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

Assessment of the Impact of Subcutaneous Catheter Change on Glucose Control in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Treated by Insulin Pump in Open- and Closed-Loop Modes

Introduction: Most continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) catheters (KT) are changed every 3 days. This study aims at evaluating whether KT changes impact glucose control while under open-loop (OL) or automated insulin delivery (AID) modes. Methods: We included patients with type 1 diabetes who used Tandem t:slim x2 insulin pump and Dexcom G6 glucose sensor for 20 days in OL, then as AID. CSII and sensor glucose data in OL and for the past 20 days of 3-month AID were retrospectively analyzed. The percentage of time spent with sensor glucose above 180 mg/dL (%TAR180) was compared between the calendar day of KT change (D0), the next day (D1), and 2 days later (D2). Values were adjusted for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at inclusion, and %TAR180 for the 2 h before KT change. Results: A total of 1636 KT changes were analyzed in 134 patients: 72 women (54%), age: 35.6 ± 15.7 years, BMI: 25.2 ± 4.7 kg/m2, and HbA1c: 7.5 ± 0.8%. %TAR180 in the 2 h before the KT change was 51.3 ± 37.0% in OL and 33.2 ± 30.0% in AID mode. In OL, significant absolute increases of %TAR180 at D0 versus D1 (+6.9%; P < 0.0001) or versus D2 (+6.8%; P < 0.0001) were observed. In AID, significant absolute increases of %TA180R at D0 versus D1 (+4.8%; P < 0.0001) or versus D2 (+4.2%; P < 0.0001) were also observed. Conclusion: This study shows an increase in time spent in hyperglycemia on the day of the KT change both in OL and AID modes. This additional information should be taken into account to improve current AID algorithms. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04939766.

Recommendations for recognizing, risk stratifying, treating, and managing children and adolescents with hypoglycemia

There has been continuous progress in diabetes management over the last few decades, not least due to the widespread dissemination of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and automated insulin delivery systems. These technological advances have radically changed the daily lives of people living with diabetes, improving the quality of life of both children and their families. Despite this, hypoglycemia remains the primary side-effect of insulin therapy. Based on a systematic review of the available scientific evidence, this paper aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for recognizing, risk stratifying, treating, and managing patients with hypoglycemia. The objective of these recommendations is to unify the behavior of pediatric diabetologists with respect to the timely recognition and prevention of hypoglycemic episodes and the correct treatment of hypoglycemia, especially in patients using CGM or advanced hybrid closed-loop systems. All authors have long experience in the specialty and are members of the Italian Society of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology. The goal of treating hypoglycemia is to raise blood glucose above 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) and to prevent further decreases. Oral glucose at a dose of 0.3 g/kg (0.1 g/kg for children using "smart pumps" or hybrid closed loop systems in automated mode) is the preferred treatment for the conscious individual with blood glucose <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L), although any form of carbohydrate (e.g., sucrose, which consists of glucose and fructose, or honey, sugary soft drinks, or fruit juice) containing glucose may be used. Using automatic insulin delivery systems, the oral glucose dose can be decreased to 0.1 g/kg. Practical flow charts are included to aid clinical decision-making. Although representing the official position of the Italian Society of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology (ISPED), these guidelines are applicable to the global audience and are especially pertinent in the era of CGM and other advanced technologies.

A Scalable Application of Artificial Intelligence-Driven Insulin Titration Program to Transform Type 2 Diabetes Management

Background: Despite new pharmacotherapy, most patients with long-term type 2 diabetes are still hyperglycemic. This could have been solved by insulin with its unlimited potential efficacy, but its dynamic physiology demands frequent titrations which are overdemanding. This report provides a real-life account for a scalable transformation of diabetes care in a community-based endocrinology center by harnessing artificial intelligence-based autonomous insulin titration. Methods: The center embedded the d-Nav® technology and its dedicated clinical support. Reported outcomes include treatment efficacy/safety in the first 600 patients and use of cardiorenal-risk reduction pharmacotherapy. Findings: Patients used d-Nav for 8.2 ± 3.0 months with 82% retention. Age was 67.1 ± 11.5 years and duration of diabetes was 19.8 ± 11.0 years. During the last 3 years before d-Nav, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) had been overall higher than 8% and at the beginning of the program it was as high as 8.6% ± 2.1% with 29.3% of the patients with HbA1c >9%. With d-Nav, HbA1c decreased to 7.3% ± 1.2% with 5.7% of patients with HbA1c >9%. During the first 3 months, d-Nav reduced total daily dose of insulin in one of every five patients due to relatively low glucose levels to minimize the risk of hypoglycemia. Glucagon like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or dual GLP-1 and Glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonists were prescribed in about a half of the patients and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor in a third. The frequency of hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) was 0.4 ± 0.6/month and severe hypoglycemia 1.7/100-patient-years. Interpretation: The use of d-Nav allowed for improvement in overall diabetes management with appropriate use of both insulin and noninsulin pharmacologic agents in a scalable way.

Enhancing equity in access to automated insulin delivery systems in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse group of children with type 1 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Manufacturer-supported didactic teaching programmes offer effective automated insulin delivery (AID) systems onboarding in children and young people (CYP) with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, this approach has limited flexibility to accommodate the needs of families requiring additional support.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Evaluate the efficacy of an inperson manufacturer-supported didactic teaching programme (Group A), in comparison to a flexible flipped learning approach delivered virtually or inperson (Group B). Retrospective analysis of CYP with T1D using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), who were initiated on AID systems between 2021 and 2023. Compare CGM metrics from baseline to 90 days for both groups A and B. Additionally, compare the two groups for change in CGM metrics over the 90-day period (∆), patient demographics and onboarding time.

RESULTS

Group A consisted of 74 CYP (53% male) with median age of 13.9 years and Group B 91 CYP (54% male) with median age of 12.7 years. From baseline to 90 days, Group A lowered mean (±SD) time above range (TAR, >10.0 mmol/L) from 47.6% (±15.0) to 33.2% (±15.0) (p<0.001), increased time in range (TIR, 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) from 50.4% (±14.0) to 64.7% (±10.2) (p<0.001). From baseline to 90 days, Group B lowered TAR from 51.3% (±15.1) to 34.5% (±11.3) (p<0.001) and increased TIR from 46.5% (±14.5) to 63.7% (±11.0) (p<0.001). There was no difference from baseline to 90 days for time below range (TBR, <3.9 mmol/L) for Group A and Group B. ∆ TAR, TIR and TBR for both groups were comparable. Group B consisted of CYP with higher socioeconomic deprivation, greater ethnic diversity and lower carer education achievement (p<0.05). The majority of Group B (n=79, 87%) chose virtual flipped learning, halving diabetes educator time and increasing onboarding cadence by fivefold.

CONCLUSIONS

A flexible virtual flipped learning programme increases onboarding cadence and capacity to offer equitable AID system onboarding.

Efficacy of the hybrid closedloop insulin delivery system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems for insulin delivery in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). We searched Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until March 2023 comparing the HCL therapy with control therapies for children and adolescents with T1D. We computed weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary endpoints. Four RCTs and 501 patients were included, of whom 323 were randomized to HCL therapy. Compared with control therapies, HCL significantly improved the period during which glucose level was 70-180 mg/dL (WMD 10.89%, 95% CI 8.22-13.56%) and the number of participants with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level < 7% (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.29-5.28). Also, HCL significantly reduced the time during which glucoselevel was > 180 mg/dL (WMD-10.46%, 95% CI-13.99 to-6.93%) and the mean levels of glucose (WMD-16.67 mg/dL, 95% CI-22.25 to-11.09 mg/dL) and HbA1c (WMD-0.50%, 95% CI-0.68 to-0.31). There were no significant differences between therapies regarding time during which glucose level was < 70 mg/dL or <54 mg/dL or number of episodes of ketoacidosis, hyperglycemia, and hypoglycemia. In this meta-analysis, HCL compared with control therapies was associated with improved time in range and HbA1c control in children and adolescents with T1D and a similar profile of side effects. These findings support the efficacy of HCL in the treatment of T1D in this population.

Acute and Chronic Adverse Outcomes of Type 1 Diabetes

Type 1 diabetes is associated with both acute and chronic complications. Acute complications include diabetic ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycemia. Chronic complications can be microvascular or macrovascular. Microvascular complications include retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy. The pathophysiology of microvascular complications is complex. Hyperglycemia is a common underlying risk factor, underscoring the importance of optimizing glycemic management. Patients with type 1 diabetes are also at increased risk of macrovascular complications including coronary artery disease and vascular disease. The American Diabetes Association provides screening guidelines for chronic complications of diabetes. Adherence to these guidelines is an important aspect of diabetes care.

Real-World Evidence of Automated Insulin Delivery System Use

Objective: Pivotal trials of automated insulin delivery (AID) closed-loop systems have demonstrated a consistent picture of glycemic benefit, supporting approval of multiple systems by the Food and Drug Administration or Conformité Européenne mark receipt. To assess how pivotal trial findings translate to commercial AID use, a systematic review of retrospective real-world studies was conducted. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for articles published after 2018 with more than five nonpregnant individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Data were screened/extracted in duplicate for sample size, AID system, glycemic outcomes, and time in automation. Results: Of 80 studies identified, 20 met inclusion criteria representing 171,209 individuals. Time in target range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was the primary outcome in 65% of studies, with the majority of reports (71%) demonstrating a >10% change with AID use. Change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was reported in nine studies (range 0.1%-0.9%), whereas four reported changes in glucose management indicator (GMI) with a 0.1%-0.4% reduction noted. A decrease in HbA1c or GMI of >0.2% was achieved in two-thirds of the studies describing change in HbA1c and 80% of articles where GMI was described. Time below range <70 mg/dL (<3.9 mmol/L) was reported in 16 studies, with all but 1 study showing stable or reduced levels. Most systems had >90% time in automation. Conclusion: With larger and more diverse populations, and follow-up periods of longer duration (∼9 months vs. 3-6 months for pivotal trials), real-world retrospective analyses confirm pivotal trial findings. Given the glycemic benefits demonstrated, AID is rapidly becoming the standard of care for all people living with T1D. Individuals should be informed of these systems and differences between them, have access to and coverage for these technologies, and receive support as they integrate this mode of insulin delivery into their lives.

A Multicenter Prospective Evaluation of the Benefits of Two Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems in Glucose Control and Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Real-world Setting

OBJECTIVE

Advanced hybrid closed-loop systems (AHCL) have been shown to improve glycemic control and patient-reported outcomes in type 1 diabetes. The aim was to analyze the outcomes of two commercially available AHCL in real life.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A prospective study was performed, including adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes, AHCL naïve, from 14 centers, who initiated the use of MM780G with SmartGuard or Tandem t:slimX2 with Control-IQ. Baseline and 3-month evaluations were performed, assessing HbA1c, time in different glycemic ranges, and patient-reported outcomes. The primary outcome was the between-group time in range 70-180 mg/dL difference from beginning to end of follow-up.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty participants were included, with 75 initiating each system (age: 39.9 ± 11.4 years [16-72]; 64% female; diabetes duration: 21.6 ± 11.9 years). Time in range increased from 61.53 ± 14.01% to 76.17 ± 9.48% (P < 0.001), with no between-group differences (P = 0.591). HbA1c decreased by 0.56% (95% CI 0.44%, 0.68%) (6 mmol/mol, 95% CI 5, 7) (P < 0.001), from 7.43 ± 1.07% to 6.88 ± 0.60% (58 ± 12 to 52 ± 7 mmol/mol) in the MM780G group, and from 7.14 ± 0.70% to 6.56 ± 0.53% (55 ± 8 to 48 ± 6 mmol/mol) in the Control-IQ group (both P < 0.001 to baseline, P = 0.819 between groups). No superiority of one AHCL over the other regarding fear of hypoglycemia or quality of life was found. Improvement in diabetes-related distress was higher in Control-IQ users (P = 0.012). Sleep quality was improved (PSQI: from 6.94 ± 4.06 to 6.06 ± 4.05, P = 0.004), without differences between systems. Experience with AHCL, evaluated by the INSPIRE measures, exceeded the expectations.

CONCLUSIONS

The two AHCL provide significant improvement in glucose control and satisfaction, with no superiority of one AHCL over the other.

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.

Real-world glycaemic outcomes in patients with type 1 diabetes using glucose sensors-Experience from a single centre in Dublin

AIMS

To evaluate changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1 c) and sensor-based glycaemic metrics after glucose sensor commencement in adults with T1D.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational single-centre study on HbA1 c, and sensor-based glycaemic data following the initiation of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in adults with T1D (n = 209).

RESULTS

We observed an overall improvement in HbA1 c from 66 (59-78) mmol/mol [8.2 (7.5-9.3)%] pre-sensor to 60 (53-71) mmol/mol [7.6 (7.0-8.6)%] on-sensor (p < .001). The pre-sensor HbA1 c improved from 66 (57-74) mmol/mol [8.2 (7.4-8.9)%] to 62 (54-71) mmol/mol [7.8 (7.1-8.7)%] within the first year of usage to 60 (53-69) mmol/mol [7.6 (7.0-8.4)%] in the following year (n = 121, p < .001). RT-CGM-user had a significant improvement in HbA1 c (Dexcom G6; p < .001, r = 0.33 and Guardian 3; p < .001, r = 0.59) while a non-significant reduction was seen in FGM-user (Libre 1; p = .279). Both MDI (p < .001, r = 0.33) and CSII group (p < .001, r = 0.41) also demonstrated significant HbA1 c improvement. Patients with pre-sensor HbA1 c of ≥64 mmol/mol [8.0%] (n = 125), had attenuation of pre-sensor HbA1 c from 75 (68-83) mmol/mol [9.0 (8.4-9.7)%] to 67 (59-75) mmol/mol [8.2 (7.6-9.0)%] (p < .001, r = 0.44). Altogether, 25.8% of patients achieved the recommended HbA1 c goal of ≤53 mmol/mol and 16.7% attained the recommended ≥70% time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that minimally invasive glucose sensor technology in adults with T1D is associated with improvement in glycaemic outcomes. However, despite significant improvements in HbA1 c, achieving the recommended goals for all glycaemic metrics remained challenging.

NIH Fifth Artificial Pancreas Workshop 2023: Meeting Report: The Fifth Artificial Pancreas Workshop: Enabling Fully Automation, Access, and Adoption

The Fifth Artificial Pancreas Workshop: Enabling Fully Automation, Access, and Adoption was held at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Campus in Bethesda, Maryland on May 1 to 2, 2023. The organizing Committee included representatives of NIH, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Diabetes Technology Society, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF), and the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. In previous years, the NIH Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic Diseases along with other diabetes organizations had organized periodic workshops, and it had been seven years since the NIH hosted the Fourth Artificial Pancreas in July 2016. Since then, significant improvements in insulin delivery have occurred. Several automated insulin delivery (AID) systems are now commercially available. The workshop featured sessions on: (1) Lessons Learned from Recent Advanced Clinical Trials and Real-World Data Analysis, (2) Interoperability, Data Management, Integration of Systems, and Cybersecurity, Challenges and Regulatory Considerations, (3) Adaptation of Systems Through the Lifespan and Special Populations: Are Specific Algorithms Needed, (4) Development of Adaptive Algorithms for Insulin Only and for Multihormonal Systems or Combination with Adjuvant Therapies and Drugs: Clinical Expected Outcomes and Public Health Impact, (5) Novel Artificial Intelligence Strategies to Develop Smarter, More Automated, Personalized Diabetes Management Systems, (6) Novel Sensing Strategies, Hormone Formulations and Delivery to Optimize Close-loop Systems, (7) Special Topic: Clinical and Real-world Viability of IP-IP Systems. "Fully automated closed-loop insulin delivery using the IP route," (8) Round-table Panel: Closed-loop performance: What to Expect and What are the Best Metrics to Assess it, and (9) Round-table Discussion: What is Needed for More Adaptable, Accessible, and Usable Future Generation of Systems? How to Promote Equitable Innovation? This article summarizes the discussions of the Workshop.