Off-label use of an automated insulin delivery system in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes

Automated Insulin Delivery for Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes: Where Do We Stand?

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems mimic an artificial pancreas via a predictive algorithm integrated with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and an insulin pump, thereby providing AID. Outside of pregnancy, AID has led to a paradigm shift in the management of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), leading to improvements in glycemic control with lower risk for hypoglycemia and improved quality of life. As the use of AID in clinical practice is increasing, the number of women of reproductive age becoming pregnant while using AID is also expected to increase. The requirement for lower glucose targets than outside of pregnancy and for frequent adjustments of insulin doses during pregnancy may impact the effectiveness and safety of AID when using algorithms for non-pregnant populations with T1D. Currently, the CamAPS® FX is the only AID approved for use in pregnancy. A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) with CamAPS® FX demonstrated a 10% increase in time in range in a pregnant population with T1D and a baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥ 48 mmol/mol (6.5%). Off-label use of AID not approved for pregnancy are currently also being evaluated in ongoing RCTs. More evidence is needed on the impact of AID on maternal and neonatal outcomes. We review the current evidence on the use of AID in pregnancy and provide an overview of the completed and ongoing RCTs evaluating AID in pregnancy. In addition, we discuss the advantages and challenges of the use of current AID in pregnancy and future directions for research.

Twelve-Month Real-World Use of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Versus Previous Therapy in a Dutch Center For Specialized Type 1 Diabetes Care

BACKGROUND

Complexity of glucose regulation in persons with type 1 diabetes (PWDs) necessitates increased automation of insulin delivery (AID). This study aimed to analyze real-world data over 12 months from PWDs who started using the MiniMed 780G (MM780G) advanced hybrid closed-loop (aHCL) AID system at the Diabeter clinic, focusing on glucometrics and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Persons with type 1 diabetes switching to the MM780G system were included. Clinical data (e.g. HbA1c, previous modality) was collected from Diabeter's electronic health records and glucometrics (time in range [TIR], time in tight range [TITR], time above range [TAR], time below range [TBR], glucose management indicator [GMI]) from CareLink Personal for a 12-month post-initiation period of the MM780G system. Outcomes were age-stratified, and the MM780G system was compared with previous use of older systems (MM640G and MM670G). Longitudinal changes in glucometrics were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 481 PWDs were included, with 219 having prior pump/sensor system data and 334 having monthly longitudinal data. After MM780G initiation, HbA1c decreased from 7.6 to 7.1% (P < .0001) and the percentage of PWDs with HbA1c <7% increased from 30% to 50%. Glucose management indicator and TIR remained stable with mean GMI of 6.9% and TIR >70% over 12 months. Age-stratified analysis showed consistent improvements of glycemic control across all age groups, with older participants achieving better outcomes. Participants using recommended system settings achieved better glycemic outcomes, reaching TIR up to 77% and TTIR up to 55%.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of MM780G system results in significant and sustained glycemic improvements, consistent across age groups and irrespective of previous treatment modalities.

Real-world data on the Minimed 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop system use during type 1 diabetes pregnancy: One centre observational study

Aim The efficacy of hybrid closed-loop systems (HCLs) in managing glycemic control in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes remains inadequately characterized. We evaluated the use of the Medtronic Minimed 780G HCLs.

METHODS

The retrospective observational study analyzed the glycemic and perinatal outcomes of pregnant women using the HCLs, followed at our tertiary centre. Independent t-tests were employed to compare data among trimesters based on pre-pregnancy HbA1c. The associations between glycemic parameters and perinatal outcomes were explored using Spearman rho.

RESULTS

Among the 21 women (age: 33.5 ± 4.2 years, diabetes duration: 21.2 ± 7.6 years, pre-pregnancy HbA1c 7.0 ± 1.1 % (52.9 ± 11.9 mmol/mol)) time in range (pTIR, 63-140 mg/dl; 3.5-7.8 mmol/l) increased progressively throughout pregnancy (trimesters: first: 64.0 ± 9.0 %; second:71.3 ± 11.8 %; third: 75.7 ± 8.1 %). Simultaneously, mean sensor glucose decreased (trimesters: first: 130 ± 10.4 mg/dl (7.2 ± 0.6 mmol/l); second: 120.9 ± 13.4 mg/dl (6.7 ± 0.7 mmol/l); third: 117.3 ± 9.1 mg/dl (6.5 ± 0.5 mmol/l)). Although a majority of women achieved the target pTIR until the third trimester, this did not consistently prevent the delivery of a large-for-gestational-age baby. Notably, one ketoacidosis event occurred, and there were no reported instances of severe hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

Use of the Minimed 780G HCLs enabled the attainment of recommended pregnancy glycemic targets for most women with type 1 diabetes in a real-world setting.

Use of Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System during Pregnancy: Strengths and Limitations of Achieving a Tight Glycemic Control

Background: Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) face an elevated risk of complications for both themselves and their newborns. Experts recommend strict glycemic control. The advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system, though not officially approved for pregnant T1DM patients, is promising for optimal glycemic control. Methods: We collected CGM metrics, HbA1c levels, insulin pump settings, and doses from a 33-year-old pregnant woman with 23-year history of T1DM from the 6th week of gestation to birth. She was initially on continuous insulin pump therapy with CGM and switched to the AHCL system (MiniMedTM 780G, Medtronic, Northridge, CA, USA) between weeks 13 and 14. Results: The AHCL system improved glycemic control from weeks 14 to 26, achieving international guidelines with TIR = 72%, TAR = 24%, TBR = 4%. At week 30, TIR was 66%, TAR 31%. By altering diet and adding 'fake carbohydrates', she maintained TIR ≥ 70%, TBR ≤ 4%, TAR ≤ 26% from week 34 to birth. A healthy 4 kg, 53 cm baby boy was born at week 38. Conclusions: The use of the AHCL system holds significant promise for improving glycemic control in pregnancy. Optimal glycemic control with MiniMedTM 780G in pregnancy requires accurate carbohydrate counting, specific timing of insulin doses in relation to meal consumption and dietary choices that reduce the glycemic load of meals continue to be crucial factors in achieving optimal glycemic control during pregnancy using the MiniMedTM 780G system. Further research and clinical studies are needed to explore the full potential of these advanced systems in managing T1DM during pregnancy and optimizing maternal and neonatal outcomes.