Cambridge hybrid closed-loop algorithm in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre 6-month randomised controlled trial

Assessing the efficacy of a hybrid closed loop system in a racial-ethnic minority cohort of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVES

Despite improved outcomes in the use of a hybrid closed loop system (HCLS), significant disparities in the application of this technology exist among youth with type 1 diabetes (T1DM). The study aimed to evaluate the impact of a tubeless HCLS on glycemic outcomes in a pediatric racial-ethnic minority population.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center study included youth with T1D initiating HCLS Omnipod 5. Outcomes included HbA1c, continuous glucose monitor variables, BMI Z score, and episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Outcomes were compared from baseline, 3 and 6 months of Omnipod 5 start.

RESULTS

The study included 174 participants, aged between 2 and 22 years, with a mean age of 7.9 ± 3.7 years. Hispanics constituted 87.3 % (152) of the cohort, with 53 % males and 47 % females. Insurance coverage was 56.9 % public, 42.5 % private, and 0.5 % uninsured. Baseline HbA1c level was 8.0 % ± 1.7, 7.3 % ± 1.1 at 3 months and 7.3 % ± 1.1 at 6 months (p<0.001). Glucose time in range (TIR) was 54.5 % at baseline to 61.9 % at 3 months, and 60.5 % at 6 months (p<0.001). Notably, there were no changes in BMI z-scores or DKA episodes following the initiation of the HCLS Omnipod 5.

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed that a tubeless HCLS significantly improved glycemic control in a pediatric minority cohort with T1DM, without affecting BMI Z-scores or increasing DKA episodes. Ongoing efforts to address disparities in diabetes technology access are crucial for optimizing care and alleviating the burden on individuals with T1DM across racial backgrounds.

Closed-loop therapy: recent advancements and potential predictors of glycemic outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Hybrid closed-loop systems have become the standard of care for managing type 1 diabetes (T1D). Both clinical trials and real-world data have demonstrated that these systems improve glycemic control without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia, while also reducing the overall burden of T1D management. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed for studies including individuals with T1D that were published until the end of 2024.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we summarize the safety and efficacy of currently available hybrid closed-loop systems, drawing from key clinical trials and real-world data analyses. We also highlight recent advancements in closed-loop systems, discuss their limitations and barriers to access, and explore future directions for automated insulin delivery. Finally, we explore potential predictors of outcomes for people with T1D to better understand why some individuals respond better to closed-loop systems than others.

EXPERT OPINION

Closed-loop systems are advancing rapidly, with a growing focus on enhancing automation through fully closed-loop systems to improve glycemic control and further reduce the burden of management. Identifying the predictors that influence how individuals respond to closed-loop therapy will enable these systems to be optimized. It is crucial to ensure widespread and equitable access to this advanced technology.

Efficacy of automated insulin delivery systems in people with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of outpatient randomised controlled trials

Background

The comparative efficacy of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems and other treatment options for type 1 diabetes, accounting for the certainty of evidence (CoE), is unknown.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov and included outpatient randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published until January 8, 2025, in people with type 1 diabetes with a three-week or longer intervention of AID systems (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023395492). We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses and used the Risk of Bias tool 2 and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methods to determine the CoE for each outcome.

Findings

A total of 46 studies involving seven insulin treatment options and 4113 participants were included, of which 29 and 17 had low and moderate risks of bias, respectively. The intervention AID systems, including the hybrid closed-loop (HCL), advanced HCL (AHCL) and full closed-loop (FCL) systems, were evaluated in 20, 25 and 1 studies, respectively. The network meta-analysis did not indicate global inconsistencies but did indicate global publication bias for all glycaemic outcomes. The CoE varied between very low and high, depending on the treatment and outcome under consideration. Compared with pump therapy, the percentage of time in the range 70-180 mg/dl was greater with AID use (HCL: 19.7% [95% confidence interval 13.2%; 26.1%], moderate CoE; AHCL: 24.1% [18.2%; 29.9%], moderate CoE; FCL: 25.5% [11.1%; 39.9%], high CoE). Compared with pump therapy, the percentage of time above 180 mg/dl and 250 mg/dl was lower with AHCL, on average, by 19.6% (14.0%; 25.1%), moderate CoE, and 14.8% (8.8%; 20.8%), moderate CoE, respectively. The CoE was very uncertain regarding the overall effect of AID systems on the percentage of time below 70 mg/dl and 54 mg/dl and the HbA1c.

Interpretation

AID systems improve glycaemic outcomes to varying degrees and with varying CoE.

Funding

German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; grant 01KG2203).

OptimAAPP, a smartphone insulin dose calculator for carbohydrate, fat, and protein: A cross-over, randomised controlled trial in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injection therapy

AIMS

To (1) evaluate the efficacy of OptimAAPP, a smartphone insulin dose calculator for carbohydrate, fat, and protein in managing glycaemia compared with carbohydrate counting in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes using flexible multiple daily injection therapy (MDI, ≥4 injections/day) and (2) assess user acceptability of OptimAAPP.

METHODS

In this free-living trial, participants aged 12-50 years were randomised to use carbohydrate counting or OptimAAPP for meal insulin dose calculation for 3 months, then use the alternate method for 3 months. The primary outcome, time-in-range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was measured in weeks 3-4 of each arm using continuous glucose monitoring. The acceptability of OptimAAPP was assessed at end intervention using a purpose-designed questionnaire.

RESULTS

An intention-to-treat analysis of 41 participants, mean age 28 ± 12 years and HbA1c 56 ± 10 mmol/mol (7.3 ± 0.9%) found no significant difference in glycaemic outcomes when using OptimAAPP compared with carbohydrate counting including time-in-range (70.5 vs. 67.6%, p = 0.102), above range (24.5% vs. 28.0%, p = 0.068), below range (4.9% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.318), and coefficient of variation (32.2% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.136). There was no severe hypoglycaemia. Participants reported that OptimAAPP was easy to use (79%), and they were confident in giving the recommended doses (82%). Barriers to use were the small food database and the time associated with food entry.

CONCLUSIONS

In adolescents and adults using flexible MDI therapy, OptimAAPP use did not produce glycaemic outcomes that were significantly different from carbohydrate counting. Participant views of OptimAAPP indicate a high level of acceptability. Increasing the size of the food database will likely enhance the user experience.

Automated Insulin Delivery in Pregnancies Complicated by Type 1 Diabetes

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems adapt insulin delivery via a predictive algorithm integrated with continuous glucose monitoring and an insulin pump. Automated insulin delivery has become standard of care for glycemic management of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) outside pregnancy, leading to improvements in time in range, with lower risk for hypoglycemia and improved treatment satisfaction. The use of AID facilitates optimal preconception care, thus more women of reproductive age are becoming pregnant while using AID. The effectiveness and safety in pregnant populations of using AID systems with algorithms for non-pregnant populations may be impacted by requirements for lower glucose targets and existence of increased insulin resistance during gestation. The CamAPS FX is the only AID system approved for use in pregnancy. A large randomized controlled trial (RCT) with this AID system demonstrated a 10.5% increase in time in pregnancy range (an additional 2.5 hours/day) compared with standard insulin therapy in pregnant women with T1D with a baseline glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥48 mmol/mol (6.5%). A RCT of AID not approved for use in pregnancy (MiniMed 780G) has also demonstrated some benefits of AID compared with standard insulin therapy with improved time in pregnancy range overnight (24 minutes), less hypoglycemia, and improved treatment satisfaction. There is also increasing evidence that AID can be safely continued during delivery and postpartum, while maintaining glycemic goals with lower risk for hypoglycemia. More AID systems are needed with flexible glucose targets in the pregnancy range and possibly with algorithms that better adapt to changing insulin requirements. 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 postpartum.

Automated Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial

Importance

There is a need for additional treatment options for people with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin. Given the limited data on the use of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in type 2 diabetes, studies evaluating their safety and efficacy are important.

Objective

To evaluate the association of AID with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels in a diverse cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This single-arm prospective trial was conducted at 21 clinical centers in the United States among individuals aged 18 to 75 years with type 2 diabetes who had been using insulin for at least 3 months prior to screening. Participants with AID system use were excluded. The study started with a 14-day standard therapy phase, followed by 13 weeks of treatment with the investigational device. The first participant was enrolled April 11, 2023, and the last participant follow-up visit was February 29, 2024.

Intervention

Participants used the Omnipod 5 AID System for 13 weeks following the 14-day standard therapy phase.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcome was change in HbA1c level at 13 weeks, tested sequentially for noninferiority (0.3% margin) and superiority, compared with baseline.

Results

Among 305 participants (mean [SD] age, 57 [11] years; 175 [57%] female; 72 [24%] Black, 66 [22%] Hispanic or Latino, and 153 [50%] White), 289 (95%) completed the trial. At baseline, 223 (73%) were using multiple daily injections, 63 (21%) were using basal insulin without bolus, 17 (6%) were using an insulin pump, 188 (62%) were using continuous glucose monitoring, 168 (55%) were using glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), and 134 (44%) were using sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is). Following AID use, HbA1c levels decreased from a mean (SD) of 8.2% (1.3) at baseline to 7.4% (0.9) at 13 weeks (mean difference, -0.8 [95% CI, -1.0 to -0.7] percentage points; P < .001 for noninferiority and superiority). Improvement was seen across various subgroups (age, sex, race and ethnicity, insurance), and notably with or without use of GLP-1RAs or SGLT-2is and regardless of pretrial mealtime insulin regimen. Time in target glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) increased from a mean (SD) of 45% (25) to 66% (17) (mean difference, 20 [95% CI, 18 to 22] percentage points; P < .001). Percentage of time in hypoglycemic ranges of less than 54 mg/dL and less than 70 mg/dL was noninferior compared with standard therapy. There was 1 episode of severe hypoglycemia and none of diabetic ketoacidosis or hyperosmolar hyperglycemic syndrome.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this nonrandomized clinical trial, HbA1c levels were lower in a diverse cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes following AID initiation, suggesting that AID may be a beneficial and safe option for people with type 2 diabetes using insulin.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05815342.

Evaluation of an Automated Priming Bolus for Improving Prandial Glucose Control in Full Closed Loop Delivery

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) is widely available to people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), providing superior glycemic control versus traditional methods. The next generation of AID devices focus on minimizing user/device interactions, especially around meals ("full closed loop," [FCL]). Our goal was to assess the postprandial glycemic impact of the bolus priming system (BPS), an algorithm delivering fixed insulin doses based on the likelihood of a meal having occurred, in conjunction with UVA's latest AID. Method: Eleven adults with T1D participated in a supervised randomized-crossover trial assessing glycemic control during two 24-h sessions with identical meals and activity-with and without BPS. On the day in-between study sessions, participants underwent food and activity challenges to test BPS safety and robustness. Continuous glucose monitor (CGM) outcomes and total insulin doses were assessed overall and following meals with potential for BPS to dose additional insulin (CGM >90 mg/dL for 1 h prior). Results: Daytime CGM outcomes were similar with and without BPS: time-in-range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL 70.6% [62.2-76.5] versus 65.7% [58.6%-80.6%]; time-below-range <70 mg/dL 0% [0-2.1] versus 0% [0-1.3]; respectively. Insulin delivery during 3 h postprandial was indistinguishable 33.5 U [26.4-47.0] versus 35.7 U [28.7-44.9]. Among 43 out of 66 meals with potential to trigger BPS (24/19 BPS/no-BPS), postprandial incremental area-under-the-curve (iAUC) was lower for BPS versus no-BPS (2530 ± 1934 versus 3228 ± 2029, P = 0.047), but CGM outcomes were inconclusive: 4-h-TIR 51.2% [19.8-83.3] versus 40.2% [20.8-56.3] (P = 0.24). There were no severe adverse events. Conclusion: While there was no difference in TIR, when BPS was active an improved postprandial AUC in FCL was obtained via earlier insulin injection.

Simplified meal announcement study (SMASH) using hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in youth and young adults with type 1 diabetes: a randomised controlled two-centre crossover trial

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The majority of hybrid closed-loop systems still require carbohydrate counting (CC) but the evidence for its justification remains limited. Here, we evaluated glucose control with simplified meal announcement (SMA) vs CC in youth and young adults with type 1 diabetes using the mylife CamAPS FX system.

METHODS

We conducted a two-centre, randomised crossover, non-inferiority trial in two University Hospitals in Switzerland in 46 participants (aged 12-20 years) with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections (n=35), sensor-augmented pump (n=4) or hybrid closed-loop (n=7) therapy before enrolment. Participants underwent two 3 month periods with the mylife CamAPS FX system (YpsoPump, Dexcom G6) to compare SMA (individualised carbohydrate meal sizes) with CC, in a randomly assigned order using computer-generated sequences. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time glucose was in target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/l) with a non-inferiority margin of 5 percentage points. Secondary endpoints were other sensor glucose and insulin metrics, usability and safety endpoints.

RESULTS

Forty-three participants (18 women and girls) completed the trial. In the intention-to-treat analysis, time in range (mean±SD) was 69.9±12.4% with SMA and 70.7±13.0% with CC (estimated mean difference -0.6 percentage points [95% CI -2.4, 1.1], demonstrating non-inferiority). Time <3.9 mmol/l (median [IQR] 1.8 [1.2-2.2]% vs 1.9 [1.6-2.5]%) and >10.0 mmol/l (28.2±12.6% vs 27.2±13.4%) was similar between periods. Total daily insulin dose was higher with SMA (54.0±14.7 U vs 51.7±12.1 U, p=0.037). Three participants experienced serious adverse events, none of which were intervention-related.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Glucose control using the CamAPS FX algorithm with SMA was non-inferior to its use with CC in youth and young adults with type 1 diabetes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05481034.

FUNDING

The study was supported by the Swiss Diabetes Foundation and by a YTCR grant from the Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation and the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences. Dexcom and Ypsomed provided product support.

Hybrid closed-loop insulin therapy and risk of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis in young people (aged 2-20 years) with type 1 diabetes: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

The effect of closed-loop insulin delivery on the risk of acute diabetes complications in people with type 1 diabetes is unclear. We investigated whether the rates of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis are lower with hybrid closed-loop insulin therapy compared with sensor-augmented (open-loop) pump therapy in a large cohort of young people.

METHODS

In this population-based cohort study, we evaluated young people with type 1 diabetes from 250 diabetes centres in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Luxembourg participating in the Diabetes Prospective Follow-up (DPV) initiative. Included participants were aged 2-20 years, with diabetes duration of more than 1 year, and were treated between Jan 1, 2021, and Dec 31, 2023. The primary outcomes were the rates of severe hypoglycaemia and ketoacidosis in people using closed-loop therapy versus open-loop therapy. Key secondary outcomes were differences in HbA1c levels, percentage of time in glucose range of 3·9-10·0 mmol/L, and glycaemic variability. To account for relevant confounders, we applied propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighting considering several baseline characteristics.

FINDINGS

13 922 young people (median age 13·2 years [IQR 10·0 to 16·0]; 51% male) in the DPV database met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. 7088 used closed-loop therapy and 6834 used open-loop therapy, with a median observation time of 1·6 years [IQR 1·1 to 2·4]. Individuals using closed-loop therapy had a higher rate of ketoacidosis (1·74 per 100 patient-years) than those using open-loop therapy (0·96 per 100 patient-years; incidence rate ratio 1·81 [1·37 to 2·40], p<0·0001) and there was no significant difference between groups in the rate of severe hypoglycaemia (5·59 per 100 patient-years vs 6·63 per 100 patient-years; incidence rate ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·69 to 1·03], p=0·089). Individuals using closed-loop therapy had a lower rate of hypoglycaemic coma (0·62 per 100 patient-years) compared with individuals using open-loop therapy (0·91 per 100 patient-years; incidence rate ratio 0·68 [95% CI 0·48 to 0·97], p=0·034). Those in the closed-loop therapy group also had a lower HbA1c level (7·34% vs 7·50%; difference -0·16% [95% CI -0·20 to -0·13], p=0·0007), higher percentage of time in target glucose range of 3·9-10·0 mmol/L (64% vs 52%, difference 12% [10 to 14], p<0·0001), and less glycaemic variability (coefficient of variation 35·4% vs 38·3%; difference -2·9% [-3·3 to -2·5], p<0·0001) than those in the open-loop therapy group. The rate of ketoacidosis was particularly high in young people with HbA1c of 8·5% or higher in the closed-loop therapy group (5·25 per 100 patient-years) compared with the open-loop therapy group (1·53 per 100 patient-years; incidence rate ratio 3·43 [95% CI 1·69 to 6·97], p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

Hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery has no significant effect on the rate of severe hypoglycaemia, and is associated with an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis, but is associated with a reduced risk of hypoglycaemic coma and improved glycaemia. These findings indicate the need for additional educational measures for the use of closed-loop insulin delivery.

FUNDING

German Center for Diabetes Research, German Diabetes Society, and Robert Koch Institute.

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.

Enhanced Metabolic Control in a Pediatric Population with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Using Hybrid Closed-Loop and Predictive Low-Glucose Suspend Insulin Pump Treatments

BACKGROUND

Insulin pumps coupled with continuous glucose monitoring sensors use algorithms to analyze real-time blood glucose levels. This allows for the suspension of insulin administration before hypoglycemic thresholds are reached or for adaptive tuning in hybrid closed-loop systems. This longitudinal retrospective study aims to analyze real-world glycemic outcomes in a pediatric population transitioning to such devices.

METHODS

We evaluated children with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) admitted to the Pediatric Diabetes Department from a major University Hospital in Bucharest, Romania, who transitioned to hybrid closed-loop or predictive low-glucose suspend system from either non-automated insulin pumps or multiple daily injections. The primary outcome was assessing the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) after initiating these devices. Secondary outcomes analyzed changes in glucose metrics from the 90 days prior to the baseline and follow-up visit.

RESULTS

51 children were included (58.8% girls), the mean age was 10.3 ± 3.7 years, and the mean follow-up duration was 13.2 ± 4.5 months. The analyzed parameters, such as HbA1c (6.9 ± 0.7% vs. 6.7 ± 0.6%, p = 0.023), time in range (69.3 ± 11.2% vs. 76 ± 9.9%, p < 0.001), time in tight range (47.4 ± 10.9% vs. 53.7 ± 10.7%, p < 0.001), time below range (5.6 ± 2.9% vs. 3.5 ± 1.9%, p < 0.001), time above range (25 ± 11.2% vs. 20.4 ± 9.4%, p = 0.001), and coefficient of variation (37.9 ± 4.8% vs. 35.6 ± 4.6%, p = 0.001), showed significant improvements.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of these sensor-integrated insulin pumps can significantly enhance metabolic control in pediatric populations, minimizing glycemic variations to mitigate complications and enrich the quality of life.

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.

Hybrid closed-loop systems for managing blood glucose levels in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and economic modelling

Background

Hybrid closed-loop systems are a new class of technology to manage type 1 diabetes mellitus. The system includes a combination of real-time continuous glucose monitoring from a continuous glucose monitoring device and a control algorithm to direct insulin delivery through an insulin pump. Evidence suggests that such technologies have the potential to improve the lives of people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and their families.

Aim

The aim of this appraisal was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hybrid closed-loop systems for managing glucose in people who have type 1 diabetes mellitus and are having difficulty managing their condition despite prior use of at least one of the following technologies: continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, real-time continuous glucose monitoring or flash glucose monitoring (intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring).

Methods

A systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence following predefined inclusion criteria informed by the aim of this review. An independent economic assessment using iQVIA CDM to model cost-effectiveness.

Results

The clinical evidence identified 12 randomised controlled trials that compared hybrid closed loop with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring. Hybrid closed-loop arm of randomised controlled trials achieved improvement in glycated haemoglobin per cent [hybrid closed loop decreased glycated haemoglobin per cent by 0.28 (95% confidence interval -0.34 to -0.21), increased per cent of time in range (between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/l) with a MD of 8.6 (95% confidence interval 7.03 to 10.22), and significantly decreased time in range (per cent above 10.0 mmol/l) with a MD of -7.2 (95% confidence interval -8.89 to -5.51), but did not significantly affect per cent of  time below range (< 3.9 mmol/l)]. Comparator arms showed improvements, but these were smaller than in the hybrid closed-loop arm. Outcomes were superior in the hybrid closed-loop arm compared with the comparator arm. The cost-effectiveness search identified six studies that were included in the systematic review. Studies reported subjective cost-effectiveness that was influenced by the willingness-to-pay thresholds. Economic evaluation showed that the published model validation papers suggest that an earlier version of the iQVIA CDM tended to overestimate the incidences of the complications of diabetes, this being particularly important for severe visual loss and end-stage renal disease. Overall survival's medium-term modelling appeared good, but there was uncertainty about its longer-term modelling. Costs provided by the National Health Service Supply Chain suggest that hybrid closed loop is around an annual average of £1500 more expensive than continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring, this being a pooled comparator of 90% continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring and 10% continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + real-time continuous glucose monitoring due to clinical effectiveness estimates not being differentiated by continuous glucose monitoring type. This net cost may increase by around a further £500 for some systems. The Evidence Assessment Group base case applies the estimate of -0.29% glycated haemoglobin for hybrid closed loop relative to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring. There was no direct evidence of an effect on symptomatic or severe hypoglycaemia events, and therefore the Evidence Assessment Group does not include these in its base case. The change in glycated haemoglobin results in a gain in undiscounted life expectancy of 0.458 years and a gain of 0.160 quality-adjusted life-years. Net lifetime treatment costs are £31,185, with reduced complications leading to a net total cost of £28,628. The cost-effectiveness estimate is £179,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

Conclusions

Randomised controlled trials of hybrid closed-loop interventions in comparison with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring achieved a statistically significant improvement in glycated haemoglobin per cent in time in range between 3.9 and 10 mmol/l, and in hyperglycaemic levels.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021248512.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR133547) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 80. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Use of continuous glucose monitoring and hybrid closed-loop therapy in pregnancy

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has led to a paradigm shift in the management of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (T1D), with improved glycaemic control, less hypoglycaemia and fewer pregnancy complications. Data on CGM use in pregnant women with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are limited. A large randomized controlled trial (RCT) on CGM use in people with T2D in pregnancy is ongoing. Small studies on CGM use in women with gestational diabetes (GDM) have suggested improved glycaemic control and better qualification when insulin is needed. However, none of these studies was powered to evaluate pregnancy outcomes. Several large RCTs are ongoing in women with GDM. In addition to CGM, other technologies, such as advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) systems have further improved glycaemic management in people with T1D. AHCL therapy adapts insulin delivery via a predictive algorithm integrated with CGM and an insulin pump. A large RCT with the AHCL CamAPS® FX demonstrated a 10% increase in time in range compared to standard insulin therapy in a pregnant population with T1D. Recently, an RCT of an AHCL system not approved for use in pregnancy (780G MiniMed) has also demonstrated additional benefits of AHCL therapy compared to standard insulin therapy, with improved time in range overnight, less hypoglycaemia and improved treatment satisfaction. More evidence is needed on the impact of AHCL therapy on maternal and neonatal outcomes and on which glycaemic targets with CGM should be used in pregnant women with T2D and GDM. We review the current evidence on the use of CGM and AHCL therapy in pregnancy.

Automated insulin delivery systems in the treatment of diabetes: Benefits, challenges, and practical considerations in pediatric patients

At present, the majority of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus do not achieve the recommended glycemic control goals to reduce the risk of acute and chronic complications. Hybrid closed-loop systems or automated insulin infusion systems emerged as an opportunity to improve metabolic control, quality of life and reduce the psychosocial impact of type 1 diabetes. This article analyzes the evidence regarding their effectiveness and safety, the challenges they pose and best practices to optimize results when implemented in clinical practice.

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.

Utility of time in tight range (TITR) in evaluating metabolic control in pediatric and adult patients with type 1 diabetes in treatment with advanced hybrid closed-loop systems

PURPOSE

To analyze the time in tight range (TITR), and its relationship with other glucometric parameters in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) systems.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted on pediatric and adult patients with T1D undergoing treatment with AHCL systems for at least 3 months. Clinical variables and glucometric parameters before and after AHCL initiation were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 117 patients were evaluated. Comparison of metabolic control after AHCL initiation showed significant improvements in HbA1c (6.9 ± 0.9 vs. 6.6 ± 0.5%, p < 0.001), time in range (TIR) (68.2 ± 11.5 vs. 82.5 ± 6.9%, p < 0.001), TITR (43.7 ± 10.8 vs. 57.3 ± 9.7%, p < 0.001), glucose management indicator (GMI) (6.9 ± 0.4 vs. 6.6 ± 0.3%, p < 0.001), time below range (TBR) 70-54 mg/dl (4.3 ± 4.5 vs. 2.0 ± 1.4%, p < 0.001), and time above range (TAR) > 180 mg/dl (36.0 ± 7.6 vs. 15.1 ± 6.4%, p < 0.001). Coefficient of variation (CV) also improved (36.3 ± 5.7 vs. 30.6 ± 3.7, p < 0.001), while time between 140-180 mg/dl remained unchanged. In total, 76.3% achieved TITR > 50% (100% pediatric). Correlation analysis between TITR and TIR and GRI showed a strong positive correlation, modified by glycemic variability.

CONCLUSIONS

AHCL systems achieve significant improvements in metabolic control (TIR > 70% in 93.9% patients). The increase in TIR was not related to an increase in TIR 140-180 mg/dl. Despite being closely related to TIR, TITR allows for a more adequate discrimination of the achieved control level, especially in a population with good initial metabolic control. The correlation between TIR and TITR is directly influenced by the degree of glycemic variability.

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.

Closed-loop systems: recent advancements and lived experiences

INTRODUCTION

Hybrid closed loop systems are now commercially available for people with type 1 diabetes and are increasingly being adopted into clinical practice. Real-world data reflect both the glycemic and quality of life benefits reported in trials.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we summarize the key clinical efficacy and safety evidence for hybrid closed-loop systems, and the lived experience of users with type 1 diabetes across different age groups and during pregnancy. We comment on recent and emerging advancements addressing performance limitations and user experience, as well as the use of closed-loop systems in other types of diabetes.

EXPERT OPINION

Emerging technological developments in closed-loop systems focus on improving performance and increasing automation to further optimize glycemic outcomes and improve quality of life for users. Workforce developments are now urgently required to ensure widespread equitable access to this life-changing technology. Future applications of closed-loop technology are expected to expand into other types of diabetes including type 2 diabetes.

Effectiveness of a hybrid closed-loop system for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes during physical exercise: A cross-sectional study in real life

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to describe how physical exercise affects metabolic control, insulin requirements and carbohydrate intake in children who use hybrid closed-loop systems.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study design. The sample included 21 children and adolescents diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. During the study, participants were monitored for a period of 7 days to gather comprehensive data on these factors.

RESULTS

Nine participants (42.9%) had switched to exercise mode to raise the target glucose temporarily to 150 mg/dL. The HbA1c values ranged from 5.5% to 7.9% (median, 6.5%; IQR, 0.75). The percentage of time within the target range of 70-180 mg/dL was similar; however, there was an increased duration of hyperglycaemia and more autocorrections on exercise days. The time spent in severe hyperglycaemia (>250 mg/dL) increased by 2.7% in exercise compared to non-exercise days (P = .02). It is worth noting that hypoglycaemic episodes did not increase during the exercise days compared with non-exercise days.

CONCLUSION

The hybrid closed-loop system was effective and safe in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes during the performance of competitive sports in real life.

Three months use of Hybrid Closed Loop Systems improves glycated hemoglobin levels in adolescents and children with type 1 diabetes: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Longer outpatient studies have demonstrated that hybrid closed loop (HCL) use has led to a concomitant reduction in glycated hemoglobin(HbA1c) by 0.3%-0.7%. However, reports have also indicated that HbA1c levels are not declined in the long-term use of HCL. Therefore, we wonder that 3 months use of HCL could improve glycated hemoglobin levels in adolescents and children with T1D.

METHODS

Relevant studies were searched electronically in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase utilizing the key words "Pediatrics or Child or Adolescent", "Insulin Infusion Systems" and "Diabetes Mellitus" from inception to 17th March 2024 to evaluate the performance of HCL on HbA1c in adolescents, and children with T1D.

RESULTS

Nine studies involving 927 patients were identified. Three months use of HCL show a beneficial effect on HbA1c management (p <0.001) as compared to standard of care in adolescents and children with T1D, without evidence of heterogeneity between articles (I2 = 40%, p = 0.10). HCL did significantly increase the overall average percentage of hypoglycemic time between 70 and 180 mg/dL (TIR) (p <0.001; I2 = 51%). HCL did not show a beneficial effect on hypoglycemic time <70 mg/dL and <54 mg/dL (p >0.05). The overall percentage of hyperglycemic time was significantly decreased in HCL group compared to the control group when it was defined as >180 mg/dL (p <0.001; I2 = 83%), >250 mg/dL (p = 0.007, I2 = 86%) and >300 mg/dL (p = 0.005; I2 = 76%). The mean glucose level was significantly decreased by HCL (p <0.001; I2 = 58%), however, no significant difference was found in coefficient of variation of sensor glucose (p = 0.82; I2 = 71%) and daily insulin dose (p = 0.94; I2 <0.001) between the HCL group and the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

HCL had a beneficial effect on HbA1c management and TIR without increased hypoglycemic time as compared to standard of care in adolescents and children with T1D when therapy duration of HCL was not less than three months.

TRIAL NUMBER AND REGISTRY URL

CRD42022367493; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, Principal investigator: Zhen-feng Zhou, Date of registration: October 30, 2022.

Effect of 48 Months of Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery on Residual C-Peptide Secretion and Glycemic Control in Newly Diagnosed Youth With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the effect of long-term intensive metabolic control with hybrid closed-loop (CL) on residual C-peptide secretion and glucose control compared with standard insulin therapy in youth with type 1 diabetes over 48 months.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Following the 24-month primary phase of a multicenter, randomized, parallel trial of 96 newly diagnosed youth aged 10 to 16.9 years, participants were invited to an extension phase using treatment allocated at randomization. They continued with hybrid CL using the Cambridge algorithm or standard insulin therapy (control) until 48 months after diagnosis. Analysis was by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

At 24 months after diagnosis, 81 participants (mean ± SD age 14 ± 2 years) continued in the extension phase (47 CL, 34 control). There was no difference in fasting C-peptide corrected for fasting glucose at 48 months between groups (CL: 5 ± 9 vs. control: 6 ± 14 pmol/L per mmol/L; mean adjusted difference -2 [95% CI -7, 4; P = 0.54]). Central laboratory HbA1c remained lower in the CL group by 0.9% (10 mmol/mol [95% CI 0.2, 1.5; 3, 17 mmol/mol); P = 0.009). Time in target range of 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L was 12 percentage points (95% CI 3, 20; P = 0.008) higher in the CL group compared with control. There were 11 severe hypoglycemic events (6 CL, 5 control) and 7 diabetic ketoacidosis events (3 CL, 4 control) during the extension phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved glycemic control was sustained over 48 months after diagnosis with CL insulin delivery compared with standard therapy in youth with type 1 diabetes. This did not appear to confer a protective effect on residual C-peptide secretion.

Telemedicine in Improving Glycemic Control Among Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is the most common chronic autoimmune disease among children and adolescents. Telemedicine has been widely used in the field of chronic disease management and can benefit patients with T1DM. However, existing studies lack high-level evidence related to the effectiveness of telemedicine for glycemic control in children and adolescents with T1DM.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to systematically review the evidence on the effectiveness of telemedicine interventions compared with usual care on glycemic control among children and adolescents with T1DM.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science (all databases), and CINAHL Complete from database inception to May 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of a telemedicine intervention on glycemic control in children and adolescents with T1DM. In total, 2 independent reviewers performed the study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Our primary outcome was glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, self-monitoring of blood glucose, the incidence of hypoglycemia, and cost-effectiveness. A random-effects model was used for this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 20 RCTs (1704 participants from 12 countries) were included in the meta-analysis. Only 5% (1/20) of the studies were at high risk of bias. Compared to usual care, telemedicine was found to reduce HbA1c levels by 0.22 (95% CI -0.33 to -0.10; P<.001; I2=35%). There was an improvement in self-monitoring of blood glucose (mean difference [MD] 0.54, 95% CI -0.72 to 1.80; P=.40; I2=67.8%) and the incidence of hypoglycemia (MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.27; P=.49; I2=70.7%), although this was not statistically significant. Moreover, telemedicine had no convincing effect on the Diabetes Quality of Life for Youth score (impact of diabetes: P=.59; worries about diabetes: P=.71; satisfaction with diabetes: P=.68), but there was a statistically significant improvement in non-youth-specific quality of life (MD -0.24, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.02; P=.04; I2=0%). Subgroup analyses revealed that the effect of telemedicine on HbA1c levels appeared to be greater in studies involving children (MD -0.41, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.20; P<.001), studies that lasted <6 months (MD -0.32, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.17; P<.001), studies where providers used smartphone apps to communicate with patients (MD -0.37, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.21; P<.001), and studies with medication dose adjustment (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.12; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Telemedicine can reduce HbA1c levels and improve quality of life in children and adolescents with T1DM. Telemedicine should be regarded as a useful supplement to usual care to control HbA1c levels and a potentially cost-effective mode. Meanwhile, researchers should develop higher-quality RCTs using large samples that focus on hard clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and quality of life.

Neural-Net Artificial Pancreas: A Randomized Crossover Trial of a First-in-Class Automated Insulin Delivery Algorithm

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) is now integral to the clinical practice of type 1 diabetes (T1D). The objective of this pilot-feasibility study was to introduce a new regulatory and clinical paradigm-a Neural-Net Artificial Pancreas (NAP)-an encoding of an AID algorithm into a neural network that approximates its action and assess NAP versus the original AID algorithm. Methods: The University of Virginia Model-Predictive Control (UMPC) algorithm was encoded into a neural network, creating its NAP approximation. Seventeen AID users with T1D were recruited and 15 participated in two consecutive 20-h hotel sessions, receiving in random order either NAP or UMPC. Their demographic characteristics were ages 22-68 years old, duration of diabetes 7-58 years, gender 10/5 female/male, White Non-Hispanic/Black 13/2, and baseline glycated hemoglobin 5.4%-8.1%. Results: The time-in-range (TIR) difference between NAP and UMPC, adjusted for entry glucose level, was 1 percentage point, with absolute TIR values of 86% (NAP) and 87% (UMPC). The two algorithms achieved similar times <70 mg/dL of 2.0% versus 1.8% and coefficients of variation of 29.3% (NAP) versus 29.1 (UMPC)%. Under identical inputs, the average absolute insulin-recommendation difference was 0.031 U/h. There were no serious adverse events on either controller. NAP had sixfold lower computational demands than UMPC. Conclusion: In a randomized crossover study, a neural-network encoding of a complex model-predictive control algorithm demonstrated similar performance, at a fraction of the computational demands. Regulatory and clinical doors are therefore open for contemporary machine-learning methods to enter the AID field. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT05876273.

Evaluating the Impact of Applying Personal Glucose Targets in a Closed-Loop System for People With Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

CamAPS FX is a hybrid closed-loop smartphone app used to manage type one diabetes. The closed-loop algorithm has a default target glucose of 5.8 mmol/L (104.5 mg/dL), but users can select personal glucose targets (adjustable between 4.4 mmol/L and 11.0 mmol/L [79 mg/dL and 198 mg/dL, respectively]).

METHOD

In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of personal glucose targets on glycemic control using data from participants in five randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

Personal glucose targets were widely used, with 20.3% of all days in the data set having a target outside the default target bin (5.5-6.0 mmol/L [99-108 mg/dL]). Personal glucose targets >6.5 mmol/L (117 mg/dL) were associated with significantly less time in target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]; 6.5-7.0 mmol/L [117-126 mg/dL]: mean difference = -3.2 percentage points [95% CI: -5.3 to -1.2; P < .001]; 7.0-7.5 mmol/L [126-135 mg/dL]: -10.8 percentage points [95% CI: -14.1 to -7.6; P < .001]). Personal targets >6.5 mmol/L (117 mg/dL) were associated with significantly lower time (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]; 6.5-7.0 mmol/L [117-126 mg/dL]: -1.85 percentage points [95% CI: -2.37 to -1.34; P < .001]; 7.0-7.5 mmol/L [126-135 mg/dL]: -2.68 percentage points [95% CI: -3.49 to -1.86; P < .001]).

CONCLUSIONS

Discrete study populations showed differences in glucose control when applying similar personal targets.

Postprandial glucose-management strategies in type 1 diabetes: Current approaches and prospects with precision medicine and artificial intelligence

Postprandial glucose control can be challenging for individuals with type 1 diabetes, and this can be attributed to many factors, including suboptimal therapy parameters (carbohydrate ratios, correction factors, basal doses) because of physiological changes, meal macronutrients and engagement in postprandial physical activity. This narrative review aims to examine the current postprandial glucose-management strategies tested in clinical trials, including adjusting therapy settings, bolusing for meal macronutrients, adjusting pre-exercise and postexercise meal boluses for postprandial physical activity, and other therapeutic options, for individuals on open-loop and closed-loop therapies. Then we discuss their challenges and future avenues. Despite advancements in insulin delivery devices such as closed-loop systems and decision-support systems, many individuals with type 1 diabetes still struggle to manage their glucose levels. The main challenge is the lack of personalized recommendations, causing suboptimal postprandial glucose control. We suggest that postprandial glucose control can be improved by (i) providing personalized recommendations for meal macronutrients and postprandial activity; (ii) including behavioural recommendations; (iii) using other personalized therapeutic approaches (e.g. glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, sodium-glucose co-transporter inhibitors, amylin analogues, inhaled insulin) in addition to insulin therapy; and (iv) integrating an interpretability report to explain to individuals about changes in treatment therapy and behavioural recommendations. In addition, we suggest a future avenue to implement precision recommendations for individuals with type 1 diabetes utilizing the potential of deep reinforcement learning and foundation models (such as GPT and BERT), employing different modalities of data including diabetes-related and external background factors (i.e. behavioural, environmental, biological and abnormal events).

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.

Postprandial glucose metabolism in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus: potential targets for improvement

The main goal of therapeutic management of type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) is to maintain optimal glycemic control to prevent acute and long-term diabetes complications and to enable a good quality of life. Postprandial glycemia makes a substantial contribution to overall glycemic control and variability in diabetes and, despite technological advancements in insulin treatments, optimal postprandial glycemia is difficult to achieve. Several factors influence postprandial blood glucose levels in children and adolescents with T1DM, including nutritional habits and adjustment of insulin doses according to meal composition. Additionally, hormone secretion, enteroendocrine axis dysfunction, altered gastrointestinal digestion and absorption, and physical activity play important roles. Meal-time routines, intake of appropriate ratios of macronutrients, and correct adjustment of the insulin dose for the meal composition have positive impacts on postprandial glycemic variability and long-term cardiometabolic health of the individual with T1DM. Further knowledge in the field is necessary for management of all these factors to be part of routine pediatric diabetes education and clinical practice. Thus, the aim of this report is to review the main factors that influence postprandial blood glucose levels and metabolism, focusing on macronutrients and other nutritional and lifestyle factors, to suggest potential targets for improving postprandial glycemia in the management of children and adolescents with T1DM.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

IMPACT

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

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.

Randomized Trial of the Insulin-Only iLet Bionic Pancreas for the Treatment of Cystic Fibrosis- Related Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Cystic fibrosis-related diabetes (CFRD) affects up to 50% of adults with cystic fibrosis and adds significant morbidity and treatment burden. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of automated insulin delivery with the iLet bionic pancreas (BP) in adults with CFRD in a single-center, open-label, random-order, crossover trial.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Twenty participants with CFRD were assigned in random order to 14 days each on the BP or their usual care (UC). No restrictions were placed on diet or activity. The primary outcome was the percent time sensor-measured glucose was in target range 70-180 mg/dL (time in range [TIR]) on days 3-14 of each arm, and key secondary outcomes included mean continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) glucose and the percent time sensor-measured glucose was in hypoglycemic range <54 mg/dL.

RESULTS

TIR was significantly higher in the BP arm than the UC arm (75 ± 11% vs. 62 ± 22%, P = 0.001). Mean CGM glucose was lower in the BP arm than in the UC arm (150 ± 19 vs. 171 ± 45 mg/dL, P = 0.007). There was no significant difference in percent time with sensor-measured glucose <54 mg/dL (0.27% vs. 0.36%, P = 1.0), although self-reported symptomatic hypoglycemia episodes were higher during the BP arm than the UC arm (0.7 vs. 0.4 median episodes per day, P = 0.01). No episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred in either arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with CFRD had improved glucose control without an increase in CGM-measured hypoglycemia with the BP compared with their UC, suggesting that this may be an important therapeutic option for this patient population.

(Hybrid) Closed-Loop Systems: From Announced to Unannounced Exercise

Physical activity and exercise have many beneficial effects on general and type 1 diabetes (T1D) specific health and are recommended for individuals with T1D. Despite these health benefits, many people with T1D still avoid exercise since glycemic management during physical activity poses substantial glycemic and psychological challenges - which hold particularly true for unannounced exercise when using an AID system. Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have demonstrated their efficacy in improving overall glycemia and in managing announced exercise in numerous studies. They are proven to increase time in range (70-180 mg/dL) and can especially counteract nocturnal hypoglycemia, even when evening exercise was performed. AID-systems consist of a pump administering insulin as well as a CGM sensor (plus transmitter), both communicating with a control algorithm integrated into a device (insulin pump, mobile phone/smart watch). Nevertheless, without manual pre-exercise adaptions, these systems still face a significant challenge around physical activity. Automatically adapting to the rapidly changing insulin requirements during unannounced exercise and physical activity is still the Achilles' heel of current AID systems. There is an urgent need for improving current AID-systems to safely and automatically maintain glucose management without causing derailments - so that going forward, exercise announcements will not be necessary in the future. Therefore, this narrative literature review aimed to discuss technological strategies to how current AID-systems can be improved in the future and become more proficient in overcoming the hurdle of unannounced exercise. For this purpose, the current state-of-the-art therapy recommendations for AID and exercise as well as novel research approaches are presented along with potential future solutions - in order to rectify their deficiencies in the endeavor to achieve fully automated AID-systems even around unannounced exercise.

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.

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

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

Efficacy of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in type 1 diabetes: protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis of outpatient randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Automated insulin delivery (AID), also known as artificial pancreas system or 'closed-loop system', represents a novel option for current treatments for type 1 diabetes (T1D). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy of AID systems in comparison with current intensified insulin therapy for glycaemic control and patient-reported outcomes in individuals with T1D.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Studies will be eligible if they are randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with T1D of all ages, and if they compare an AID system for self-administration during the day and night period with any other type of insulin therapy for at least 3 weeks. The primary outcome will be time in the glucose target range of 70-180 mg/dL. A systematic review will be conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov registries from their inception dates. Two authors will independently screen all references based on titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria. For data extraction, standard forms will be developed and tested before extraction. All information will be assessed independently by at least two reviewers. The risk of bias of the included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. The data synthesis will include a random-effects pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) in a frequentist framework. Where applicable and if sufficient RCTs are available, sensitivity analyses will be performed, and heterogeneity and publication bias will be assessed. The certainty of evidence from the NMA will be evaluated following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group guidance.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval is needed. The results will be reported to the funder, presented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and at conferences, and disseminated via press release, social media and public events.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023395492.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Integrating metabolic expenditure information from wearable fitness sensors into an AI-augmented automated insulin delivery system: a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Exercise can rapidly drop glucose in people with type 1 diabetes. Ubiquitous wearable fitness sensors are not integrated into automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. We hypothesised that an AID can automate insulin adjustments using real-time wearable fitness data to reduce hypoglycaemia during exercise and free-living conditions compared with an AID not automating use of fitness data.

METHODS

Our study population comprised of individuals (aged 21-50 years) with type 1 diabetes from from the Harold Schnitzer Diabetes Health Center clinic at Oregon Health and Science University, OR, USA, who were enrolled into a 76 h single-centre, two-arm randomised (4-block randomisation), non-blinded crossover study to use (1) an AID that detects exercise, prompts the user, and shuts off insulin during exercise using an exercise-aware adaptive proportional derivative (exAPD) algorithm or (2) an AID that automates insulin adjustments using fitness data in real-time through an exercise-aware model predictive control (exMPC) algorithm. Both algorithms ran on iPancreas comprising commercial glucose sensors, insulin pumps, and smartwatches. Participants executed 1 week run-in on usual therapy followed by exAPD or exMPC for one 12 h primary in-clinic session involving meals, exercise, and activities of daily living, and 2 free-living out-patient days. Primary outcome was time below range (<3·9 mmol/L) during the primary in-clinic session. Secondary outcome measures included mean glucose and time in range (3·9-10 mmol/L). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04771403.

FINDINGS

Between April 13, 2021, and Oct 3, 2022, 27 participants (18 females) were enrolled into the study. There was no significant difference between exMPC (n=24) versus exAPD (n=22) in time below range (mean [SD] 1·3% [2·9] vs 2·5% [7·0]) or time in range (63·2% [23·9] vs 59·4% [23·1]) during the primary in-clinic session. In the 2 h period after start of in-clinic exercise, exMPC had significantly lower mean glucose (7·3 [1·6] vs 8·0 [1·7] mmol/L, p=0·023) and comparable time below range (1·4% [4·2] vs 4·9% [14·4]). Across the 76 h study, both algorithms achieved clinical time in range targets (71·2% [16] and 75·5% [11]) and time below range (1·0% [1·2] and 1·3% [2·2]), significantly lower than run-in period (2·4% [2·4], p=0·0004 vs exMPC; p=0·012 vs exAPD). No adverse events occurred.

INTERPRETATION

AIDs can integrate exercise data from smartwatches to inform insulin dosing and limit hypoglycaemia while improving glucose outcomes. Future AID systems that integrate exercise metrics from wearable fitness sensors may help people living with type 1 diabetes exercise safely by limiting hypoglycaemia.

FUNDING

JDRF Foundation and the Leona M and Harry B Helmsley Charitable Trust, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Patient-reported outcomes for older adults on CamAPS FX closed loop system

AIMS

Use of the CamAPS FX hybrid closed loop (CL) system is associated with improved time in range and glycated haemoglobin A1c across the age span, but little is known about its effects on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

This open-label, randomized, multi-site study compared CamAPS FX to sensor-augmented pump (SAP) in a sample of older adults (≥60 years) with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Thirty-five older adults completed PROs surveys at the start of the study and after each period of 16 weeks using either CL or SAP. At the end of the study, 19 participated in interviews about their experiences with CL.

RESULTS

Results examining the 16 weeks of CL use showed that the overall Diabetes Distress Scale score and two subscales (powerlessness and physician distress) improved significantly along with trust on the Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey. User experience interview responses were consistent in noting benefits of 'improved glycaemic control' and 'worrying less about diabetes'.

CONCLUSION

In this sample of older adults with T1D who have previously shown glycaemic benefit, there are indicators of improved PROs and subjective user experience benefits.

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

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

Racial Disparities in Diabetes Technology Adoption and Their Association with HbA1c and Diabetic Ketoacidosis

Aim

Poorer glycemic control and higher diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) rates are seen in racial/ethnic minorities with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Use of diabetes technologies such as continuous glucose monitors (CGM), continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has been shown to improve glycemic control and reduce DKA risk. We examined race/ethnicity differences in diabetes technology use and their relationship with HbA1c and DKA.

Methods

Data from patients aged ≥12 years with T1D for ≥1 year, receiving care from a single diabetes center, were examined. Patients were classified as Non-Hispanic White (n=3945), Non-Hispanic Black (Black, n=161), Hispanic (n=719), and Multiracial/Other (n=714). General linear models and logistic regression were used.

Results

Black (OR=0.22, 0.15-0.32) and Hispanic (OR=0.37, 0.30-0.45) patients were less likely to use diabetes technology. This disparity was greater in the pediatric population (p-interaction=0.06). Technology use associated with lower HbA1c in each race/ethnic group. Among technology users, AID use associated with lower HbA1c compared to CGM and/or CSII (HbA1c of 8.4% vs 9.2%, respectively), with the greatest difference observed for Black adult AID users. CSII use associated with a lower odds of DKA in the past year (OR=0.73, 0.54-0.99), a relationship that did not vary by race (p-interaction =0.69); this inverse association with DKA was not observed for CGM or AID.

Conclusion

Disparities in diabetes technology use, DKA, and glycemic control were apparent among Black and Hispanic patients with T1D. Differences in technology use ameliorated but did not fully account for disparities in HbA1c or DKA.

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.

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

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

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.

Biobehavioral Changes Following Transition to Automated Insulin Delivery: A Large Real-life Database Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To document glycemic and user-initiated bolus changes following transition from predictive low glucose suspend (PLGS) system to automated insulin delivery (AID) system during real-life use.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted analysis of 2,329,166 days (6,381 patient-years) of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin therapy data for 19,354 individuals with type 1 Diabetes, during 1-month PLGS use (Basal-IQ technology) followed by 3-month AID use (Control-IQ technology). Baseline characteristics are as follows: 55.4% female, age (median/quartiles/range) 39/19-58/1-92 years, mean ± SD glucose management indicator (GMI) 7.5 ± 0.8. Primary outcome was time in target range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes included CGM-based glycemic control metrics and frequency of user-initiated boluses.

RESULTS

Compared with PLGS, AID increased TIR on average from 58.4 to 70.5%. GMI and percent time above and below target range improved as well: from 7.5 to 7.1, 39.9 to 28.1%, and 1.66 to 1.46%, respectively; all P values <0.0001. Stratification of outcomes by age and baseline GMI revealed clinically significant differences. Glycemic improvements were most pronounced in those <18 years old (TIR improvement 14.0 percentage points) and those with baseline GMI >8.0 (TIR improvement 13.2 percentage points). User-initiated correction boluses decreased from 2.7 to 1.8 per day, while user-initiated meal boluses remained stable at 3.6 to 3.8 per day.

CONCLUSIONS

Observed in real life of >19,000 individuals with type 1 diabetes, transitions from PLGS to AID resulted in improvement of all glycemic parameters, equivalent to improvements observed in randomized clinical trials, and reduced user-initiated boluses. However, glycemic and behavioral changes with AID use may differ greatly across different demographic and clinical groups.

Closed-loop insulin delivery: update on the state of the field and emerging technologies

INTRODUCTION

Over the last five years, closed-loop insulin delivery systems have transitioned from research-only to real-life use. A number of systems have been commercialized and are increasingly used in clinical practice. Given the rapidity of new developments in the field, understanding the capabilities and key similarities and differences of current systems can be challenging. This review aims to provide an update on the state of the field of closed-loop insulin delivery systems, including emerging technologies.

AREAS COVERED

We summarize key clinical safety and efficacy evidence of commercial and emerging insulin-only hybrid closed-loop systems for type 1 diabetes. A literature search was conducted and clinical trials using closed-loop systems during free-living conditions were identified to report on safety and efficacy data. We comment on emerging technologies and adjuncts for closed-loop systems, as well as non-technological priorities in closed-loop insulin delivery.

EXPERT OPINION

Commercial hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems are efficacious, consistently improving glycemic control when compared to standard therapy. Challenges remain in widespread adoption due to clinical inertia and the lack of resources to embrace technological developments by health care professionals.

Positive Impact of the Bionic Pancreas on Diabetes Control in Youth 6-17 Years Old with Type 1 Diabetes: A Multicenter Randomized Trial

Objective: To evaluate the insulin-only configuration of the iLet® bionic pancreas (BP) in youth 6-17 years old with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Research Design and Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, 165 youth with T1D (6-17 years old; baseline HbA1c 5.8%-12.2%; 35% using multiple daily injections, 36% using an insulin pump without automation, 4% using an insulin pump with low glucose suspend, and 25% using a hybrid closed-loop system before the study) were randomly assigned 2:1 to use BP (n = 112) with insulin aspart or insulin lispro (BP group) or to a control group (n = 53) using their personal standard care insulin delivery (SC group) plus real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The primary outcome was HbA1c at 13 weeks. Results: Mean HbA1c decreased from 8.1% ± 1.2% at baseline to 7.5% ± 0.7% at 13 weeks with BP versus 7.8% ± 1.1% at both baseline and 13 weeks with SC (adjusted difference = -0.5%, 95% CI -0.7% to -0.2%, P < 0.001). Participants with baseline HbA1c ≥9.0% (n = 34) decreased mean HbA1c from 9.7% ± 0.8% to 7.9% ± 0.6% after 13 weeks with BP compared with 9.7% ± 0.5% to 9.8% ± 0.8% with SC. Over 13 weeks, mean time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL increased by 10% (2.4 h per day) and mean CGM glucose was reduced by 15 mg/dL with BP compared with SC (P < 0.001). Analyses of time >180 mg/dL, time >250 mg/dL, and standard deviation of CGM glucose favored BP (P < 0.001). Time <54 mg/dL was low at baseline (median 0.2%) and not significantly different between groups over 13 weeks (P = 0.24). A severe hypoglycemia event occurred in 3 (2.7%) participants in the BP group and in 1 (1.9%) in the SC group. Conclusions: In youth 6-17 years old with T1D, use of insulin-only configuration of BP improved HbA1c, TIR, and hyperglycemic metrics without increasing CGM-measured hypoglycemia compared with standard of care. Improvement in glycemic metrics was most pronounced in participants with high baseline HbA1c levels. Clinical Trial Registry: clinicaltrials.gov; NCT04200313.

DKA Prevention and Insulin Pumps: Lessons Learned From a Large Pediatric Pump Practice

PURPOSE

This purpose of the study was to describe recent diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) incidence data in youth with type 1 diabetes using insulin pumps and the impact of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) on DKA rates.

METHODS

DKA data were obtained through a retrospective chart review of insulin pump users (ages <26 years) between December 2019 and June 2021 in an academic pediatric endocrinology practice where 68% of patients were pump users.

RESULTS

Among 591 pump patients, 28 events occurred (3.16 events per 100 patient-years). Mean age was 13.6±3.4 years; 85.7% ranged from 12 to 19 years. Mean A1C was 10.2±2.3%, diabetes duration was 6.1±4.0 years, and 57.1% used CGM. Admission pH levels ranged between 7.0 and 7.31, with 28.6% of events classified as "moderate" and 46.4% "severe." There was no significant difference in the DKA severity between those who wore a CGM and those who did not (ie, pH, serum bicarbonate, mentation alteration, length of stay, intensive care unit admission, and hospital admission). DKA events were attributed to concurrent illness (10.7%), insulin omission (14.3%), pump site failure (57.1%), or other pump malfunctions (14.3%).

CONCLUSION

DKA events in pump-treated patients were relatively uncommon; most episodes occurred in adolescents with higher A1C levels, and notably, most events could have been avoided if users followed standard troubleshooting guidelines. Thus, DKA prevention education should be reinforced at each encounter, particularly for teens with higher A1C levels. Moreover, more than 50% of those with DKA episodes wore a CGM, suggesting that pump users using CGM require frequent reinforcement of this education and that the development of such educational materials is critical.