely recognized as an important component of health care, and the literature regarding the impact of diabetes devices on sleep is increasing. However, sleep disruptions are common and a barrier to device use. Despite finding minimal changes to sleep duration with device use, subjective accounts of sleep quality are overall positive, especially in those using hybrid closed-loop systems. Sleep quantity and quality are important outcomes to consider as diabetes technology continues to evolve.

Closed-Loop Artificial Pancreas Therapy for Type 1 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Closed-loop insulin pump systems (artificial pancreas) represent the cutting edge of insulin delivery technology. There are only a few systems currently approved for use in the USA: the MiniMed 670G/770G (which share an algorithm), t:slim X2 Control IQ, and the Omnipod 5. We review these systems and look into the future of the technology.

RECENT FINDINGS

All of the approved closed-loop insulin pump systems have demonstrated in multicenter prospective trials improvements in time in range, hemoglobin A1c, and time spent in hypoglycemia. The newer systems have also improved time spent in automation. Comparisons between the systems with regard to glycemic control are difficult to make due to differences in clinical trial design, but there are notable differences in the user experience between systems. The past few years have been a time of exponential development in the field of closed-loop insulin pump systems. However, more research is needed to provide full automation of these systems without any need for information from the user.

Qualitative Study of User Experiences with Loop, an Open-Source Automated Insulin Delivery System

Background: Loop is an open-source automated insulin delivery (AID) system, used by more than 9,000 people with type 1 diabetes. Understanding the pros and cons of Loop use may help improve disease management and support population level innovation. Methods: Focus groups revealed 72 new and existing users' perspectives on Loop uptake, use, and persistence. A subsample of participants from a mixed-methods, observational cohort study shared first-hand accounts of their experiences using Loop. Participants were predominately white (95%), male (50%), privately insured (94%), and reported annual household income ≥$100K (73%) and education exceeding a bachelor's degree (87%) with a mean HbA1c of 6.6% ± 0.8%. Data were analyzed and synthesized by a multidisciplinary team. Results: Participants detailed their experiences with (1) Loop technical support and troubleshooting, (2) decreased mental/behavioral burden, (3) technical issues with parts of the system, (4) glycemic control, (5) personalizing settings, and (6) providers while using Loop. Decreased burden was the most endorsed benefit defined by less worry, stress, and cognitive effort and less time spent on diabetes management tasks. Participants highlighted the benefits of Loop overnight and their introduction to "Loop communities" during use. The most discussed challenges involved technical issues. A range of provider attitudes and knowledge about Loop complicated users' clinical experiences and disclosure. Conclusions: This sample of new and experienced Loop users reported benefits to quality of life and glycemic control that outweighed challenges of setting up system components, customizing the system to suit one's lifestyle and habits, and adjusting system settings. Challenges related to system setup and calibrating settings are remediable and, if addressed, may better serve Loop users. Users reported feeling empowered by the customizability of and the educational effects facilitated by the open-source AID system. Loop helped users learn more about their chronic illness and physiology in an acceptable format. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03838900.

J. Schreiber L, Wallace EJ, Wylie R, O'Sullivan J, Dolan EB, Duffy GP. Medical devices, smart drug delivery, wearables and technology for the treatment of Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetes mellitus refers to a group of metabolic disorders which affect how the body uses glucose impacting approximately 9% of the population worldwide. This review covers the most recent technological advances envisioned to control and/or reverse Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), many of which will also prove effective in treating the other forms of diabetes mellitus. Current standard therapy for T1DM involves multiple daily glucose measurements and insulin injections. Advances in glucose monitors, hormone delivery systems, and control algorithms generate more autonomous and personalised treatments through hybrid and fully automated closed-loop systems, which significantly reduce hypo- and hyperglycaemic episodes and their subsequent complications. Bi-hormonal systems that co-deliver glucagon or amylin with insulin aim to reduce hypoglycaemic events or increase time spent in target glycaemic range, respectively. Stimuli responsive materials for the controlled delivery of insulin or glucagon are a promising alternative to glucose monitors and insulin pumps. By their self-regulated mechanism, these "smart" drugs modulate their potency, pharmacokinetics and dosing depending on patients' glucose levels. Islet transplantation is a potential cure for T1DM as it restores endogenous insulin and glucagon production, but its use is not yet widespread due to limited islet sources and risks of chronic immunosuppression. New encapsulation strategies that promote angiogenesis and oxygen delivery while protecting islets from recipients' immune response may overcome current limiting factors.