One-year experience of hybrid closed-loop system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes previously treated with multiple daily injections: drivers to successful outcomes

Ten Years of Improving Glycemic Control in Pediatric Diabetes Care: Data From the Norwegian Childhood Diabetes Registry

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate, from 2013 to 2022, how HbA1c, the incidence of acute complications, and use of diabetes technology changed at the national level in Norway and how glycemic control was associated with use of diabetes technology, carbohydrate counting, or participation in a quality improvement project.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This longitudinal observational study was based on 27,214 annual registrations of 6,775 children from the Norwegian Childhood Diabetes Registry from 2013 to 2022. Individuals aged >18 years, those with diabetes other than type 1, and those without HbA1c measurements were excluded. The outcome measure was HbA1c. The predictor variables in the adjusted linear mixed-effects model were 1) the use of diabetes technology, 2) the use of carbohydrate counting for meal bolusing, and 3) whether the patient's diabetes team participated in a quality improvement project.

RESULTS

Mean HbA1c decreased from 8.2% (2013) to 7.2% (2021), and the proportion of youth reaching an HbA1c <7.0% increased from 13% (2013) to 43% (2022). Insulin pump use increased from 65% (2013) to 91% (2022). Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use increased from 34% (first recorded in 2016) to 97% (2022). Insulin pump, CGM, and carbohydrate counting were associated with lower HbA1c and higher achievement of glycemic targets. Girls had a higher mean HbA1c than boys. Mean HbA1c levels were lower in clinics that participated in a quality improvement project for the following 4 years after the project.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes technology, carbohydrate counting, and systematic quality improvement in pediatric departments led to improved glycemic control.

During an 18-month course of automated insulin delivery treatment, children aged 2 to 6 years achieve and maintain a higher time in tight range

AIMS

To investigate whether the positive effects on glycaemic outcomes of 3-month automated insulin delivery (AID) achieved in 2- to 6-year-old children endure over an extended duration and how AID treatment affects time in tight range (TITR), defined as 3.9-7.8 mmol/L.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We analysed 18 months of follow-up data from a non-randomized, prospective, single-arm clinical trial (n = 35) conducted between 2021 and 2023. The main outcome measures were changes in time in range (TIR), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), time above range (TAR), TITR, and mean sensor glucose (SG) value during follow-up visits (at 0, 6, 12 and 18 months). The MiniMed 780G AID system in SmartGuard Mode was used for 18 months. Parental diabetes distress was evaluated at 3 and 18 months with the validated Problem Areas in Diabetes-Parent, revised (PAID-PR) survey.

RESULTS

Between 0 and 6 months, TIR and TITR increased, and HbA1c, mean SG value and TAR decreased significantly (p < 0.001); the favourable effect persisted through 18 months of follow-up. Between 3 and 18 months, PAID-PR score declined significantly (0 months: mean score 37.5; 3 months: mean score 28.6 [p = 0.06]; 18 months: mean score 24.6 [p < 0.001]).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with AID significantly increased TITR and TIR in young children. The positive effect of AID on glycaemic control observed after 6 months persisted throughout the 18 months of follow-up. Similarly, parental diabetes distress remained reduced during 18 months follow-up. These findings are reassuring and suggest that AID treatment improves glycaemic control and reduces parental diabetes distress in young children over an extended 18-month follow-up.

Early Real-World Performance of the MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System and Recommended Settings Use in the United States

Background: The MiniMed™ 780G system (MM780G) with Guardian™ 4 sensor includes a 100 mg/dL glucose target (GT) and automated insulin corrections up to every 5 min and was recently approved for use in the United States. In the present study, early real-world MM780G performance and the use of recommended system settings (100 mg/dL GT with an active insulin time of 2 h), by individuals with type 1 diabetes, were evaluated. Methods: CareLink™ personal data uploaded between the launch of the MM780G to August 22, 2023 were aggregated and underwent retrospective analysis (based on user consent) and if users had ≥10 days of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data. The 24-h day CGM metrics, including mean glucose, percentage of time spent in (%TIR), above (%TAR), and below (%TBR) target range (70-180 mg/dL), in addition to delivered insulin and closed-loop (CL) exits, were compared between an overall group (n = 7499) and individuals who used recommended settings (each, for >95% of the time). An analysis of the same metrics for MiniMed™ 770G system (MM770G) users (n = 3851) who upgraded to the MM780G was also conducted (paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < 0.05 considered statistically significant). Results: For MM780G users, CGM use, and time in CL were >90% and all MM780G CGM metrics exceeded consensus-recommended goals. With recommended settings (22% of all users), mean %TIR and %TITR (70-140 mg/dL) were 81.4% and 56.4%, respectively. For individuals who upgraded from the MM770G, %TIR and %TITR increased from 73.2% to 78.3% and 45.8% to 52.6%, respectively, while %TAR reduced from 25.1% to 20.2% (P < 0.001, for all three). CL exits/week averaged <1, for all MM780G users. Conclusions: Early real-world MM780G use in the United States demonstrated a high percentage of time in range with low time above and below range. These outcomes are similar to those observed for real-world MM780G use in other countries.

Two Years with a Tubeless Automated Insulin Delivery System: A Single-Arm Multicenter Trial in Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Background: The Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System was shown to be safe and effective following 3 months of use in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D); however, data on the durability of these results are limited. This study evaluated the long-term safety and effectiveness of Omnipod 5 use in people with T1D during up to 2 years of use. Materials and Methods: After a 3-month single-arm, multicenter, pivotal trial in children (6-13.9 years) and adolescents/adults (14-70 years), participants could continue system use in an extension phase. HbA1c was measured every 3 months for up to 15 months; continuous glucose monitor metrics were collected for up to 2 years. Results: Participants (N = 224) completed median (interquartile range) 22.3 (21.7, 22.7) months of AID. HbA1c was reduced in the pivotal trial from 7.7% ± 0.9% in children and 7.2% ± 0.9% in adolescents/adults to 7.0% ± 0.6% and 6.8% ± 0.7%, respectively, (P < 0.0001), and was maintained at 7.2% ± 0.7% and 6.9% ± 0.6% after 15 months (P < 0.0001 from baseline). Time in target range (70-180 mg/dL) increased from 52.4% ± 15.6% in children and 63.6% ± 16.5% in adolescents/adults at baseline to 67.9% ± 8.0% and 73.8% ± 10.8%, respectively, during the pivotal trial (P < 0.0001) and was maintained at 65.9% ± 8.9% and 72.9% ± 11.3% during the extension (P < 0.0001 from baseline). One episode of diabetic ketoacidosis and seven episodes of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the extension. Children and adolescents/adults spent median 96.1% and 96.3% of time in Automated Mode, respectively. Conclusion: Our study supports that long-term use of the Omnipod 5 AID System can safely maintain improvements in glycemic outcomes for up to 2 years of use in people with T1D. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT04196140.

Glycaemic outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes transitioning towards advanced automated insulin delivery systems - a real-world analysis at a Swiss tertiary centre

AIMS OF THE STUDY

To assess glucose levels in adults with diabetes at a Swiss tertiary hospital when transitioning from insulin delivery with a sensor-augmented pump with (predictive) low-glucose suspend ([P]LGS) to a hybrid-closed loop (HCL) and from a HCL to an advanced hybrid-closed loop (AHCL).

METHODS

Continuous glucose monitoring data for 44 adults with type 1 diabetes transitioning from (P)LGS to hybrid-closed loop and from hybrid-closed loop to advanced hybrid-closed loop were analysed, including the percentage of time spent within, below, and above glucose ranges. In addition, a subgroup analysis (n = 14) of individuals undergoing both transitions was performed.

RESULTS

The transition from a (P)LGS to a hybrid-closed loop was associated with increased time in range (6.6% [2.6%-12.7%], p <0.001) and decreased time above range (5.6% [2.3%-12.7%], p <0.001). The transition from a hybrid-closed loop to an advanced hybrid-closed loop was associated with increased time in range (1.6% [-0.5%-4.5%], p = 0.046) and decreased time above range (1.5% [-1.8%-5.6%], p = 0.050). Both transitions did not change the time below range. In the subgroup analysis ([P]LGS → HCL → AHCL), the time in range increased from 69.4% (50.3%-79.2%) to 76.5% (65.3%-81.3%) and 78.7% (69.7%-85.8%), respectively (p <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Glucose levels significantly improved when transitioning from a (P)LGS to a hybrid-closed loop. Glucose levels improved further when switching from a hybrid-closed loop to an advanced hybrid-closed loop. However, the added benefit of an advanced hybrid-closed loop was comparably smaller. This pattern was also reflected in the subgroup analysis.

Characteristics associated with having a hemoglobin A1c ≤ 7 % (≤53 mmol/mol) among adults with type 1 diabetes using an automated insulin delivery system

BACKGROUND

We aim to investigate which characteristics are associated with having an HbA1c ≤ 7 % (≤53 mmol/mol) among adult automated insulin delivery (AID) users living with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

Cross-sectional study using data from the T1D BETTER registry.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

aged ≥ 18 years old, using a commercial AID system, and with a reported HbA1c range value. Participants were divided into two groups (HbA1c ≤ 7 % group, N = 57; and HbA1c > 7 % group, N = 74).

RESULTS

A total of 131 participants were included: 61.8 % females, median age (Q1-Q3) was 43.0 (30.0, 55.0) years, and median duration of T1D was 24.0 (16.0, 36.0) years. Logistic regression analysis suggested that participants with a bachelor's degree or above were more likely (OR 3.04, 95 %CI 1.22, 7.58; P = 0.017) and with a longer duration of pump use were less likely (OR 0.90, 95 %CI 0.84, 0.98; P = 0.009) to report an HbA1c ≤ 7 % when using an AID, after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and annual household income.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that among AID users, in order to maximize benefits, additional support is needed for those who do not have a bachelor's degree and/or who have been using an insulin pump for a long time.

Safety and efficacy of the structured onboarding steps and initiation protocol for MiniMed™ 780G system among an Egyptian cohort of young people living with type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of initiation protocol for MiniMed ™ 780G system among an Egyptian cohort of young people living with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

A prospective single-arm study including 72 participants with T1D. Five days of structured education and training were provided to all users and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was initiated on the first day of the training. Users initiated the pump initially in manual mode, with suspend before low feature, for 3 days before shifting to Auto Mode.

RESULTS

The mean HbA1c decreased from 8.72 ± 2.01 % to 6.7 ± 0.4 % (p<0.01). Time in range (70-180 mg/dL) substantially improved from 55.24 % ± 10.35 to 81.7 % ± 5.12 % after spending 84 days in auto mode (p<0.001) with 2.03 % of the time spent below 70 mg/dL. Regarding AHCL compatibility, users spent at least 90 % of time in auto mode.

CONCLUSIONS

Young people with T1D successfully initiated the AHCL system, using a tailored structured on-boarding protocol. Structured stepwise initiation protocol and onboarding steps are important prerequisite for participants' adherence and engagement with the system. Patient education together with optimized pump settings are important predictors of glycemic outcomes.

Glycometabolic outcomes in adult type 1 diabetic patients switching to closed-loop systems

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate glycometabolic outcomes in AID technology-naïve T1D patients after switching to Hybrid Closed Loop (HCL) and Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop (AHCL) systems.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a 12-month, prospective, observational, two-center study on 54 type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients aged 19-65 years managed with multiple daily injections (MDI) or Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) in open-loop to evaluate the superiority in terms of effectiveness and safety of Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) systems.

RESULTS

HbA1c levels significantly improved at the end of the study. Time spent with glucose levels in target range (TIR70-180 mg/dL, 3.9-10 mmol/L) increased from 50.5 ± 15.6% at baseline to 73.6 ± 8.0% at 12 months (p < 0.001); time spent above range (TAR180-250 mg/dL, 10-13.9 mmol/L and TAR≥250 mg/dL, 13.9 mmol/L) decreased from 30.6 ± 9.0% and 14.2 ± 10.2 at baseline to 19.3 ± 5.3% and 4.8 ± 3.3% at 12 months (p < 0.001 for both), respectively; time spent below range (TBR54-69 mg/dL, 3-3.8 mmol/L and TBR<54 mg/dL, 3.0 mmol/L) decreased from 3.5 ± 2.6% and 1.2 ± 1.4% at baseline to 1.9 ± 1.5% and 0.4 ± 0.7% at the end of the study (p < 0.001 for both); coefficient of variation (CV) decreased from 35.9 ± 7.8% at baseline to 33.0 ± 5.3% (p < 0.05). Satisfaction with the new technology was scored as high.

CONCLUSION

AID-naïve T1D patients switching to HCL/AHCL systems have significantly and safely improved their glycometabolic outcomes with their high satisfaction with the new type of treatment.

Quality of life in the course of a one-year use of an advanced hybrid closed-loop system in adults with type 1 diabetes previously naïve to advanced diabetes technology

Aim

To evaluate the effect of a one-year use of an advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system on the quality of life, level of anxiety, and level of self-efficacy in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) previously treated with multiple daily injections (MDI) and naïve to advanced diabetes technology.

Methods

A total of 18 participants of a previously published 3-month randomized trial (10 men, 8 women; age 40.9 ± 7.6 years) who were switched directly from MDI/BMG to AHCL completed 12 months of MiniMed 780G™system use (a 3-month randomized trial followed by a 9-month follow-up phase). At month 6 of the study, patients were switched from the sensor GS3 (Continuous Glucose Monitoring) system, powered by Guardian™ Sensor 3) to GS4. Quality of life was assessed using the Polish validated version of the 'QoL-Q Diabetes' questionnaire. The level of anxiety was evaluated with the use of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Self-efficacy was assessed with the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES). Results were obtained at baseline and at the end of the study.

Results

Significant increase in QoL was reported in the global score (p=0.02, Cohen d=0.61) and in as many as 11 out of 23 analyzed areas of life: being physically active (p=0.02, Cohen d = 0.71); feeling well (p<.01, Cohen d = 0.73); feeling in control of my body (p<.01, Cohen d = 0.72); looking good (p<.01, Cohen d = 1.07); working (p<.01, Cohen d = 1.12); sleeping (p=0.01, Cohen d = 0.66); eating as I would like (p<.01, Cohen d = 0.79); looking after or being useful to others (p= 0.02, Cohen d = 0.65); being active with pets/animals (p<.01, Cohen d = 0.95); being spontaneous (p=0.02, Cohen d = 0.67); and doing "normal" things (p=0.02, Cohen d = 0.67). Both state (p=0.04, Cohen d = 0.56) and trait (p=0.02, Cohen d = 0.60) anxiety decreased while the general self-efficacy increased (p=0.03, Cohen d = 0.76). No participant stopped the use of the pump.

Conclusion

Adult patients with T1D previously treated with MDI and naïve to modern technologies experienced significant improvement in their psychological well-being after transitioning to the AHCL system after 12 months of treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of the tubeless automated insulin delivery system vs standard of care in the management of type 1 diabetes in the United States

BACKGROUND: A tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery (AID) system (Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System) demonstrated improved glycated hemoglobin A1c levels and increased time in range (70 mg/dL to 180 mg/dL) for both adults and children with type 1 diabetes in a 13-week multicenter, single-arm study. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of the tubeless AID system compared with standard of care (SoC) in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the United States. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted from a US payer's perspective, using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (version 9.5), with a time horizon of 60 years and an annual discount of 3.0% on both costs and effects. Simulated patients received either tubeless AID or SoC, the latter being defined as either continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (86% of patients) or multiple daily injections. Two cohorts (children: <18 years; adults: ≥18 years) of patients with T1D and 2 thresholds for nonsevere hypoglycemia (nonsevere hypoglycemia event [NSHE] <54 mg/dL and <70 mg/dL) were considered. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects of different risk factors for tubeless AID were sourced from the clinical trial. Utilities and cost of diabetes-related complications were obtained from published sources. Treatment costs were derived from US national database sources. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Treating children with T1D with tubeless AID, considering an NSHE threshold of less than 54 mg/dL, brings incremental life-years (1.375) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (1.521) at an incremental cost of $15,099 compared with SoC, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9,927 per QALY gained. Similar results were obtained for adults with T1D assuming an NSHE threshold of less than 54 mg/dL (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $10,310 per QALY gained). Furthermore, tubeless AID is a dominant treatment option for children and adults with T1D assuming an NSHE threshold of less than 70 mg/dL compared with SoC. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses results showed that compared with SoC, in both children and adults with T1D, tubeless AID was cost-effective in more than 90% of simulations, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. The key drivers of the model were the cost of ketoacidosis, duration of treatment effect, threshold of NSHE, and definition of severe hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: The current analyses suggest that the tubeless AID system can be considered a cost-effective treatment compared with SoC in people with T1D from a US payer's perspective. DISCLOSURES: This research was funded by Insulet. Mr Hopley, Ms Boyd, and Mr Swift are full-time Insulet employees and own stock in Insulet Corporation. IQVIA, the employer of Ms Ramos and Dr Lamotte, received consulting fees for this work. Dr Biskupiak is receiving research support and consulting fees from Insulet. Dr Brixner has received consulting fees from Insulet. The University of Utah has received research funding from Insulet. Dr Levy is a consultant with Dexcom and Eli Lilly and has received grant/research support from Insulet, Tandem, Dexcom, and Abbott Diabetes. Dr Forlenza conducted research sponsored by Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem, Insulet, Beta Bionics, and Lilly. He has been speaker/consultant/advisory board member for Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem, Insulet, Beta Bionics, and Lilly.

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.

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.

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.

Low-Dose Empagliflozin as Adjunct to Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Therapy in Adults With Suboptimally Controlled Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether low doses of empagliflozin as adjunct to hybrid closed-loop therapy improve glycemia compared with placebo in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) who are not able to achieve targets with the system alone.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A double-blind crossover randomized controlled trial was performed in adults with suboptimally controlled T1D (HbA1c 7.0-10.5%) who were not able to achieve a target time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) ≥70% after 14 days of hybrid closed-loop therapy. Three 14-day interventions were performed with placebo, 2.5 mg empagliflozin, or 5 mg empagliflozin as adjunct to the McGill artificial pancreas. Participants were assigned at a 1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio with blocked randomization. The primary outcome was time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L). Analysis was by intention to treat, and a P value <0.05 was regarded as significant.

RESULTS

A total of 24 participants completed the study (50% male; age 33 ± 14 years; HbA1c 8.1 ± 0.5%). The time in range was 59.0 ± 9.0% for placebo, 71.6 ± 9.7% for 2.5 mg empagliflozin, and 70.2 ± 8.0% for 5 mg empagliflozin (P < 0.0001 between 2.5 mg empagliflozin and placebo and between 5 mg empagliflozin and placebo). Mean daily capillary ketone levels were not different between arms. There were no serious adverse events or cases of diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia in any intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Empagliflozin at 2.5 and 5 mg increased time in range during hybrid closed-loop therapy by 11-13 percentage points compared with placebo in those who otherwise were unable to attain glycemic targets. Future studies are required to assess long-term efficacy and safety.

Do-It-Yourself and Commercial Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in Type 1 Diabetes: An Uncertain Area for Canadian Health-care Providers

In the past century, since the discovery of insulin, methods of insulin delivery and glucose monitoring have advanced technologically. In particular, the introduction of insulin pumps, providing continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), and continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) have been revolutionary for people living with type 1 diabetes. In this review, we have focussed on automated insulin delivery (AID) systems and discuss the implications of both approved and off-label options for the user and health-care providers. By pairing insulin pumps with CGM, AID systems facilitate automated adjustment in insulin delivery based on CGM readings. A subset of these have been developed commercially and were granted regulatory approval. In contrast, unregulated do-it-yourself AID systems, designed and set up by people living with type 1 diabetes and their families, have advanced rapidly and are gaining popularity worldwide. These patient-driven technologies have demonstrated impressive user self-reported improvements in glycemic control and quality of life, but have not been evaluated in any formal randomized controlled trials or by regulators. This presents challenging uncertainty for health-care providers, in addition to ethical and legal implications in supporting people with diabetes who wish to use these technologies. The current knowledge, opinions and practices relating to the use of AID systems across Canada are unknown. Gathering this information will highlight current practice and areas of knowledge gaps and concern and will assist in focussed education. This understanding is crucial to ensure people with type 1 diabetes using these systems have access to optimal, consistent and safe patient-centred care.

One-Year Real-World Study on Comparison among Different Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Devices for the Management of Pediatric Patients with Type 1 Diabetes: The Supremacy of Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems

Since their advent in daily clinical practice, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) systems have been increasingly improved, leading to a high percentage of both adult and pediatric patients with diabetes now using insulin pumps. Different types of CSII systems are currently available, which are characterized by different settings and technical features. This longitudinal observational study aims to evaluate real-word glycemic outcomes in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes using three different CSII devices: hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems, predictive low glucose (PLGS) systems, and non-automated insulin pumps. The secondary objective was to identify clinical variables that may significantly influence the achievement of therapeutic goals in our study cohort. One-hundred-and-one patients on CSII therapy attending our pediatric diabetes center were enrolled. When compared with the non-automated group, patients using HCL systems showed higher levels of time in target glucose range (p = 0.003) and lower glucose variability (p = 0.008). Similarly, we found significantly better glucose metrics in HCL users in comparison to PLGS patients (time in range p = 0.008; coefficient of variation p = 0.009; time above 250 mg/dL p = 0.007). Multiple linear regression models showed that HCL systems (time in range p < 0.001) and high daily percentage of glycemic sensor use (time in range p = 0.031) are predictors for good glycemic control. The introduction and increasing availability of novel technologies for diabetes represent a promising strategy to improve glycemic control and quality of life in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. Our real-world data confirm the superiority of HCL systems in terms of improvement of time spent in the target glucose range, prevention of hypoglycemia, and reduction of glycemic variability.

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.

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.

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.

Real-world evidence on clinical outcomes of people with type 1 diabetes using open-source and commercial automated insulin dosing systems: A systematic review

AIMS

Several commercial and open-source automated insulin dosing (AID) systems have recently been developed and are now used by an increasing number of people with diabetes (PwD). This systematic review explored the current status of real-world evidence on the latest available AID systems in helping to understand their safety and effectiveness.

METHODS

A systematic review of real-world studies on the effect of commercial and open-source AID system use on clinical outcomes was conducted employing a devised protocol (PROSPERO ID 257354).

RESULTS

Of 441 initially identified studies, 21 published 2018-2021 were included: 12 for Medtronic 670G; one for Tandem Control-IQ; one for Diabeloop DBLG1; two for AndroidAPS; one for OpenAPS; one for Loop; three comparing various types of AID systems. These studies found that several types of AID systems improve Time-in-Range and haemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c ) with minimal concerns around severe hypoglycaemia. These improvements were observed in open-source and commercially developed AID systems alike.

CONCLUSIONS

Commercially developed and open-source AID systems represent effective and safe treatment options for PwD of several age groups and genders. Alongside evidence from randomized clinical trials, real-world studies on AID systems and their effects on glycaemic outcomes are a helpful method for evaluating their safety and effectiveness.

Glycemic outcomes of children 2-6 years of age with type 1 diabetes during the pediatric MiniMed™ 670G system trial

BACKGROUND

Highly variable insulin sensitivity, susceptibility to hypoglycemia and inability to effectively communicate hypoglycemic symptoms pose significant challenges for young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Herein, outcomes during clinical MiniMed™ 670G system use were evaluated in children aged 2-6 years with T1D.

METHODS

Participants (N = 46, aged 4.6 ± 1.4 years) at seven investigational centers used the MiniMed™ 670G system in Manual Mode during a two-week run-in period followed by Auto Mode during a three-month study phase. Safety events, mean A1C, sensor glucose (SG), and percentage of time spent in (TIR, 70-180 mg/dl), below (TBR, <70 mg/dl) and above (TAR, >180 mg/dl) range were assessed for the run-in and study phase and compared using a paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

From run-in to end of study (median 87.1% time in auto mode), mean A1C and SG changed from 8.0 ± 0.9% to 7.5 ± 0.6% (p < 0.001) and from 173 ± 24 to 161 ± 16 mg/dl (p < 0.001), respectively. Overall TIR increased from 55.7 ± 13.4% to 63.8 ± 9.4% (p < 0.001), while TBR and TAR decreased from 3.3 ± 2.5% to 3.2 ± 1.6% (p = 0.996) and 41.0 ± 14.7% to 33.0 ± 9.9% (p < 0.001), respectively. Overnight TBR remained unchanged and TAR was further improved 12:00 am-6:00 am. Throughout the study phase, there were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and no serious adverse device-related events.

CONCLUSIONS

At-home MiniMed™ 670G Auto Mode use by young children safely improved glycemic outcomes compared to two-week open-loop Manual Mode use. The improvements are similar to those observed in older children, adolescents and adults with T1D using the same system for the same duration of time.

Glycemic Outcomes During Real-World Hybrid Closed-Loop System Use by Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes in the United States

BACKGROUND

Glycemic outcomes during real-world hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system use by individuals with type 1 diabetes, in the United States, were retrospectively analyzed.

METHODS

Hybrid closed-loop system data voluntarily uploaded to Carelink™ personal software from March 2017 to November 2020 by individuals (aged ≥7 years) using the MiniMed™ 670G system and having ≥10 days of continuous glucose monitoring data after initiating Auto Mode were assessed. Glycemic outcomes including the mean glucose management indicator (GMI), sensor glucose (SG), percentage of time spent in (TIR), below (TBR), and above (TAR) target range (70-180 mg/dL) were analyzed. Outcomes were also analyzed in a subgroup of users per baseline GMI of <7% versus >8%.

RESULTS

The overall cohort (N = 123 355 users, with a mean of 87.9% of time in Auto Mode) had a GMI of 7.0% ± 0.4%, TIR of 70.4% ± 11.2%, TBR <70 mg/dL of 2.2% ± 2.1% and TAR>180 mg/dL of 27.5% ± 11.6%, post-Auto Mode initiation. Compared with pre-Auto Mode initiation, users (N = 52 941, 88.6% of time in Auto Mode) had a GMI that decreased from 7.3% ± 0.6% to 7.1% ± 0.5% (P < .001), TIR that increased from 61.5% ± 15.1% to 68.1% ± 11.9% (P < .001), TAR>180 mg/dL that decreased from 36.3% ± 15.7% to 29.8% ± 12.2% (P < .001) and TBR<70 mg/dL that decreased from 2.11 ± 2.4 to 2.07% ± 2.25% (P = .002). While all metrics statistically improved for the baseline GMI >8.0% group, the baseline GMI <7.0% group had unchanged TIR (77.4% ± 7.4% to 77.5% ± 8.0%, P = .456) and TAR>180 mg/dL that increased (19.2 ± 6.7 to 19.6 ± 7.9%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Real-world HCL system use in the U.S. demonstrated overall glycemic control that trended similarly with the system pivotal trial outcomes and previous real-world system use analyses.

Six-Month Glycemic Control with a Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Type 1 Diabetes Patients in a Latin American Country

The goal of this study was to assess the 6-month effectiveness of hybrid closed loop on glycemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients in Latin America. An exploratory analysis of data prospectively collected from non-selected consecutive patients with T1D who initiated treatment with the MiniMed™ 670G system in Argentina was conducted. Baseline and follow-up visits at days 7, 28, 90, and 180 were carried out and data were downloaded at each visit. A total of 30 patients (age range 9-57 years, female 63.3%), 73.3% (n = 22) of whom previously used sensor augmented pump-predictive low glucose management (SAP-PLGM), with baseline glycated hemoglobin 7.4% ± 1% were included. Time in range between 70 and 180 mg/dL significantly increased from 65.1% at baseline to 77.3%, 76.2%, 75.7%, and 75.2% at days 7, 28, 90 and 180, respectively. Time above range (>180 mg/dL) significantly decreased from 33% to 22.5% (P < 0.001), while time below range (<70 mg/dL) did not change. Mean glucose levels were reduced from 163.5 mg/dL at baseline to 150.9 mg/dL (P = 0.001) at last visit. The Auto Mode feature was used > 90% of the time. Virtual training was successfully completed with a Net Promoter Score^® (NPS^®) of 87%. This analysis confirms that MiniMed 670G system use allowed successful achievement of glycemic control within recommended targets in a non-selected Latin American patient population who underwent virtual system training.

Real-World Performance of the MiniMed™ 780G System: First Report of Outcomes from 4120 Users

Background: The MiniMed™ 780G system includes an advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) algorithm that provides both automated basal and correction bolus insulin delivery. The preliminary performance of the system in real-world settings was evaluated. Methods: Data uploaded from August 2020 to March 2021 by individuals living in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Qatar, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom were aggregated and retrospectively analyzed to determine the mean glucose management indicator (GMI), percentage of time spent within (TIR), below (TBR), and above (TAR) glycemic ranges, system use, and insulin consumption in users having ≥10 days of sensor glucose (SG) data after initiating AHCL. The impact of initiating AHCL was evaluated in a subgroup of users also having ≥10 days of SG data, before AHCL initiation. Results: Users (N = 4120) were observed for a mean of 54 ± 32 days. During this time, they spent a mean of 94.1% ± 11.4% of the time in AHCL and achieved a mean GMI of 6.8% ± 0.3%, TIR of 76.2% ± 9.1%, TBR <70 of 2.5% ± 2.1%, and TAR >180 of 21.3% ± 9.4%, after initiating AHCL. There were 77.3% and 79.0% of users who achieved a TIR >70% and a GMI of <7.0%, respectively. Users for whom comparison with pre-AHCL was possible (N = 812) reduced their GMI by 0.4% ± 0.4% (P = 0.005) and increased their TIR by 12.1% ± 10.5% (P < 0.0001), post-AHCL initiation. More users achieved the glycemic treatment goals of GMI <7.0% (37.6% vs. 75.2%, P < 0.0001) and TIR >70% (34.6% vs. 74.9%, P < 0.0001) when compared with pre-AHCL initiation. Conclusion: Most MiniMed 780G system users achieved TIR >70% and GMI <7%, while minimizing hypoglycemia, in a real-world condition.

Improved technology satisfaction and sleep quality with Medtronic MiniMed® Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop delivery compared to predictive low glucose suspend in people with Type 1 Diabetes in a randomized crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Automated insulin delivery aims to lower treatment burden and improve quality of life as well as glycemic outcomes.

METHODS

We present sub-study data from a dual-center, randomized, open-label, two-sequence crossover study in automated insulin delivery naïve users, comparing Medtronic MiniMed® Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) to Sensor Augmented Pump therapy with Predictive Low Glucose Management (SAP + PLGM). At the end of each 4-week intervention, impacts on quality of life, sleep and treatment satisfaction were compared using seven age-appropriate validated questionnaires given to patients or caregivers.

RESULTS

59/60 people completed the study (mean age 23.3 ± 14.4yrs). Statistically significant differences favoring AHCL were demonstrated in several scales (data shown as mean ± SE). In adults (≥ 18yrs), technology satisfaction favored AHCL over PLGM as shown by a higher score in the DTSQs during AHCL (n = 28) vs SAP + PLGM (n = 29) (30.9 ± 0.7 vs 27.9 ± 0.7, p = 0.004) and DTSQc AHCL (n = 29) vs SAP + PLGM (n = 30) (11.7 ± 0.9 vs 9.2 ± 0.8, p = 0.032). Adolescents (aged 13-17yrs) also showed a higher DTSQc score during AHCL (n = 16) versus SAP + PLGM (n = 15) (14.8 ± 0.7 vs 12.1 ± 0.8, p = 0.024). The DTQ "change" score (n = 59) favored AHCL over SAP + PLGM (3.5 ± 0.0 vs 3.3 ± 0.0, p < 0.001). PSQI was completed in those > 16 years (n = 36) and demonstrated improved sleep quality during AHCL vs SAP + PLGM (4.8 ± 0.3 vs 5.7 ± 0.3, p = 0.048) with a total score > 5 indicating poor quality sleep.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that AHCL compared to SAP + PLGM mode has the potential to increase treatment satisfaction and improve subjective sleep quality in adolescents and adults with T1D.

Current Advances of Artificial Pancreas Systems: A Comprehensive Review of the Clinical Evidence

Since Banting and Best isolated insulin in the 1920s, dramatic progress has been made in the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). However, dose titration and timely injection to maintain optimal glycemic control are often challenging for T1DM patients and their families because they require frequent blood glucose checks. In recent years, technological advances in insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring systems have created paradigm shifts in T1DM care that are being extended to develop artificial pancreas systems (APSs). Numerous studies that demonstrate the superiority of glycemic control offered by APSs over those offered by conventional treatment are still being published, and rapid commercialization and use in actual practice have already begun. Given this rapid development, keeping up with the latest knowledge in an organized way is confusing for both patients and medical staff. Herein, we explore the history, clinical evidence, and current state of APSs, focusing on various development groups and the commercialization status. We also discuss APS development in groups outside the usual T1DM patients and the administration of adjunct agents, such as amylin analogues, in APSs.

Rapid Improvement in Time in Range After the Implementation of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Background: Advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) systems represent the next step of automation intended to maximize normoglycemia in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). In the AHCL MiniMed 780G system, different algorithm glucose targets for insulin infusion are available and autocorrection boluses are delivered. The aim was to prospectively evaluate the impact of the implementation of this AHCL system in a clinical setting. Materials and Methods: T1D subjects using a sensor-augmented pump with predictive low-glucose suspend (SAP-PLGS) were upgraded to AHCL. Baseline, every 3 days, 2-week and 1-month sensor and pump data were downloaded. Glucose target was set to 100 mg/dL and active insulin time to 2 h for all the subjects. Time in different glucose ranges was compared. Results: Fifty-two T1D subjects were included (age: 43 ± 12 years, 73% females, diabetes duration: 27 ± 11 years, HbA1c: 7.2% ± 0.9%, time in SAP-PLGS: 5 ± 2 years). Time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL increased from 67.3% ± 13.6% at baseline to 79.6% ± 7.9% at 1 month (P = 0.001). Time in hyperglycemia >180 and >250 mg/dL decreased from 29.4% ± 15.1% to 17.3% ± 8.6% and from 6.9% ± 7.8% to 2.5% ± 2.4%, respectively (P = 0.001). No differences in time in hypoglycemia <70 or <54 mg/dL were found. Time in Auto Mode was 97% ± 4%, and autocorrection insulin was 31% ± 14% of bolus insulin. Four hours postprandial glucose was improved from 162 ± 26 mg/dL at baseline to 142 ± 16 mg/dL at 1 month (P = 0.001). No severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis episodes occurred. Conclusion: AHCL systems allow well-controlled T1D patients to rapidly increase their TIR. The most aggressive settings allow optimal outcomes in TIR, without increasing hypoglycemia frequency.

One Year Real-World Use of the Control-IQ Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Technology

Background: The t:slim X2™ insulin pump with Control-IQ^® technology from Tandem Diabetes Care is an advanced hybrid closed-loop system that was first commercialized in the United States in January 2020. Longitudinal glycemic outcomes associated with real-world use of this system have yet to be reported. Methods: A retrospective analysis of Control-IQ technology users who uploaded data to Tandem's t:connect^® web application as of February 11, 2021 was performed. Users age ≥6 years, with >2 weeks of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data pre- and >12 months post-Control-IQ technology initiation were included in the analysis. Results: In total 9451 users met the inclusion criteria, 83% had type 1 diabetes, and the rest had type 2 or other forms of diabetes. The mean age was 42.6 ± 20.8 years, and 52% were female. Median percent time in automation was 94.2% [interquartile range, IQR: 90.1%-96.4%] for the entire 12-month duration of observation, with no significant changes over time. Of these users, 9010 (96.8%) had ≥75% of their CGM data available, that is, sufficient data for reliable computation of CGM-based glycemic outcomes. At baseline, median percent time in range (70-180 mg/dL) was 63.6 (IQR: 49.9%-75.6%) and increased to 73.6% (IQR: 64.4%-81.8%) for the 12 months of Control-IQ technology use with no significant changes over time. Median percent time <70 mg/dL remained consistent at ∼1% (IQR: 0.5%-1.9%). Conclusion: In this real-world use analysis, Control-IQ technology retained, and to some extent exceeded, the results obtained in randomized controlled trials, showing glycemic improvements in a broad age range of people with different types of diabetes.

Newest Diabetes-Related Technologies for Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes and Its Impact on Routine Care: a Narrative Synthesis of the Literature

Purpose of Review

This review aims to address the actual state of the most advanced diabetes devices, as follows: continuous subcutaneous insulin infusions (CSII), continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGM), hybrid-closed loop (HCL) systems, and “Do-it-yourself” Artificial Pancreas Systems (DIYAPS) in children, adolescents, and young adults. This review has also the objective to assess the use of telemedicine for diabetes care across three different areas: education, social media, and daily care.

Recent Findings

Recent advances in diabetes technology after integration of CSII with CGM have increased the popularity of this treatment modality in pediatric age and shifted the standard diabetes management in many countries. We found an impressive transition from the use of CSII and/or CGM only to integrative devices with automated delivery systems. Although much has changed over the past 5 years, including a pandemic period that precipitated a broader use of telemedicine in diabetes care, some advances in technology may still be an additional burden of care for providers, patients, and caregivers. The extent of a higher rate of “auto-mode” use in diabetes devices while using the HCL/DIYAPS is essential to reduce the burden of diabetes treatment.

Summary

More studies including higher-risk populations are needed, and efforts should be taken to ensure proper access to cost-effective advanced technology on diabetes care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40124-021-00248-7.

Efficacy of advanced hybrid closed loop systems for the management of type 1 diabetes in children

Over the last years significant advances have been achieved in the development of technologies for diabetes management. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), predictive low glucose management (PLGM), hybrid closed loop (HCL) and advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) systems allow better diabetes management, thus reducing the burden of the disease and the risk of chronic complications. This review summarizes the main characteristics of the currently available HCL and AHCL systems and their primary effects in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). The findings of trials assessing the glucose control (time in range, HbA1c values, hypoglycemic events), the health-related quality of life and the existing limits of the use of these technologies are reported. The most recent data clearly confirm the ability of the HCL and AHCL insulin delivery systems to safely achieve a significant improvement of glucose control and quality of life in the pediatric population with T1D. Further studies are underway to overcame current barriers and future improvements in the usability of these technologies are awaited to facilitate their use in the routine clinical practice. The HCL and AHCL algorithms are the key features of today's insulin delivery systems that mark a crucial step towards fully automated closed loop systems.

Six-Month Effectiveness of Advanced vs. Standard Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of advanced- (a-HCL) vs. standard-hybrid closed-loop (s-HCL) systems use up to 6 months of treatment in a real-world setting of children and adolescents with T1DM.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated all T1DM pediatric users of MiniMed™ 670G system (s-HCL) and 780G system (a-HCL). HbA1c and BMI were collected at baseline and three and six months after HCL start. Data on glycemic control were extracted from reports generated with CareLink™ Personal Software in Manual Mode, at HCL start, after one, three, and six months after HCL beginning.

RESULTS

The study included 44 individuals with a median age of 13.3 years (range 2- 21 years), 20 on s-HCL, and 24 on a-HCL. a-HCL users had a significantly lower HbA1c compared to s-HCL after six months of HCL use (7.1 vs. 7.7%). Significant differences in HbA1c between a-HCL and s-HCL users were found in children aged 7-14 years (7.1 vs. 7.7% after six months) and in those with a worse (HbA1c >8%) glycemic control at the beginning (7.1 vs. 8.1% after six months). No significant changes in HbA1c were found in a-HCL users that previously used a s-HCL system. Nevertheless, only the use of a-HCL significantly predicted a lower HbA1c after six months. All sensor-specific measures of glycemic control improved from Manual to Auto mode, in both s-HCL and a-HCL, without increasing time spent in hypoglycemia. However, the percentage of individuals with TIR>70% increased significantly in a-HCL users, who attained this target earlier and more stably: younger age, a higher rate of auto-correction, and a lower amount of CHO inserted predicted a TIR>70%. BMI SDS did not significantly change throughout the study period.

CONCLUSION

This real-world study suggests that effectiveness might be greater in a-HCL than in s-HCL, with significant changes in HbA1c, and reaching earlier and more stably the target of TIR >70%, without increasing hypoglycemia or BMI. At the same time, previous users of s-HCL systems did not show any further improvement with a-HCL. Children under the age of 14 years of age, not represented in previous studies, seem to benefit the most from a-HCL pumps as well as individuals with the worst glycemic control.

A Comparison of Two Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems in Italian Children and Adults With Type 1 Diabetes

Tandem Control-IQ and Minimed 780G represent the most Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop (AHCL) systems currently available in pediatric and adult subjects with Type 1 Diabetes (T1D). We retrospectively compared clinical and continuous glucose monitoring data from 51 patients who upgraded to Minimed 780G system and have completed 1-month observation period with data from 39 patients who upgraded to Tandem Control-IQ. Inverse probability weighting was used to minimize the basal characteristics imbalances. Both AHCL systems showed a significant improvement in glycemic parameters. Minimed 780G group achieved higher TIR increase (p= 0.004) and greater reduction of blood glucose average (p= 0.001). Tandem Control-IQ system significantly reduced the occurrence of TBR (p= 0.010) and the Coefficient of Variation of glucose levels (p= 0.005). The use of ACHL systems led to a significant improvement of glycemic control substantially reaching the International recommended glycemic targets. Minimed 780G appears to be more effective in managing hyperglycemia, while Tandem Control-IQ seems to be more effective in reducing time in hypoglycemia.