The efficacy of automated insulin delivery systems in children and adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Real-World Evidence of the Cambridge Hybrid Closed-Loop App With a Novel Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring System

We evaluated the performance of the interoperable Cambridge hybrid closed-loop app with FreeStyle Libre 3 glucose sensor, and YpsoPump insulin pump in a real-world setting. Data from 100 users (63 adults [mean ± SD age 41.9 ± 14.0 years], 15 children [8.6 ± 5.2 years)] and 22 users of unreported age) for a period of 28 days were analyzed. Time in range (3.91- 10.0mmol/L) was 72.6 ± 11.1% overall. Time below range (<3.9mmol/L) was 3.1% (1.4-5.1) (median [interquartile range]). Auto-mode was active for 95.8% (91.8-97.9) of time. This real-world analysis suggests that the performance of Cambridge hybrid closed-loop app with this glucose sensor is comparable to other commercially available hybrid closed-loop systems.

Experiences of adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes and chronically elevated glucose levels following the transition from multiple daily injections to advanced hybrid closed-loop: A qualitative study

AIM

To understand experiences of using second-generation advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) therapy in adolescents and young adults with chronically elevated glucose levels who were previously using multiple daily injections (MDI) therapy.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews with participants aged 13-25 years, on AHCL therapy for 3 months as part of a single-arm prospective study. Key inclusions: HbA1c ≥69 mmol/mol (8.5%); diabetes duration ≥1 year; and using MDI therapy prior to the study. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Interviews were conducted among 14 participants with mean age 19.4 ± 4.3 years and mean baseline HbA1c 90 ± 25 mmol/mol (10.4 ± 4.5%). Three themes were identified: (1) substantially improved glucose levels improved perceptions of overall health; (2) features of AHCL aid in adoption and ongoing self-management; and (3) burden of care was reduced through automation of insulin delivery. Overall, there were positive impacts on physical, mental and social well-being. Participants were willing to overlook minor frustrations with AHCL because of the vast benefits that they had experienced. Four participants reported transient pseudo-hypoglycaemia: symptoms of hypoglycaemia when objectively measured glucose was in the clinically recommended range (3.9-10 mmol/L, 70-180 mg/dL).

CONCLUSION

Transition to AHCL therapy positively impacted diabetes management in adolescents and youth with chronically elevated glucose levels. It appears to create a window of opportunity in which youth may re-engage with diabetes management. Pseudo-hypoglycaemia can occur during the transition to AHCL. This could be a barrier to AHCL uptake and is likely to require individualised support.

International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2024: Diabetes Technologies - Insulin Delivery

The International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) guidelines represent a rich repository that serves as the only comprehensive set of clinical recommendations for children, adolescents, and young adults living with diabetes worldwide. This chapter builds on the 2022 ISPAD guidelines, and summarizes recent advances in the technology behind insulin administration, with special emphasis on insulin pump therapy, especially on glucose-responsive integrated technology that is feasible with the use of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in children and adolescents. The International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) guidelines represent a rich repository that serves as the only comprehensive set of clinical recommendations for children, adolescents, and young adults living with diabetes worldwide. This chapter builds on the 2022 ISPAD guidelines, and summarizes recent advances in the technology behind insulin administration, with special emphasis on insulin pump therapy, especially on glucose-responsive integrated technology that is feasible with the use of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in children and adolescents.

Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes: A Narrative Review

This narrative review assesses the use of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in managing persons with type 1 diabetes (PWD) in the pediatric population. It outlines current research, the differences between various AID systems currently on the market and the challenges faced, and discusses potential opportunities for further advancements within this field. Furthermore, the narrative review includes various expert opinions on how different AID systems can be used in the event of challenges with rapidly changing insulin requirements. These include examples, such as during illness with increased or decreased insulin requirements and during physical activity of different intensities or durations. Case descriptions give examples of scenarios with added user-initiated actions depending on the type of AID system used. The authors also discuss how another AID system could have been used in these situations.

Clinical evidence for high-risk CE-marked medical devices for glucose management: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis, within the Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices (CORE-MD) project, evaluating CE-marked high-risk devices for glucose management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified interventional and observational studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of eight automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, two implantable insulin pumps, and three implantable continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices. We meta-analysed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AID systems with other treatments.

RESULTS

A total of 182 studies published between 2009 and 2024 were included, comprising 166 studies on AID systems, six on insulin pumps, and 10 on CGM devices; 26% reported industry funding; 18% were pre-market; 37% had a comparator group. Of the studies identified, 29% were RCTs, 24% were non-randomized trials, and 47% were observational studies. The median (interquartile range) sample size was 48 (28-102), age 34.8 (14-44.2) years, and study duration 17.5 (12-26) weeks. AID systems lowered glycated haemoglobin by 0.5 percentage points (absolute mean difference [MD] = -0.5; 21 RCTs; I2 = 86%) and increased time in target range for sensor glucose level by 13.4 percentage points (MD = 13.4; 14 RCTs; I2 = 90%). At least one safety outcome was assessed in 71% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

High-risk devices for glucose monitoring or insulin dosing, in particular AID systems, improve glucose control safely, but evidence on diabetes-related end-organ damage is lacking due to short study durations. Methodological heterogeneity highlights the need for developing standards for future pre- and post-market investigations of diabetes-specific high-risk medical devices.

Use of diabetes technology in children

Children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers face numerous challenges navigating the unpredictability of this complex disease. Although the burden of managing diabetes remains significant, new technology has eased some of the load and allowed children with type 1 diabetes to achieve tighter glycaemic management without fear of excess hypoglycaemia. Continuous glucose monitor use alone improves outcomes and is considered standard of care for paediatric type 1 diabetes management. Similarly, automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have proven to be safe and effective for children as young as 2 years of age. AID use improves not only blood glucose levels but also quality of life for children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers and should be strongly considered for all youth with type 1 diabetes if available and affordable. Here, we review key data on the use of diabetes technology in the paediatric population and discuss management issues unique to children and adolescents.

Efficacy and Safety of Different Hybrid Closed Loop Systems for Automated Insulin Delivery in People With Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of different hybrid closed loop (HCL) systems in people with diabetes through a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PubMed for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling children, adolescents and/or adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, evaluating Minimed 670G, Minimed 780G, Control-IQ, CamAPS Fx, DBLG-1, DBLHU, and Omnipod 5 HCL systems against other types of insulin therapy, and reporting time in target range (TIR) as outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 28 RCTs, all enrolling people with type 1 diabetes, were included. HCL systems significantly increased TIR compared with subcutaneous insulin therapy without continuous glucose monitoring (SIT). Minimed 780G achieved the highest TIR ahead of Control IQ (mean difference (MD) 5.1%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) [0.68; 9.52], low certainty), Minimed 670G (MD 7.48%, 95% CI [4.27; 10.7], moderate certainty), CamAPS Fx (MD 8.94%, 95% CI [4.35; 13.54], low certainty), and DBLG1 (MD 10.69%, 95% CI [5.73; 15.65], low certainty). All HCL systems decreased time below target range, with DBLG1 (MD -3.69%, 95% CI [-5.2; -2.19], high certainty), Minimed 670G (MD -2.9%, 95% CI [-3.77; -2.04], moderate certainty) and Minimed 780G (MD -2.79%, 95% CI [-3.94; -1.64], high certainty) exhibiting the largest reductions compared to SIT. The risk of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis was similar to other types of insulin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

We show a hierarchy of efficacy among the different HCL systems in people with type 1 diabetes, thus providing support to clinical decision-making.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023453717.

Sustained 3-Year Improvement of Glucose Control With Hybrid Closed Loop in Children With Type 1 Diabetes While Going Through Puberty

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of prolonged hybrid closed loop (HCL) use in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) on glucose control and BMI throughout pubertal progression.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We used a prospective multicenter extension study following the Free-Life Kid AP (FLKAP) HCL trial. The 9-month previously reported FLKAP trial included 119 prepubertal children (aged 6-12 years). During the extension study, participants could continue to use HCL for 30 months (M9 to M39). HbA1c values were collected every 3 months up to M39, while continuous glucose monitoring metrics, BMI z scores, and Tanner stages were collected up to M24. Noninferiority tests were performed to assess parameter sustainability over time.

RESULTS

One hundred seventeen children completed the extension study, with mean age 10.1 years (minimum to maximum, 6.8-14.0) at the beginning. Improvement of HbA1c obtained in the FLKAP trial was significantly sustained during extension (median [interquartile range], M9 7.0% [6.8-7.4], and M39 7.0% [6.6-7.4], P < 0.0001 for noninferiority test) and did not differ between children who entered puberty at M24 (Tanner stage ≥2; 54% of the patients) and patients who remained prepubertal. BMI z score also remained stable (M9 0.41 [-0.29 to 1.13] and M24 0.48 [-0.11 to 1.13], P < 0.0001, for noninferiority test). No severe hypoglycemia and one ketoacidosis episode not related to the HCL system occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged use of HCL can safely and effectively mitigate impairment of glucose control usually associated with pubertal progression without impact on BMI in children with T1D.

Real-world glycaemic outcomes of automated insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes: A meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the real-world effectiveness of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies published up until 2 March 2024. We included pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and before-after studies that compared AID systems with conventional insulin therapy in real-world settings and reported continuous glucose monitoring outcomes. Percent time in range (TIR; 3.9-10 mmol/L), time below range (TBR; <3.9 mmol/L), time above range (TAR; >10 mmol/L), and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level were extracted. Data were summarized as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

A total of 23 before-after studies (101 704 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. AID systems were associated with an increased percentage of TIR (11.61%, 10.47 to 12.76; p < 0.001). The favourable effect of AID systems was consistently observed when used continuously for 6 (11.76%) or 12 months (11.33%), and in both children (12.16%) and adults (11.04%). AID systems also showed favourable effects on TBR (-0.53%, -0.63 to -0.42), TAR (-9.65%, -10.63 to -8.67) and HbA1c level (-0.42%, -0.47 to -0.37) when compared with previous treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar improvements in glycaemic parameters were observed in real-world settings in RCTs using AID systems in T1D. AID systems benefit both children and adults by increasing TIR for both short- and long-term interventions.

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.

Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models for Nocturnal High- and Low-Glucose Prediction in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Glucose management at night is a major challenge for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), especially for those managed with multiple daily injections (MDIs). In this study, we developed machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models to predict nocturnal glucose within the target range (3.9-10 mmol/L), above the target range, and below the target range in subjects with T1D managed with MDIs. The models were trained and tested on continuous glucose monitoring data obtained from 380 subjects with T1D. Two DL algorithms-multi-layer perceptron (MLP) and a convolutional neural network (CNN)-as well as two classic ML algorithms, random forest (RF) and gradient boosting trees (GBTs), were applied. The resulting models based on the DL and ML algorithms demonstrated high and similar accuracy in predicting target glucose (F1 metric: 96-98%) and above-target glucose (F1: 93-97%) within a 30 min prediction horizon. Model performance was poorer when predicting low glucose (F1: 80-86%). MLP provided the highest accuracy in low-glucose prediction. The results indicate that both DL (MLP, CNN) and ML (RF, GBTs) algorithms operating CGM data can be used for the simultaneous prediction of nocturnal glucose values within the target, above-target, and below-target ranges in people with T1D managed with MDIs.

Effect of artificial pancreas system use on glycaemic control among pregnant women with type 1 diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

To assess the efficacy of artificial pancreas systems (APS) use among pregnant women with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) by conducting a meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched five databases, including EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library and SCOPUS, for literature on APS use among pregnant women with T1DM before October 9, 2023. The primary endpoint was 24-hour time in range (TIR; 3.5-7.8 mmol/L). Secondary endpoints included glycaemic metrics for 24-hour (mean blood glucose [MBG], time above range [TAR], time below range [TBR]), and overnight TIR and TBR.

RESULTS

We identified four randomized controlled trials involving 164 participants; one study with 16 participants focused on overnight APS use, and the other three focused on 24-hour APS use. Compared with standard care, APS exhibited a favourable effect on 24-hour TIR (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25, 0.80, P < 0.001), overnight TIR (SMD = 0.67, 95% CI 0.39, 0.95, P < 0.001), and overnight TBR (<3.5 mmol/L; SMD = -0.49, 95% CI -0.77, -0.21 P < 0.001), while there was no significant difference in 24-hour TAR, 24-hour TBR, or MBG between the two groups. We further conducted subgroup analyses after removing the trial focused on overnight APS use and showed that 24-hour APS use reduced not only the 24-hour TIR (SMD = 0.41, 95% CI 0.12, 0.71; P = 0.007) but also the 24-hour TBR (<2.8 mmol/L; SMD = -0.77, 95% CI -1.32, -0.23, P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that APS might improve 24-hour TIR and overnight glycaemic control, and 24-hour APS use also significantly reduced 24-hour TBR (2.8 mmol/L) among pregnant women with T1DM.

Does Insulin Delivery Technology Change Our Relationship with Foods? A Scoping Review

Introduction: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems reduce burden and improve glycemic management for people with type 1 diabetes (PwT1D) by automatically adjusting insulin as a response to measured glucose levels. There is a lack of evidence on AID and nutrition variables such as dietary intake, eating behaviors, and disordered eating. Objectives: This scoping review aims to provide a summary of the literature regarding AID and nutrition variables and to identify gaps that require further investigation. Methods: Two researchers conducted a blinded search of Medline (OVID) and PubMed for studies, including AID use (compared to non-AID use) and nutrition variables. Studies from January 2000 to July 2023 were included, as were PwT1D of all ages. Results: A total of 3132 articles were screened for appropriateness. After exclusions, 7 studies were included (2017-2023): 4 qualitative, 1 crossover, 1 randomized controlled, and 1 observational. Studies included adolescents (n = 1), adults (n = 3) or both (n = 2), and all ages (n = 1). In quantitative studies, AID was associated with lower eating distress (-0.43 ± 0.12, P = 0.004) and higher quality of life (3.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.8-5.4, P = 0.01), but not grams of carbohydrates at meals (1.0; 95% CI: -0.7 to 3.0; P = 0.24) and snacks (0.004; 95% CI: -0.8 to 0.8; P = 0.99) compared to non-AID use. In qualitative studies, AID increased the frequency and portions of food intake and led to less dietary control from parents. AID users reported eating foods higher in energy density. PwT1D were less worried about achieving accurate carbohydrate counting (CC) when using AID. Conclusions: AID use appears to influence eating behaviors, dietary patterns, and CC, although evidence was limited. AID may reduce food management burden due to the perception that AID can correct for CC inaccuracy. Significance: Further research needs to determine if AID allows for simplification of CC and improves eating behaviors while maintaining glycemic stability.

Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Outpatient Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The glycemic control of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in outpatient children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) has not been systematically evaluated.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in children and adolescents in outpatient settings.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched until 4 May 2023. This study was registered with PROSPERO (2023, CRD42023395252).

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials that compared AID systems with conventional insulin therapy in outpatient children and adolescents with T1D and reported continuous glucose monitoring outcomes were selected.

DATA EXTRACTION

Percent time in range (TIR) (3.9-10 mmol/L), time below range (TBR) (<3.9 mmol/L), and time above range (TAR) (>10 mmol/L) were extracted. Data were summarized as mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twenty-five trials (1,345 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. AID systems were associated with an increased percentage of TIR (MD, 11.38% [95% CI 9.01-13.76], P < 0.001; high certainty). The favorable effect was consistent whether AID was used over 3 months (10.46% [8.71-12.20]) or 6 months (10.87% [7.11-14.63]). AID systems had a favorable effect on the proportion of TBR (-0.59% [-1.02 to -0.15], P = 0.008; low certainty) or TAR (-12.19% [-14.65 to -9.73], P < 0.001; high certainty) compared with control treatment.

LIMITATIONS

Substantial heterogeneity was observed in most analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

AID systems are more effective than conventional insulin therapy for children and adolescents with T1D in outpatient settings. The favorable effect is consistent both in the short term and long term.

Glucose control and psychosocial outcomes with use of automated insulin delivery for 12 to 96 weeks in type 1 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Glycaemic control of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) remains a challenge due to hypoglycaemic episodes and the burden of insulin self-management. Advancements have been made with the development of automated insulin delivery (AID) devices, yet, previous reviews have only assessed the use of AID over days or weeks, and potential benefits with longer time of AID use in this population remain unclear.

METHODS

 We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing AID (hybrid and fully closed-loop systems) to usual care (sensor augmented pumps, multiple daily insulin injections, continuous glucose monitoring and predictive low-glucose suspend) for adults and children with T1DM with a minimum duration of 3 months. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Clinicaltrials.gov for studies published up until April 4, 2023. Main outcomes included time in range 70-180 mg/dL as the primary outcome, and change in HbA1c (%, mmol/mol), glucose variability, and psychosocial impact (diabetes distress, treatment satisfaction and fear of hypoglycaemia) as secondary outcomes. Adverse events included diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and severe hypoglycaemia. Statistical analyses were conducted using mean differences and odds ratios. Sensitivity analyses were performed according to age, study duration and type of AID device. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42022366710.

RESULTS

We identified 25 comparisons from 22 studies (six crossover and 16 parallel designs) including a total of 2376 participants (721 in adult studies, 621 in paediatric studies, and 1034 in combined studies) which were eligible for analysis. Use of AID devices ranged from 12 to 96 weeks. Patients using AID had 10.87% higher time in range [95% CI 9.38 to 12.37; p < 0.0001, I2 = 87%) and 0.37% (4.77 mmol/mol) lower HbA1c (95% CI - 0.49% (- 6.39 mmol/mol) to - 0.26 (- 3.14 mmol/mol); p < 0·0001, I2 = 77%]. AID systems decreased night hypoglycaemia, time in hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia and improved patient distress, with no increase in the risk of DKA or severe hypoglycaemia. No difference was found regarding treatment satisfaction or fear of hypoglycaemia. Among children, there was no difference in glucose variability or time spent in hypoglycaemia between the use of AID systems or usual care. In sensitivity analyses, results remained consistent with the overall analysis favouring AID.

CONCLUSION

The use of AID systems over 12 weeks, regardless of technical or clinical differences, improved glycaemic outcomes and diabetes distress without increasing the risk of adverse events in adults and children with T1DM.