Improved Glycemic Outcomes With Medtronic MiniMed Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Delivery: Results From a Randomized Crossover Trial Comparing Automated Insulin Delivery With Predictive Low Glucose Suspend in People With Type 1 Diabetes

Evidence from clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Meeting increased regulatory requirements for clinical evaluation of medical devices marketed in Europe in accordance with the Medical Device Regulation (EU 2017/745) is challenging, particularly for high-risk devices used in children.

METHODS

Within the CORE-MD project, we performed a scoping review on evidence from clinical trials investigating high-risk paediatric medical devices used in paediatric cardiology, diabetology, orthopaedics and surgery, in patients aged 0-21 years. We searched Medline and Embase from 1st January 2017 to 9th November 2022.

RESULTS

From 1692 records screened, 99 trials were included. Most were multicentre studies performed in North America and Europe that mainly had evaluated medical devices from the specialty of diabetology. Most had enrolled adolescents and 39% of trials included both children and adults. Randomized controlled trials accounted for 38% of the sample. Other frequently used designs were before-after studies (21%) and crossover trials (20%). Included trials were mainly small, with a sample size <100 participants in 64% of the studies. Most frequently assessed outcomes were efficacy and effectiveness as well as safety.

CONCLUSION

Within the assessed sample, clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children were of various designs, often lacked a concurrent control group, and recruited few infants and young children.

IMPACT

In the assessed sample, clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children were mainly small, with variable study designs (often without concurrent control), and they mostly enrolled adolescents. We provide a systematic summary of methodologies applied in clinical trials of medical devices in the paediatric population, reflecting obstacles in this research area that make it challenging to conduct adequately powered randomized controlled trials. In view of changing European regulations and related concerns about shortages of high-risk medical devices for children, our findings may assist competent authorities in setting realistic requirements for the evidence level to support device conformity certification.

Glucose and Psychosocial Outcomes 12 Months Following Transition from Multiple Daily Injections to Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes and Suboptimal Glycemia

Objective: To investigate 12-month glycemic and psychosocial changes following transition from multiple daily injections (MDI) to advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) therapy in youth (aged 13-25 years) with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemia (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] ≥8.5% [69 mmol/mol]). Research Design and Methods: Prospective, single arm, dual-center study in 20 participants. Extension phase outcomes reported after 12 months, including HbA1c, time in glycemic ranges, AHCL system performance, and psychosocial questionnaires assessing quality of life, diabetes treatment, and sleep. Results: After 12 months, 19 out of 20 participants continued to use AHCL. Average time-in-range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) improved from 27.6% ± 13.2% to 62.5% ± 11.4%. This translated to an average 2.5 percentage-point (27.1 mmol/mol) improvement in HbA1c from 10.5% ± 2.1% (91.2 mmol/mol) at baseline to 8.0% ± 0.9% (64.1 mmol/mol) at 12 months. Psychosocial questionnaires and very high HbA1c at study entry indicated significant diabetes-associated burden for both individuals and parents. After 12 months, improvements were observed in general and diabetes-specific health-related quality of life, as well as in diabetes treatment satisfaction. Safety data were reassuring with a diabetic ketoacidosis rate of 0.15 per participant-year after 12 months of AHCL (compared to 0.25 per participant-year in the 12 months before the study). Conclusions: After 12 months of AHCL usage, this study highlights the potential for substantial and sustained glycemic and psychosocial improvements among individuals experiencing considerable diabetes burden and suboptimal glycemia, following their switch from MDI to AHCL.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

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, an interprofessional 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.

Comparison of the Sensor-Augmented Pump System with the Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Delivery System: Quality of Life, Diabetes Distress, and Glycaemic Outcomes in a Real-Life Context

BACKGROUND

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) is a chronic disease that requires exogenous insulin administration and intensive management to prevent any complications. Recent innovations in T1D management technologies include the Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop delivery system (AHCL). The pioneer AHCL system provides automated basal and automated bolus corrections when needed.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) system and the Sensor-Augmented Pump (SAP) with Predictive Low Glucose Management (PLGM) system, in relation to glycaemic outcomes, general and diabetes-related Quality of Life (QoL), and diabetes distress.

METHODS

General and diabetes-related QoL were assessed with the Diabetes Quality of Life Brief Clinical Inventory (DQOL-BCI) and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF), respectively. Diabetes distress was assessed with the Diabetes Distress Scale for Type 1 diabetes (T1-DDS).

RESULTS

Eighty-nine T1D adults participated in the study, mostly females (65.2%), with a mean age of 39.8 (± 11.5 years). They had on average 23 years of diabetes (± 10.7) and they were on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy. Significant differences favoring the AHCL over the SAP + PLGM system were demonstrated by lower mean glucose levels, less time above range, lower scores on DQOL-BCI, T1-DDS, and higher scores on WHOQOL-BREF. Finally, the linear regression models revealed the association of time in range in most of the above aspects.

CONCLUSION

This study highlighted the advantages of the AHCL system over the SAP + PLGM system in the real-world setting in relation to general and diabetes-related QoL, diabetes distress, and glycaemic outcomes.

Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Achieves and Maintains Recommended Time in Range Levels for Up To 2 Years: Predictors of Best Efficacy

Aim: To evaluate the long-term efficacy, up to 2 years, of an advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system and to assess predictors of best results of the therapy. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 296 adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus [mean age 42.8 ± 16.5 years, men 42.9%, duration of diabetes 22.5 ± 12.8 years, body mass index 24.9 ± 4.7 kg/m2, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 63.4 ± 12.2 mmol/mol (8.0 ± 1.1%) ] who used the MiniMed™ 780G system. Demographic and clinical data were recorded. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived metrics and insulin requirement were analyzed from the 4 weeks before and from every quarter after the switch to the AHCL system. Results: In the first quarter of AHCL treatment, all CGM metrics improved. Time in range (TIR) increased from 58.1 ± 17.5% to 70.3 ± 9.5% (P < 0.0001). The improvement lasted for up to 2 years of observation regardless of previous insulin therapies. Throughout the period of observation, 53.4% of participants achieved mean TIR >70%, 92.6% mean time below range <4%, and 46% mean glucose management indicator <53 mmol/mol (7.0%). At univariable logistic regression older age, lower baseline HbA1c and insulin requirement were associated with mean TIR >70%. At multivariable analysis, lower HbA1c remained independently associated with a better glycemic control. However, mean TIR increased more in participants with a higher baseline HbA1c. Conclusions: Switching to an AHCL leads to a rapid improvement in glycemic control lasting for up to 24 months along with a low risk for hypoglycemia, confirming the safety of the system. Lower baseline HbA1c was the main predictor of better efficacy of therapy, although higher baseline HbA1c was associated with the greatest improvement in mean TIR.

Daytime hypoglycemic episodes during the use of an advanced hybrid closed loop system

AIMS

The use of advanced hybrid closed loop systems is spreading due to the beneficial effects on glycometabolic control obtained in patients with type 1 diabetes. However, hypoglycemic episodes can be sometimes a matter of concern. We aim to compare the hypoglycemic risk of an advanced hybrid closed loop system and a predictive low glucose suspend sensor augmented pump.

METHODS

In this retrospective three months observational study, we included 30 patients using Medtronic Minimed™ 780G advanced hybrid closed loop system and 30 patients using a Medtronic Minimed™ predictive low glucose suspend sensor augmented pump.

RESULTS

The advanced hybrid closed loop system reduced the time spent above 180 mg/dL threshold and increased the time in range as compared to the predictive low glucose suspend. No severe hypoglycemia occurred in both groups and no differences were observed in the percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dl and 54 mg/dl glucose threshold. Nevertheless, more hypoglycemic episodes were recorded during daytime, but not in nighttime, with the use of the advanced hybrid closed loop system.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirmed the general improvement of glycemic outcomes obtained with the advanced hybrid closed loop system; however more hypoglycemic episodes during daytime were evident.

Results From a Virtual Clinic for the Follow-up of Patients Using the Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System

BACKGROUND

Evidence regarding the implementation of medium-term strategies in advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system users is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the efficacy and safety of the AHCL system in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) on a six-month follow-up in a virtual diabetes clinic (VDC).

METHOD

A prospective cohort of adult patients with T1D treated using the AHCL system (Mini Med 780G; Medtronic, Northridge, California) in a VDC follow-up. Standardized training and follow-up were conducted virtually. Clinical data and metabolic control outcomes were reported at baseline, and at three and six months.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients (mean age = 42 ± 14.6 years, 65% men, 54% with graduate education) were included. Percentage time in range (%TIR) increased significantly regardless of prior therapy with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring + multiple daily injections and sensor-augmented pump therapy with predictive low-glucose management after starting AHCL and persisted during the follow-up period with no hypoglycemic events. The %TIR 70 to 180 mg/dL according to socioeconomic strata was 73.4% ± 5.3%, 78.1% ± 8.1%, and 84.2% ± 7.5% for the lower, middle, and upper strata, respectively. The sensor was used more frequently in the population with a higher education level. Adherence to sensor use and SmartGuard retention were higher in patients who underwent the VDC follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Medium-term follow-up of users of AHCL systems in a VDC contributes to safely achieving %TIR goals. Virtual diabetes clinic follow-up favored adherence to sensor use and continuous SmartGuard use. Socioeconomic strata were associated with a better glycemic profile and education level was associated with better adherence to sensor use.

Glucose Monitoring Metrics in Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes Using Different Treatment Modalities: A Real-World Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the association between continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived glycemic metrics and different insulin treatment modalities using real-world data.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study at Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Denmark, included individuals with type 1 diabetes using CGM. Data from September 2021 to August 2022 were analyzed if CGM was used for at least 20% of a 4-week period. Individuals were divided into four groups: multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy, insulin pumps with unintegrated CGM (SUP), sensor-augmented pumps with low glucose management (SAP), and automated insulin delivery (AID). The MDI and SUP groups were further subdivided based on CGM alarm features. The primary outcome was percentage of time in range (TIR: 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) for each treatment group. Secondary outcomes included other glucose metrics and HbA1c.

RESULTS

Out of 6,314 attendees, 3,184 CGM users were included in the analysis. Among them, 1,622 used MDI, 504 used SUP, 354 used SAP, and 561 used AID. Median TIR was 54.0% for MDI, 54.9% for SUP, 62,9% for SAP, and 72,1% for AID users. The proportion of individuals achieving all recommended glycemic targets (TIR >70%, time above range <25%, and time below range <4%) was significantly higher in SAP (odds ratio [OR] 2.4 [95% CI 1.6-3.5]) and AID (OR 9.4 [95% CI 6.7-13.0]) compared with MDI without alarm features.

CONCLUSIONS

AID appears superior to other insulin treatment modalities with CGM. Although bias may be present because of indications, AID should be considered the preferred choice for insulin pump therapy.

Real-World Glycemic Outcomes with Early Omnipod 5 Use in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes

Background: Pivotal trials of diabetes technologies have demonstrated glycemic improvements; however, these trials include patients of limited diversity and ranges of glycemic control. We assessed changes in glycemic control during the first 90 days of Omnipod 5 use in a real-world cohort of youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Youth 2-21 years with T1D initiating Omnipod 5 at two pediatric academic centers were included. Fourteen days of baseline (BL) continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data were compared against data from the first 90 days of Omnipod 5 use. Outcome measures included changes in time in range (TIR), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and CGM and insulin pump metrics based on the duration of Omnipod 5 use. Results: Among 195 youth (78.9% non-Hispanic White, 15.4% publicly insured, age 11.7 years, T1D duration 3.3 years) TIR increased 11%-points, from 49% to 61% (P < 0.001), and HbA1c decreased 0.5%-points, from 7.5% to 6.9% (P < 0.001). TIR improved within the first 9 days of Omnipod 5 use (p < 0.001) and did not change significantly thereafter (P = 0.1) despite decreases in user-initiated boluses (5.1 vs. 5.0, P = 0.01) and carbohydrate entries (4.2 vs. 4.1, P = 0.005) from days 1-9 to days 1-90. TIR improved 15%-points among youth with BL TIR <60% compared to a 5%-point increase for youth with BL TIR ≥60% (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Glycemic control improved within 9 days of Omnipod 5 initiation in this real-world cohort, and improvements were sustained over the first 90 days of use despite concomitant decreases in user-initiated boluses. These improvements were comparable to those observed in the pivotal trial.

Safety and Glycemic Outcomes During the MiniMedTM Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Pivotal Trial in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes

Background: During MiniMed™ advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) use by adolescents and adults in the pivotal trial, glycated hemoglobin (A1C) was significantly reduced, time spent in range (TIR) was significantly increased, and there were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). The present study investigated the same primary safety and effectiveness endpoints during AHCL use by a younger cohort with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: An intention-to-treat population (N = 160, aged 7-17 years) with T1D was enrolled in a single-arm study at 13 investigational centers. There was a run-in period (∼25 days) using HCL or sensor-augmented pump with/without predictive low-glucose management, followed by a 3-month study period with AHCL activated at two glucose targets (GTs; 100 and 120 mg/dL) for ∼45 days each. The mean ± standard deviation values of A1C, TIR, mean sensor glucose (SG), coefficient of variation (CV) of SG, time at SG ranges, and insulin delivered between run-in and study were analyzed (Wilcoxon signed-rank test or t-test). Results: Compared with baseline, AHCL use was associated with reduced A1C from 7.9 ± 0.9% (N = 160) to 7.4 ± 0.7% (N = 136) (P < 0.001) and overall TIR increased from the run-in 59.4 ± 11.8% to 70.3 ± 6.5% by end of study (P < 0.001), without change in CV, time spent below range (TBR) <70 mg/dL, or TBR <54 mg/dL. Relative to longer active insulin time (AIT) settings (N = 52), an AIT of 2 h (N = 19) with the 100 mg/dL GT increased mean TIR to 73.4%, reduced TBR <70 mg/dL from 3.5% to 2.2%, and reduced time spent above range (TAR) >180 mg/dL from 28.7% to 24.4%. During AHCL use, there was no severe hypoglycemia or DKA. Conclusions: In children and adolescents with T1D, MiniMed AHCL system use was safe, A1C was lower, and TIR was increased. The lowest GT and shortest AIT were associated with the highest TIR and lowest TBR and TAR, all of which met consensus-recommended glycemic targets. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03959423.

MiniMed 780G™ advanced hybrid closed-loop system performance in Egyptian patients with type 1 diabetes across different age groups: evidence from real-world users

BACKGROUND

Advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system provides both automated basal rate and correction boluses to keep glycemic values in a target range.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the real-world performance of the MiniMed™ 780G system among different age groups of Egyptian patients with type 1diabetes.

METHODS

One-hundred seven AHCL system users aged from 3 to 71 years were enrolled. Data uploaded by patients were aggregated and analyzed. The mean glucose management indicator (GMI), percentage of time spent within glycemic ranges (TIR), time below range (TBR) and time above range (TAR) were determined.

RESULTS

Six months after initiating Auto Mode, patients spent a mean of 85.31 ± 22.04% of the time in Auto Mode (SmartGuard) and achieved a mean GMI of 6.95 ± 0.58% compared with 7.9 ± 2.1% before AHCL initiation (p < 0.001). TIR 70-180 mg/dL was increased post-AHCL initiation from 63.48 ± 10.14% to 81.54 ± 8.43% (p < 0.001) while TAR 180-250 mg/dL, TAR > 250 mg/dL, TBR < 70 mg/dL and TBR < 54 mg/dL were significantly decreased (p < 0.001). After initiating AHCL, TIR was greater in children and adults compared with adolescents (82.29 ± 7.22% and 83.86 ± 9.24% versus 78.4 ± 7.34%, respectively; p < 0.05). The total daily dose of insulin was increased in all age groups primarily due to increased system-initiated insulin delivery including auto correction boluses and basal insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

MiniMed™ 780G system users across different age groups achieved international consensus-recommended glycemic control with no serious adverse effects even in challenging age group as children and adolescents.

Are all HCL systems the same? long term outcomes of three HCL systems in children with type 1 diabetes: real-life registry-based study

Objective

To compare parameters of glycemic control among three types of hybrid closed loop (HCL) systems in children with T1D (CwD) using population-wide data from the national pediatric diabetes registry ČENDA.

Methods

CwD aged <19 years treated with Medtronic MiniMed 780G (780G), Tandem t:slim X2 (Control-IQ) or do-it-yourself AndroidAPS (AAPS) systems for >12 months and monitored by CGM >70% of the time were included. HbA1c, times in glycemic ranges, and Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) were used for cross-sectional comparison between the HCL systems.

Results

Data from 512 CwD were analyzed. 780G, Control-IQ and AAPS were used by 217 (42.4%), 211 (41.2%), and 84 (16.4%) CwD, respectively. The lowest HbA1c value was observed in the AAPS group (44 mmol/mol; IQR 8.0, p<0.0001 vs any other group), followed by Control-IQ and 780G groups (48 (IQR 11) and 52 (IQR 10) mmol/mol, respectively). All of the systems met the recommended criteria for time in range (78% in AAPS, 76% in 780G, and 75% in Control-IQ users). CwD using AAPS spent significantly more time in hypoglycemia (5% vs 2% in 780G and 3% in Control-IQ) and scored the highest GRI (32, IQR 17). The lowest GRI (27, IQR 15) was seen in 780G users.

Conclusion

Although all HCL systems proved effective in maintaining recommended long-term glycemic control, we observed differences that illustrate strengths and weaknesses of particular systems. Our findings could help in individualizing the choice of HCL systems.

Combining Glucose Monitoring and Insulin Infusion in an Integrated Device: A Narrative Review of Challenges and Proposed Solutions

The introduction of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has enabled increasing numbers of individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to improve their glycemic control largely. However, use of AID systems is limited due to their complexity and costs associated. The user must wear both a continuously monitoring glucose system and an insulin infusion pump. The glucose sensor and the insulin catheter must be inserted at two different body sites using different insertion devices. In addition, the user must pair and manage the different systems. These communicate with the AID software implemented on the pump or on a third device such as a dedicated display device or smart phone application. These components might be developed and commercialized by different manufacturers, which in turn can cause difficulties for patients seeking technical support. A possible solution to these challenges would be to integrate the glucose sensor and insulin catheter into a single device. This would allow the glucose sensor and insulin catheter to be inserted simultaneously, eliminating the need for pairing, and simplifying system management. In recent years, different technologies have been developed and evaluated in clinical investigations that combine the glucose sensor and the insulin catheter in one platform. The consistent finding of all these studies is that integration has no adverse effect on insulin infusion and glucose measurements provided that certain conditions are met. In this review, we discuss the perceived challenges of such an approach and discuss possible solutions that have been proposed.

Utility and precision evidence of technology in the treatment of type 1 diabetes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The greatest change in the treatment of people living with type 1 diabetes in the last decade has been the explosion of technology assisting in all aspects of diabetes therapy, from glucose monitoring to insulin delivery and decision making. As such, the aim of our systematic review was to assess the utility of these technologies as well as identify any precision medicine-directed findings to personalize care.

METHODS

Screening of 835 peer-reviewed articles was followed by systematic review of 70 of them (focusing on randomized trials and extension studies with ≥50 participants from the past 10 years).

RESULTS

We find that novel technologies, ranging from continuous glucose monitoring systems, insulin pumps and decision support tools to the most advanced hybrid closed loop systems, improve important measures like HbA1c, time in range, and glycemic variability, while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Several studies included person-reported outcomes, allowing assessment of the burden or benefit of the technology in the lives of those with type 1 diabetes, demonstrating positive results or, at a minimum, no increase in self-care burden compared with standard care. Important limitations of the trials to date are their small size, the scarcity of pre-planned or powered analyses in sub-populations such as children, racial/ethnic minorities, people with advanced complications, and variations in baseline glycemic levels. In addition, confounders including education with device initiation, concomitant behavioral modifications, and frequent contact with the healthcare team are rarely described in enough detail to assess their impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review highlights the potential of technology in the treatment of people living with type 1 diabetes and provides suggestions for optimization of outcomes and areas of further study for precision medicine-directed technology use in type 1 diabetes.

An mHealth Text Messaging Program Providing Symptom Detection Training and Psychoeducation to Improve Hypoglycemia Self-Management: Intervention Development Study

BACKGROUND

Hypoglycemia remains a challenge for roughly 25% of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) despite using advanced technologies such as continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) or automated insulin delivery systems. Factors impacting hypoglycemia self-management behaviors (including reduced ability to detect hypoglycemia symptoms and unhelpful hypoglycemia beliefs) can lead to hypoglycemia development in people with T1D who use advanced diabetes technology.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop a scalable, personalized mobile health (mHealth) behavioral intervention program to improve hypoglycemia self-management and ultimately reduce hypoglycemia in people with T1D who use advanced diabetes technology.

METHODS

We (a multidisciplinary team, including clinical and health psychologists, diabetes care and education specialists, endocrinologists, mHealth interventionists and computer engineers, qualitative researchers, and patient partners) jointly developed an mHealth text messaging hypoglycemia behavioral intervention program based on user-centered design principles. The following five iterative steps were taken: (1) conceptualization of hypoglycemia self-management processes and relevant interventions; (2) identification of text message themes and message content development; (3) message revision; (4) patient partner assessments for message readability, language acceptability, and trustworthiness; and (5) message finalization and integration with a CGM data-connected mHealth SMS text message delivery platform. An mHealth web-based SMS text message delivery platform that communicates with a CGM glucose information-sharing platform was also developed.

RESULTS

The mHealth SMS text messaging hypoglycemia behavioral intervention program HypoPals, directed by patients' own CGM data, delivers personalized intervention messages to (1) improve hypoglycemia symptom detection and (2) elicit self-reflection, provide fact-based education, and suggest practical health behaviors to address unhelpful hypoglycemia beliefs and promote hypoglycemia self-management. The program is designed to message patients up to 4 times per day over a 10-week period.

CONCLUSIONS

A rigorous conceptual framework, a multidisciplinary team (including patient partners), and behavior change techniques were incorporated to create a scalable, personalized mHealth SMS text messaging behavioral intervention. This program was systematically developed to improve hypoglycemia self-management in advanced diabetes technology users with T1D. A clinical trial is needed to evaluate the program's efficacy for future clinical implementation.

The Effect of Do-It-Yourself Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Variables and Participant-Reported Outcomes in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Trial

AIM

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) has several advantages over intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) but generally comes at a higher cost. Do-it-yourself rtCGM (DIY-rtCGM) potentially has benefits similar to those of rtCGM. This study compared outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes using DIY-rtCGM versus isCGM.

METHODS

In this crossover trial, adults with type 1 diabetes were randomized to use isCGM or DIY-rtCGM for eight weeks before crossover to use the other device for eight weeks, after a four-week washout period where participants reverted back to isCGM. The primary endpoint was time in range (TIR; 3.9-10 mmol/L). Secondary endpoints included other glycemic control measures, psychosocial outcomes, and sleep quality.

RESULTS

Sixty participants were recruited, and 52 (87%) completed follow-up. Glucose outcomes were similar in the DIY-rtCGM and isCGM groups, including TIR (53.1% vs 51.3%; mean difference -1.7% P = .593), glycosylated hemoglobin (57.0 ± 17.8 vs 61.4 ± 12.2 mmol/L; P = .593), and time in hypoglycemia <3.9 mmol/L (3.9 ± 3.8% vs 3.8 ± 4.0%; P = .947). Hypoglycemia Fear Survey total score (1.17 ± 0.52 vs 0.97 ± 0.54; P = .02) and fear of hypoglycemia score (1.18 ± 0.64 vs 0.97 ± 0.45; P = .02) were significantly higher during DIY-rtCGM versus isCGM. Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status (DTSQS) score was also higher with DIY-rtCGM versus isCGM (28.7 ± 5.8 vs 26.0 ± 5.8; P = .04), whereas diabetes-related quality of life was slightly lower (DAWN2 Impact of Diabetes score: 3.11 ± 0.4 vs 3.32 ± 0.51; P = .045); sleep quality did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Although the use of DIY-rtCGM did not improve glycemic outcomes compared with isCGM, it positively impacted several patient-reported psychosocial variables. DIY-rtCGM potentially provides an alternative, cost-effective rtCGM option.

Association Between Diabetes Technology Use and Glycemic Outcomes in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Over a Decade

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate change in mean clinic HbA1c from 2014 to 2021 with diabetes technology use in adults with type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this single-center study, we analyzed diabetes technology use and mean clinic HbA1c among unique adults (age ≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes (last visit of the year per patient) between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2021 from the electronic medical record. Diabetes technology use was defined as the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) without an automated insulin delivery (AID) system or an AID system. Diabetes technology use and HbA1c over time were analyzed using mixed models adjusted for age, sex, and visit year.

RESULTS

A total of 15,903 clinic visits over 8 years (mean 1,988 patients per year, 4,174 unique patients, 52.7% female, 80.0% Non-Hispanic White) showed significant increases in CGM and AID use (P < 0.001 for both), resulting in an increase of diabetes technology use from 26.9% in 2014 to 82.7% in 2021. These increases were associated with a lower mean clinic HbA1c (7.7-7.5%, P < 0.001) and a higher percentage of adults achieving an HbA1c <7.0% (32.3-41.7%, P < 0.001) from 2014 to 2021. The HbA1c difference between technology users and nonusers increased over time from 0.36% (95% CI 0.26-0.47%, P < 0.001) in 2014 to 0.93% (95% CI 0.80-1.06%, P < 0.001) in 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting diabetes technology in adults with type 1 diabetes decreased HbA1c and increased the number of people achieving an HbA1c <7.0%, supporting the current international recommendation to offer AID systems to most individuals with type 1 diabetes.

MiniMed 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Outcomes According to Pubertal Status: Awesome Study Group Real-Life Experience

Background and Aims: Achieving good glycemic control is a major challenge for adolescents with type 1 diabetes (TID). The introduction of the MiniMed 780G system, an advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) that enables an automatic correction of insulin, gave hope for improved glycemic outcomes in adolescents. We assessed specific characteristics associated with glycemic measures in youth with T1D switching to Minimed 780G. Methods: This retrospective observational real-life multicenter study from the AWeSoMe Group assessed continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics of 22 patients (59% females, median age 13.9 interquartile range [IQR 11,18] years), from a high socioeconomic background. CGM metrics were recorded for 2-week periods before AHCL, after 1, 3, 6 months, and at the end of follow-up (median 10.9 [IQR 5.4, 17.4] months). Delta-variables (Δ) were calculated as the difference between the end of follow-up and baseline. Results: Time in range (TIR)70-180mg/dL increased from 65% [52, 72] to 75% [63, 80], P = 0.008, from baseline to end of follow-up. Time above range>180mg/dL decreased from 28% [20, 46] to 22% [14, 35], P = 0.047. Advanced pubertal stage was correlated with less improvement in ΔTAR>180mg/dL, r = 0.47, P = 0.05, and less CGM usage r = -0.57, P = 0.05. A longer disease duration was associated with less improvement in ΔTAR180-250mg/dL, r = 0.48, P = 0.05. Lower pump site change frequency was associated with higher glucose management indicator, r = 0.5, P = 0.03, and lower TIR70-180mg/dL r = -0.52, P = 0.08. Conclusion: The use of AHCL enabled improvements in TIR70-180mg/dL in youth with T1D. More advanced pubertal stages, longer disease duration, and less compliance were associated with less improvement, stressing the need for continuous support, and re-education in this age group.

Unannounced Meal Challenges Using an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System

Background: The advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm combines automated basal rates and corrections yet requires meal announcement for optimal outcomes. We aimed to compare the performance of the MiniMed™ 780G AHCL algorithm with and without meal announcement. Methods: In a single-arm study involving 14 adults with type 1 diabetes, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of AHCL when meals were not announced. Participants stayed at a supervised environment for 5 days, during which the outcomes of not announcing meals (≤80 g of carbohydrate) were assessed. Next, participants entered a 90-day at-home "unannounced" phase, during which all meals (≤80 g of carbohydrate) were unannounced, followed by a 90-day at-home phase in which all meals were announced. Results: Time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was lower in the unannounced versus announced periods (67.5% ± 12.5% vs. 77.7% ± 9.5%; P < 0.01, respectively), with more time spent in hyperglycemia range 180-250 mg/dL (22.7% ± 7.7% vs. 15.7% ± 7.2%) and >250 mg/dL (7.9% ± 6.4% vs. 3.6% ± 2.7%), but less time in hypoglycemia range 54-70 mg/dL (1.6% ± 1% vs. 2.8% ± 1.8%) and <54 mg/dL (0.3% ± 0.4% vs. 0.7% ± 0.9%). Not announcing meals containing up to 60 g of carbohydrate did not lead to increase in postprandial extreme dysglycemia >250 mg/dL, and up to 20 g of unannounced carbohydrates did not significantly change the TIR 70-180 mg/dL compared with full announcement. Conclusion: The AHCL system is optimized for use with meal announcement. While not announcing meals of ≤80 g carbohydrates appears to be safe, it results in suboptimal postprandial glycemic control, especially with high-carbohydrate meals. Not announcing small meals (≤20 g carbohydrate) does not deteriorate glycemic control. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04479826.

The Tandem Control-IQ advanced hybrid system improves glycemic control in children under 18 years of age with type 1 diabetes and night rest in caregivers

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of switching from the predictive low glucose suspend (PLGS) system to the advanced hybrid Tandem Control-IQ system on glucometrics and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at one year. To assess the impact on the quality of life perceived by parents.

METHOD

Prospective study in 71 patients aged 6-18 years with type 1 diabetes (DM1), in treatment with PLGS, who switched to an advanced hybrid system. Glucometric data were collected before the change, at 4 and 8 weeks, and at one year of use; HbA1c before the change and after one year. The Diabetes Impact and Devices Satisfaction (DIDS) questionnaire was used at weeks 4 and 8.

RESULTS

An increase in time in range (TIR) was observed with a median of 76% (P<.001) at 4 weeks, which was maintained after one year (+8% in the total group). Overall, 73.24% of patients achieved a TIR above 70%. The subgroup with an initial TIR of less than 56% increased it by 14.4%. After one year there was a 0.3% reduction in HbA1c. Level 1 hypoglycaemia, level 1 and level 2 hyperglycaemia, mean glucose (GM) and coefficient of variation (CV) decreased. Auto mode stayed on 97% of the time and no dropouts occurred. Caregivers had a perception of better glycaemic control and less need to monitor blood glucose variations during the night. None of them would switch back to the previous system and they feel safe with the new system.

CONCLUSIONS

The Tandem Control-IQ advanced hybrid system was shown to be effective one year after its implementation with improvement in all glucometric parameters and HbA1c, as well as night-time rest in caregivers.

Glucose control during Ramadan in a pediatric cohort with type 1 diabetes on MiniMed standard and advanced hybrid closed‑loop systems: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems have revolutionized the treatment of diabetes, enabling doctors to cope with challenging conditions that were previously almost impossible to manage or were very risky and difficult.

AIMS

To assess the efficacy and safety of a hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system during Ramadan fasting in a pediatric cohort with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Glucose control outcomes in older children and adolescents aged 8-16 years with automated insulin delivery for T1D were analyzed during Ramadan and 1 month before Ramadan. Participants on MiniMed standard HCL (670G) or advanced HCL (780G) systems of Medtronic were categorized as fasting or nonfasting.

RESULTS

The average age of the 19 participants (8 and 11 were on standard and advanced HCL systems, respectively) was 11.35 ± 2 years. Eleven patients fasted during Ramadan. Pump setup and sensor statistics were the same during Ramadan and the month before; no significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of insulin and glucose control metrics, with practically the same coefficient of variation, time in range (TIR) and time spent in hypoglycemia, maintained within the international recommended targets. Total daily doses were paradoxically higher in patients who fasted during Ramadan (p = 0.01), without repercussions on glucose control metrics.

CONCLUSIONS

Standard and advanced HCL use during Ramadan were safe and were associated with a maintained optimum TIR (>70 %) and no significant hypoglycemia in adolescents and older children with T1D.

Intelligent Insulin vs. Artificial Intelligence for Type 1 Diabetes: Will the Real Winner Please Stand Up?

Research in the treatment of type 1 diabetes has been addressed into two main areas: the development of "intelligent insulins" capable of auto-regulating their own levels according to glucose concentrations, or the exploitation of artificial intelligence (AI) and its learning capacity, to provide decision support systems to improve automated insulin therapy. This review aims to provide a synthetic overview of the current state of these two research areas, providing an outline of the latest development in the search for "intelligent insulins," and the results of new and promising advances in the use of artificial intelligence to regulate automated insulin infusion and glucose control. The future of insulin treatment in type 1 diabetes appears promising with AI, with research nearly reaching the possibility of finally having a "closed-loop" artificial pancreas.

User experiences during the transition to calibration-free sensors with remote monitoring while using automated insulin delivery - a qualitative study

Introduction

To evaluate the experiences of patients with type 1 diabetes following transition from a calibration-requiring to a calibration-free sensor and remote monitoring in the context of using automated insulin delivery (AID).

Research design and methods

Fifteen participants aged 7-65 years with type 1 diabetes participating in a longitudinal study used a Medtronic® advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) device with initially calibration-requiring then calibration-free sensors. Qualitative interviews were conducted ≥20 weeks following use of the calibration-requiring and ≥4 weeks after use of the calibration-free sensors/remote monitoring. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes and subthemes.

Results

At baseline, mean diabetes duration was 14.5 years ( ± 10.9), mean Hba1c 54.8 mmol/mol ( ± 10.2) (7.2 ± 0.9%) and Time in range 75.4% ( ± 11.6). Participants reported a progressive improvement in digital and lifestyle integration, and device trust following transition to calibration-free sensors with remote monitoring potential. They also reported a reduced need for capillary glucose, increased device satisfaction and trust, and reduced burden of diabetes care. Negative aspects reported included periodic early sensor loss, and for some, impaired integration with mobile devices.

Conclusion

Transitioning to calibration-free sensors with remote monitoring while using AHCL was associated with better user experience, including perceptions of improved quality of life and a reduced burden of diabetes care. Appropriate expectation setting, training, and ongoing support allow for the optimal user experience while using AHCL.

Clinical trial registration

https://www.anzctr.org.au, identifier ACTRN12621000360819.

Efficacy and safety of closed-loop control system for type one diabetes in adolescents a meta analysis

This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of Closed-Loop Control (CLC) to Sensor-Augmented Insulin Pump (SAP) for adolescent patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM). Eleven randomized-controlled trials were included with a total of 570 patients, from a total of 869 articles found adhering to PRISMA guidelines. The efficacy of the therapies were evaluated from the day, night and during physical activities monitoring of the of the mean blood glucose (BG), Time In Range (TIR), and Standard Deviation (SD) of the glucose variability. The safety measure of the therapies, was assessed from the day and night recording of the hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events occurred. Pooled results of comparison of mean BG values for day, night and physical activities, - 4.33 [- 6.70, - 1.96] (P = 0.0003), - 16.61 [- 31.68, - 1.54] (P = 0.03) and - 8.27 [- 19.52, 2.99] (P = 0.15). The monitoring for day, night and physical activities for TIR - 13.18 [- 19.18, - 7.17] (P < 0.0001), - 15.36 [- 26.81, - 3.92] (P = 0.009) and - 7.39 [- 17.65, 2.87] (P = 0.16). The day and night results of SD of glucose variability was - 0.40 [- 0.79, - 0.00] (P = 0.05) and - 0.86 [- 2.67, 0.95] (P = 0.35). These values shows the superiority of CLC system in terms of efficacy. The safety evaluation, of the day, night and physical activities observations of average blood glucose goal hypoglycemic events - 0.54 [- 1.86, 0.79] (P = 0.43), 0.04 [- 0.20, 0.27] (P = 0.77) and 0.00 [- 0.25, 0.25] (P = 1.00) and hyperglycemic events - 0.04 [- 0.20, 0.27] (P = 0.77), - 7.11 [- 12.77, - 1.45] (P = 0.01) and - 0.00 [- 0.10, 0.10] (P = 0.97), highlights the commendable safety factor of CLC. The CLC systems can be considered as an ideal preference in the management of adolescents with type 1 diabetes to be used during a 24 h basis.

Associations between clinical and psychosocial factors and HbA1c in adult insulin pump users with type 1 diabetes

AIMS

Many adults with type 1 diabetes do not achieve recommended glycemic goals despite intensive insulin therapy using insulin pumps. The aim of this study was to explore associations between clinical and psychosocial factors and HbA1c in insulin pump users to identify and prioritize areas for potential intervention.

METHODS

A questionnaire-based survey covering clinical and psychosocial aspects of life with type 1 diabetes was distributed to all adult (≥ 18 years) insulin pump users in the Capital Region of Denmark. Responses were combined with data from medical records and national registries. Associations with HbA1c were modeled using regression-based machine learning.

RESULTS

Of 1,591 invited individuals, 770 (48.4%) responded to the survey. Mean HbA1c among responders was 7.3% (56 mmol/mmol), and 35.6% had an HbA1c < 7.0% (53 mmol/mol). Six factors were significantly associated with HbA1c: diabetes duration (0.006% (0.1 mmol/mol) lower HbA1c per 1-year increase in diabetes duration); education (0.4% (4.3 mmol/mol) lower HbA1c with long higher education vs. primary school); insulin type (0.2% (2.2 mmol/mol) lower HbA1c with ultra-rapid-acting insulin vs. rapid-acting insulin); hypoglycemia awareness status (0.2% (2.2 mmol/mol) lower HbA1c with complete unawareness vs. full awareness); insulin device satisfaction (0.2% (2.7 mmol/mol) lower HbA1c per 1-point increase in Insulin Device Satisfaction Survey score); and diabetes distress (0.3% (3.1 mmol/mol) higher HbA1c per 1-point increase in Type 1 Diabetes Distress Scale score).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified several associations between clinical and psychosocial factors and HbA1c that may be considered when developing interventions targeted people with type 1 diabetes.

Impact of Intensive Glycemic Treatment on Diabetes Complications-A Systematic Review

Diabetes complications can be related to the long duration of the disease or chronic hyperglycemia. The follow-up of diabetic patients is based on the control of chronic hyperglycemia, although this correction, if obtained rapidly in people living with severe chronic hyperglycemia, can paradoxically interfere with the disease or even induce complications. We reviewed the literature describing the impact of the rapid and intense treatment of hyperglycemia on diabetic complications. The literature review showed that worsening complications occurred significantly in diabetic microangiopathy with the onset of specific neuropathy induced by the correction of diabetes. The results for macroangiopathy were somewhat mixed with the intensive and rapid correction of chronic hyperglycemia having a neutral impact on stroke and myocardial infarction but a significant increase in cardiovascular mortality. The management of diabetes has now entered a new era with new therapeutic molecules, such as gliflozin for patients living with type 2 diabetes, or hybrid insulin delivery systems for patients with insulin-treated diabetes. Our manuscript provides evidence in support of these personalized and progressive algorithms for the control of chronic hyperglycemia.

Real-World User and Clinician Perspective and Experience with MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop System

INTRODUCTION

The advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) MiniMed™ 780G system changes basal insulin delivery every 5 min and auto bolus in response to sensor glucose values. We assessed the performance of the AHCL system in real-world settings for individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) as well as user and clinician perspectives and satisfaction.

METHODS

We held two peer group discussions: one having adults with T1DM/parents of children and adolescents with T1DM to understand their experiences with the AHCL system and another with healthcare providers (HCPs). Responses from the discussions were analyzed and categorized into themes by two independent researchers, with any inconsistencies resolved by consensus. We also analyzed data from the system uploaded to CareLink personal software. Glycemic outcomes, including time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR), time above range (TAR), mean sensor glucose (SG) levels, glucose management indicator (GMI), sensor use, and percentage of time spent in AHCL, were determined.

RESULTS

The peer group discussions revealed numerous key themes and issues for each group, such as the significance of setting reasonable expectations, carbohydrate counting and bolus dosing, technical difficulties, and overall user experience. The users (n = 25; T1DM; 17 female; age 13.8 ± 7.49 years; A1C 6.54 ± 0.45%; duration of diabetes 6 ± 6.78 years) were very satisfied with the system. Most users experienced consistent blood glucose values with very few hypoglycemic episodes. However, there were a few limitations reported, such as hyperglycemic episodes caused by inaccuracies in carb counting, issues with sensor connectivity, and cannula blockages or kinking for those using insulin Fiasp. Users achieved a mean GMI of 6.4 ± 0.26%, TIR of 83.0 ± 8.12%, TBR (54-70 mg/dL) of 2.0 ± 0.81%, TBR* (< 54 mg/dL) of 0%. All of the users achieved a TIR of > 70%.

CONCLUSION

The use of the AHCL system in T1DM resulted in robust glycemic control, minimizing hypoglycemia. Providing training to both users and HCPs can help them use the system effectively.

The significance of coefficient of variation as a measure of hypoglycaemia risk and glycaemic control in real world users of the automated insulin delivery MiniMed 780G system

AIM

Use of the MiniMed 780G system (MM780G) can result in a reduction in mean and standard deviation (SD) of sensor glucose (SG) values. We assessed the significance of the coefficient of variation (CV) as a measure of hypoglycaemia risk and glycaemic control.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from 10 404 MM780G users were analysed using multivariable logistic regression to assess the contribution of CV to (a) hypoglycaemia risk, measured as not reaching target <1% for time below range (TBR), and (b) achieving targets of time-in-range (TIR) >70% and glucose management indicator <7%. CV was compared with SD and low blood glucose index. To assess the relevance of CV <36% as a therapeutic threshold, we identified the CV cut-off point that optimally discriminated users at risk of hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

The contribution of CV was the smallest in terms of risk of hypoglycaemia (vs. low blood glucose index and SD) and TIR and glucose management indicator targets (vs. SD). In all cases the models with SD showed the best fit. A CV <43.4% (95% CI: 42.9-43.9) was the optimal cut-off point with a correct classification rate of 87.2% (vs. 72.9% for CV <36%).

CONCLUSION

For MM780G users, CV is a poor marker for hypoglycaemia risk and glycaemic control. We recommend using, for the former, TBR and whether the TBR target is met (and not using CV <36% as a therapeutic threshold for hypoglycaemia); for the latter, TIR, time above range, whether targets are met and a discrete description of mean SG and SD of SG values.

Switching from treatment with sensor augmented pump to hybrid closed loop system in type 1 diabetes: impact on glycemic control and neuropsychological tests in the real world

AIMS

The aim of this study is to assess in the real world the impact of initiating hybrid closed loop (HCL) on glycemic control and quality of life in patients using sensor-augmented pump (SAP).

METHODS

In this prospective study, patients using SAP changed to an HCL system in a specialized hospital. HCL devices used were Medtronic 780G®, Tandem Control-IQ® and Diabeloop® system. Glucometric data and hypoglycemia and neuropsychological tests were assessed at baseline and 3 months after initiating HCL.

RESULTS

A total of 66 consecutive patients were included (74% women, mean age 44±11 years, diabetes duration 27.2 ±11 years). Significant improvements were observed in coefficient of variation (from 35.6% to 33.1%), time in range (from 62.2 % to 73.8%), time above 180 mg/dl (from 26.9% to 18%), time below 70 mg/dl (from 3.3% to 2.1%) and time below 55 mg/dl (from 0.7% to 0.3%). In addition, significant improvements were observed in fear of hypoglycemia and grade of distress associated to treatment and to interpersonal sphere.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from SAP to HCL system improves time in range and reduces time in hypoglycemia and glycemic variability at 3 months. These changes are accompanied by significant reduction of neuropsychological burden related to diabetes.

Diabetes technology including automated insulin delivery systems to manage hyperglycemia in a failing pancreatic graft: Case series of people with type 1 diabetes and a pancreas kidney or pancreas-only transplant

We share our experience of using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy and diabetes technology in six people (5 men) with type 1 diabetes (mean duration 36 years), who developed hyperglycemia post-simultaneous kidney/pancreas (n = 5) or pancreas only (n = 1) transplant. All were on immunosuppression and multiple daily injections of insulin prior to CSII. Four people were started on automated insulin delivery, and two people on CSII and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring. With diabetes technology, the median time in range glucose improved from 37% (24-49%) to 56.6% (48-62%), and similarly, glycated hemoglobin fell from 72.7 mmol/mol (72-79 mmol/mol) to 64 mmol/mol (42-67 mmol/mol; P < 0.05 for both) with no concomitant increase in hypoglycemia. Use of diabetes technology improved glycemic parameters in people with type 1 diabetes with failing pancreatic graft function. Early use of such technology should be considered to improve diabetes control in this complex cohort.

Effect of an Automated Advice Algorithm (CloudConnect) on Adolescent-Parent Diabetes-Specific Communication and Glycemic Management: A Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

Because adolescence is a time of difficult management of Type 1 diabetes (T1D) in part from adolescent-parent shared responsibility of T1D management, our objective was to assess the effects of a decision support system (DSS) CloudConnect on T1D-related communication between adolescents and their parents and on glycemic management.

METHODS

We followed 86 participants including 43 adolescents with T1D (not on automated insulin delivery systems, AID) and their parents/care-giver for a 12-week intervention of UsualCare + CGM or CloudConnect, which included a Weekly Report of automated T1D advice, including insulin dose adjustments, based on data from continuous glucose monitors (CGM), Fitbit and insulin use. Primary outcome was T1D-specific communication and secondary outcomes were hemoglobin A1c, time-in-target range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dl, and additional psychosocial scales.

RESULTS

Adolescents and parents reported a similar amount of T1D-related communication in both the UsualCare + CGM or CloudConnect groups and had similar levels of final HbA1c. Overall blood glucose time in range 70-180 mg/dl and time below 70 mg/dl were not different between groups. Parents but not children in the CloudConnect group reported less T1D-related conflict; however, compared to the UsualCare + CGM group, adolescents and parents in the CloudConnect reported a more negative tone of T1D-related communication. Adolescent-parent pairs in the CloudConnect group reported more frequent changes in insulin dose. There were no differences in T1D quality of life between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

While feasible, the CloudConnect DSS system did not increase T1D communication or provide improvements in glycemic management. Further efforts are needed to improve T1D management in adolescents with T1D not on AID systems.

Hybrid Closed Loop Overcomes the Impact of Missed or Suboptimal Meal Boluses on Glucose Control in Children with Type 1 Diabetes Compared to Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy

Background: It is unclear whether hybrid closed-loop (HCL) therapy attenuates the metabolic impact of missed or suboptimal meal insulin bolus compared with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy in children with type 1 diabetes in free-living conditions. Methods: This is an ancillary study from a multicenter randomized controlled trial that compared 24/7 HCL with evening and night (E/N) HCL for 36 weeks in children between 6 and 12 years old. In the present study, the 60 children from the E/N arm underwent a SAP phase, an E/N HCL for 18 weeks, then a 24/7 phase for 18 weeks, extended for 36 more weeks. The last 28-30 days of each of the four phases were analyzed according to meal bolus management (cumulated 6817 days). The primary endpoint was the percentage of time that the sensor glucose was in the target range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) according to the number of missed boluses per day. Findings: TIR was 54% ± 10% with SAP, 63% ± 7% with E/N HCL, and steadily 67% ± 7% with 24/7 HCL. From the SAP phase to 72 weeks of HCL, the percentage of days with at least one missed meal bolus increased from 12% to 22%. Estimated marginal (EM) mean TIR when no bolus was missed was 54% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 53-56) in SAP and it was 13% higher (95% CI 11-15) in the 24/7 HCL phase. EM mean TIR with 1 and ≥2 missed boluses/day was 49.5% (95% CI 46-52) and 45% (95% CI 39-51) in SAP, and it was 15% (95% CI 14-16) and 17% higher (95% CI 6-28), respectively, in the 24/7 HCL phase (P < 0.05 for all comparisons vs. SAP). Interpretation: HCL persistently improves glycemic control compared with SAP, even in case of meal bolus omission. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03739099).

Insight into continuous glucose monitoring: from medical basics to commercialized devices

According to the latest statistics, more than 537 million people around the world struggle with diabetes and its adverse consequences. As well as acute risks of hypo- or hyper- glycemia, long-term vascular complications may occur, including coronary heart disease or stroke, as well as diabetic nephropathy leading to end-stage disease, neuropathy or retinopathy. Therefore, there is an urgent need to improve diabetes management to reduce the risk of complications but also to improve patient's quality life. The impact of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is well recognized, in this regard. The current review aims at introducing the basic principles of glucose sensing, including electrochemical and optical detection, summarizing CGM technology, its requirements, advantages, and disadvantages. The role of CGM systems in the clinical diagnostics/personal testing, difficulties in their utilization, and recommendations are also discussed. In the end, challenges and prospects in future CGM systems are discussed and non-invasive, wearable glucose biosensors are introduced. Though the scope of this review is CGMs and provides information about medical issues and analytical principles, consideration of broader use will be critical in future if the right systems are to be selected for effective diabetes management.

CGM accuracy: Contrasting CE marking with the governmental controls of the USA (FDA) and Australia (TGA): A narrative review

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence updated guidance for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in 2022, recommending that CGM be available to all people living with type 1 diabetes. Manufacturers can trade in the UK with Conformité Européenne (CE) marking without an initial national assessment. The regulatory process for CGM CE marking, in contrast to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) process, is described. Manufacturers operating in the UK provided clinical accuracy studies submitted for CE marking. Critical appraisal of the studies shows several CGM devices have CE marking for wide-ranging indications beyond available data, unlike FDA and TGA approval. The FDA and TGA use tighter controls, requiring comprehensive product-specific clinical data evaluation. In 2018, the FDA published the integrated CGM (iCGM) criteria permitting interoperability. Applying the iCGM criteria to clinical data provided by manufacturers trading in the UK identified several study protocols that minimized glucose variability, thereby improving CGM accuracy on all metrics. These results do not translate into real-life performance. Furthermore, for many CGM devices available in the UK, accuracy reported in the hypoglycaemic range is below iCGM standards, or measurement is absent. We offer a framework to evaluate CGM accuracy studies critically. The review concludes that FDA- and TGA-approved indications match the available clinical data, whereas CE marking indications can have discrepancies. The UK can bolster regulation with UK Conformity Assessed marking from January 2025. However, balanced regulation is needed to ensure innovation and timely technological access are not hindered.

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.

Switching to an advanced hybrid closed-loop system in real-world practice improves hypoglycemia awareness and metabolic control in adults with type 1 diabetes, particularly in those with impaired perception of hypoglycemia symptoms

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy of an advance closed-loop (AHCL) system in restoring awareness of hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study including 46 subjects with T1D flash glucose monitoring (FGM) or continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) switching to a Minimed 780G® system. Patients were classified in three groups according to the therapy used before switching to Minimed® 780G: multiple dose insulin (MDI) therapy + FGM (n = 6), continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + FGM (n = 21), and sensor-augmented pump with predictive low-glucose suspend (n = 19). FGM/CGM data were analyzed at baseline, after 2 and 6 months on AHCL. Clarke's score of hypoglycemia awareness was compared at baseline and 6 months recordings. We also compared the efficacy of the AHCL system in improving A_1c among patients with appropriate perception of symptoms of hypoglycemia compared to those presenting with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH).

RESULTS

Participants had a mean age of 37 ± 15 and a diabetes duration of 20 ± 10 years. At baseline, 12 patients (27%) showed IAH as defined by a Clarke's score ≥ 3. Patients with IAH were older and had lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) compared with those who did not have IAH; with no differences in baseline CGM metrics or A_1c. An overall decrease in A_1c was observed after 6 months on AHCL system (from 6.9 ± 0.5% to 6.7 ± 0.6%, P < 0.001), regardless of prior insulin therapy. The improvement in metabolic control was greater in patients with IAH, showing a reduction in A_1c from 6.9 ± 0.5 to 6.4 ± 0.4% vs 6.9 ± 0.5 to 6.8 ± 0.6% (P = 0.003), showing a parallel increase in total daily boluses of insulin and automatic bolus correction administered by the AHCL system. In patients with IAH Clarke's score decreased from 3.6 ± 0.8 at baseline to 1.9 ± 1.6 after 6 months (P < 0.001). After 6 months on AHCL system, only 3 patients (7%) presented with a Clarke's score ≥ 3, resulting in an absolute risk reduction of 20% (95% confidence interval: 7-32) of having IAH.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from any type of insulin administration to AHCL system improves restoration of hypoglycemia awareness and metabolic control in patients with T1D, particularly in adults with impaired perception of hypoglycemia symptoms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov ID NCT04900636.

Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) Systems: Use and Efficacy in Children and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes and Other Forms of Diabetes in Europe in Early 2023

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients' lifestyle and prognosis has remarkably changed over the years, especially after the introduction of insulin pumps, in particular advanced hybrid closed loop systems (AHCL). Emerging data in literature continuously confirm the improvement of glycemic control thanks to the technological evolution taking place in this disease. As stated in previous literature, T1D patients are seen to be more satisfied thanks to the use of these devices that ameliorate not only their health but their daily life routine as well. Limited findings regarding the use of new devices in different age groups and types of patients is their major limit. This review aims to highlight the main characteristics of each Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) system available for patients affected by Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus. Our main goal was to particularly focus on these systems' efficacy and use in different age groups and populations (i.e., children, pregnant women). Recent studies are emerging that demonstrate their efficacy and safety in younger patients and other forms of diabetes.

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.

Automated Insulin Delivery Systems as a Treatment for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Review

OBJECTIVE

Approximately 6.3% of the worldwide population has type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and the number of people requiring insulin is increasing. Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems integrate continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and continuous glucose monitoring with a predictive control algorithm to provide more physiologic glycemic control. Personalized glycemic targets are recommended in T2DM owing to the heterogeneity of the disease. Based on the success of hybrid closed-loop systems in improving glycemic control and safety in type 1 diabetes mellitus, there has been further interest in the use of these systems in people with T2DM.

METHODS

We performed a review of AID systems with a focus on the T2DM population.

RESULTS

In 5 randomized controlled trials, AID systems improve time in range and reduce glycemic variability, without increasing insulin requirements or the risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

AID systems in T2DM are safe and effective in hospitalized and closely monitored settings. Home studies of longer duration are required to assess for long-term benefit and identify target populations of benefit.

Impact of Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop on Youth With High-Risk Type 1 Diabetes Using Multiple Daily Injections

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate glycemic outcomes in youth (aged 13-25 years) with type 1 diabetes and high-risk glycemic control (HbA1c ≥8.5% [69 mmol/mol]) on multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy after transitioning to advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) therapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This prospective, 3-month, single-arm, dual-center study enrolled 20 participants, and all completed the study.

RESULTS

HbA1c decreased from 10.5 ± 2.1% (91.2 ± 22.8 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7.6 ± 1.1% (59.7 ± 11.9 mmol/mol), and time spent in target range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) increased from 27.6 ± 13.2% at baseline to 66.5 ± 9.8% after 3 months of AHCL. Two episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis attributed to infusion set failure occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

AHCL has the potential to improve suboptimal glycemia in youth with type 1 diabetes previously on MDI therapy.

Adolescents with type 1 diabetes vs. hybrid closed loop systems: a case series of patients' behaviour that challenges the algorithm

OBJECTIVES

Hybrid closed loop systems (HCL) improve the management of type 1 diabetes (T1DM). T1DM adolescent patients represent a risk category also if they are in an automated insulin infusion delivery therapy.

CASE PRESENTATION

We describe a series of four cases in which adolescent patients have adopted incorrect behaviours in the managing of HCL systems, challenging the algorithm skills. Two patients performed fabricated sensor calibrations. The other two did not perform pre-prandial insulin boluses correctly. Despite these behaviours, the algorithm corrected the glucose values in three out of four patients. Only in one case, where fabricated calibrations were too frequent, the automatic system failed to restore the glycemic balance.

CONCLUSIONS

Fabricated calibrations seem to be more important than uncorrected insulin boluses to challenge the HCL systems.

A Head-to-Head Comparison of Two Algorithms for Adjusting Mealtime Insulin Doses Based on CGM Trend Arrows in Adult Patients with Type 1 Diabetes: Results from an Exploratory Study

BACKGROUND

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) users are encouraged to consider trend arrows before injecting a meal bolus. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of two different algorithms for trend-informed bolus adjustments, the Diabetes Research in Children Network/Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (DirectNet/JDRF) and the Ziegler algorithm, in type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-over study of type 1 diabetes patients using Dexcom G6. Participants were randomly assigned to either the DirectNet/JDRF or the Ziegler algorithm for two weeks. After a 7-day wash-out period with no trend-informed bolus adjustments, they crossed to the alternative algorithm.

RESULTS

Twenty patients, with an average age of 36 ± 10 years, completed this study. Compared to the baseline and the DirectNet/JDRF algorithm, the Ziegler algorithm was associated with a significantly higher time in range (TIR) and lower time above range and mean glucose. A separate analysis of patients on CSII and MDI revealed that the Ziegler algorithm provides better glucose control and variability than DirectNet/JDRF in CSII-treated patients. The two algorithms were equally effective in increasing TIR in MDI-treated patients. No severe hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic episode occurred during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The Ziegler algorithm is safe and may provide better glucose control and variability than the DirectNet/JDRF over a two-week period, especially in patients treated with CSII.

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.

MiniMed 780G™ in 2- to 6-Year-Old Children: Safety and Clinical Outcomes After the First 12 Weeks

Objective: The safety and impact of the advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system on glycemic outcome in 2- to 6-year-old children with type 1 diabetes and the diabetes distress of caregivers were evaluated. Research Design and Methods: This was an open-label prospective study (n = 35) with historical controls matched by treatment unit, diabetes duration, age, gender, and baseline treatment modality. The inclusion criteria were (1) type 1 diabetes diagnosis >6 months, (2) total daily dose of insulin ≥8 U/day, (3) HbA1c <10% (85 mmol/mol), and (4) capability to use insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring. The MiniMed 780G™ AHCL in SmartGuard™ Mode was used for 12 weeks. Parental diabetes distress was evaluated with a validated Problem Areas In Diabetes-Parent, revised (PAID-PR) survey. Results: No events of diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred. Between 0 and 12 weeks, HbA1c (mean change = -2.7 mmol/mol [standard deviation 5.7], P = 0.010), mean sensor glucose value (SG) (-0.8 mmol/L [1.0], P < 0.001), and time above range (TAR) (-8.6% [9.5], P < 0.001) decreased and time in range (TIR) (8.3% [9.3], P < 0.001) increased significantly, whereas no significant change in time below range (TBR) was observed. At the same time, PAID-PR score decreased from 37.5 (18.2) to 27.5 (14.8) (P = 0.006). Conclusions: MiniMed 780G™ AHCL is a safe system and 12-week use was associated with improvements in glycemic control in 2- to 6-year-old children with type 1 diabetes. In addition, AHCL is associated with a reduction in parental diabetes distress after 12-week use. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT04949022.

Effectiveness and Safety of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Previously Treated with Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion and Flash Glucose Monitoring

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the MiniMed™ 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) previously treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion combined with flash glucose monitoring in a real-life setting. A total of 47 subjects (mean age 41 ± 13.6 years, 60% females, diabetes duration 28 ± 11 years) were included and switched to an AHCL system. Baseline and 6-month data were analyzed. Time in range 70-180 mg/dL increased from 65.3% at baseline to 73.8% at 6 months. Time in hyperglycemia >180 mg/dL decreased from 26.6% to 19.3%. Time in hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL decreased from 4.6% to 2.3%. The coefficient of variation also decreased from 36% to 31.6%. No episodes of severe hypoglycemia, diabetes ketoacidosis, or diabetes-related hospital admissions occurred. In conclusion, the MiniMed 780G AHCL system enables the safe achievement of recommended glycemic targets in people with T1D after 6 months of use.

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.

Improvement of Selected Psychological Parameters and Quality of Life of Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Transition From Multiple Daily Injections and Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Directly to the MiniMed 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System: Post hoc Analysis of a Randomized Control Study

BACKGROUND

While introducing new technologies and methods of treatment for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), it seems essential to monitor whether modern technologies in diabetes treatment may improve the psychological and emotional status of patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the baseline psychological parameters of patients with T1DM during investigation of the direct transition from multiple daily injections (MDI) and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) to the MiniMed 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system and to evaluate changes in the psychological well-being and quality of life (QoL) after the transition in these individuals versus the control group.

METHODS

The trial was a 2-center, randomized controlled, parallel group study. In total, 41 patients with T1DM managed with MDI or SMBG were enrolled and randomized either to the AHCL or the MDI+SMBG group. Of these, 37 (90%) participants (mean age 40.3 years, SD 8.0 years; mean duration of diabetes 17.3, SD 12.1 years; mean hemoglobin A_1c [HbA_1c] 7.2%, SD 1.0%) completed the study (AHCL: n=20, 54%; MDI+SMBG: n=17, 46%). Psychological parameters (level of stress, coping mechanisms, level of anxiety, self-efficacy level, acceptance of illness, locus of control of illness, life satisfaction, QoL) were measured at baseline and at the end of the study using 10 psychological questionnaires.

RESULTS

At baseline, the general level of stress of the examined patients was higher than in the general healthy Polish population (P=.001), but coping strategies used in stressful situations were significantly more effective and the level of self-efficacy (P<.001) was much higher than in the general population. The patients in this study accepted their illness more than patients with diabetes from the general Polish population (P<.001), but they felt that their health does not depend on them compared to the general population (P<.001). The overall life satisfaction was similar to that of the general population (P=.161). After 3 months from transition, the AHCL group reported an increase in 4 scales of the QoL-feeling well (P=.042), working (P=.012), eating as I would like (P=.011), and doing normal things (P=.034)-in comparison to the control group, where no significant change occurred. The level of both state anxiety and trait anxiety decreased in the AHCL group: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) X1 scores (P=.009), STAI X1 stens (P=.013), and STAI X2 scores (P=.022). The AHCL group became more emotion oriented in stressful situations (Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations [CISS] E; P=.043) and significantly less self-blaming after 3 months of the study (P=.020).

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that the patients who decided to take part in the transition study were characterized by higher levels of stress than the general healthy population but had better coping strategies and self-efficacy. Furthermore, transitioning from MDI+SMBG treatment to the AHCL in patients naive to technology may significantly improve psychological well-being and QoL within 3 months. The rapidity of these changes suggests that they may be related to the significant improvement in glycemic outcomes but also significantly less burdened diabetes self-management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04616391; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04616391.

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.