Efficacy and Safety of Real-Life Usage of MiniMed 670G Automode in Children with Type 1 Diabetes Less than 7 Years Old

Real-World Evidence of Automated Insulin Delivery System Use

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

Retrospective Comparison of Commercially Available Automated Insulin Delivery With Open-Source Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have shown to improve glycemic control in a range of populations and settings. At the start of this study, only one commercial AID system had entered the Austrian market (MiniMed 670G, Medtronic). However, there is an ever-growing community of people living with type 1 diabetes (PWT1D) using open-source (OS) AID systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 144 PWT1D who used either the MiniMed 670G (670G) or OS-AID systems routinely for a period of at least three to a maximum of six months, between February 18, 2020 and January 15, 2023, were retrospectively analyzed (116 670G aged from 2.6 to 71.8 years and 28 OS-AID aged from 3.4 to 53.5 years). The goal is to evaluate and compare the quality of glycemic control of commercially available AID and OS-AID systems and to present all data by an in-depth descriptive analysis of the population. No statistical tests were performed.

RESULTS

The PWT1D using OS-AID systems spent more time in range (TIR)70-180 mg/dL (81.7% vs 73.9%), less time above range (TAR)181-250 mg/dL (11.1% vs 19.6%), less TAR>250 mg/dL (2.5% vs 4.3%), and more time below range (TBR)54-69 mg/dL (2.2% vs 1.7%) than PWT1D using the 670G system. The TBR<54 mg/dL was comparable in both groups (0.3% vs 0.4%). In the OS-AID group, median glucose level and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were lower than in the 670G system group (130 vs 150 mg/dL; 6.2% vs 7.0%).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, both groups were able to achieve satisfactory glycemic outcomes independent of age, gender, and diabetes duration. However, the PWT1D using OS-AID systems attained an even better glycemic control with no clinical safety concerns.

A comparative study using insulin pump therapy and continuous glucose monitoring in newly diagnosed very young children with type 1 diabetes: it is possible to bend the curve of HbA1c

AIMS

The target of metabolic control (HbA1c < 7% or 53 mmol/mol) recommended by the ADA and ISPAD is attained by 30% of children with Type 1 Diabetes (T1D). Advances in technologies for T1D aim to improve metabolic outcomes and reduce complications. This observational study assesses the long-term outcomes of advanced technologies for treatment of T1D compared to conventional approach started at onset in a group of very young children with T1D.

METHODS

54 patients with less 4 years old at onset of T1D were enrolled and followed for up to 9 years after diagnosis. 24 subjects started continuous subcutaneous insulin (CSII) treatment and 30 subjects received MDI therapy from onset. Auxological data, HbA1c and total daily insulin dose (TDD/kg) have been collected at admission and every 4 months. HbA1cAUC>6%, rates of acute complications, glycemic variability indices and glucometrics were also recorded.

RESULTS

Patients with CSII therapy had significantly lower mean HbA1c values compared to subjects receiving MDI treatment. CSII approach also recorded lower mean HbA1cAUC>6% and TDD/kg than MDI therapy. At the last download data, the time in range (TIR) was higher in patients with CSII and hyperglycemia events were lower. Better glycemic variability indices have been described during CSII therapy, including mean glycemia, standard deviation, coefficient of variation (CV), glycemia risk index (GRI) and high blood glucose index (HBGI). There was no statistically significant difference between frequency of severe hypoglycemia and ketoacidosis episodes between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Early initiation of diabetes technologies is safe and able to determine a better long term glycemic control in young children with T1D. It also allows to flatten the trajectory of HbA1c, probably reducing microvascular, macrovascular and neurological complications of diabetes in this very peculiar age group.

Efficacy and safety of faster aspart in insulin pumps in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus: A single-center study with real-world data

AIMS

To assess the efficacy and safety of faster aspart (FIAsp) in paediatric population with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and insulin pumps in real-world settings.

METHODS

Of 44 patients, 20 used FIAsp, 16 of which switched from aspart to FIAsp and 24 used aspart/lispro. We performed within-groups and between-groups analyses in three time points for anthropometric data, % of 24-h time in range of 70-180 mg/dl (TIR), time < 70 mg/dl and <54 mg/dl and time > 180 mg/dl and >250 mg/dl, bolus and basal insulins doses (units/kg/day and %), total daily dose (TDD, units/kg/day), glycaemic variability, frequency of set changes, sensor wear per week and meals per day.

RESULTS

Use of FIAsp over time increased TIR (P = 0.002) and TDD (P = 0.008 and P = 0.004, respectively for three months after the switch and recent use) and decreased time in hyperglycaemia (>180 P = 0.003 and > 250 mg/dl, P = 0.004). Frequency of set changes differ in the first 3 months (P = 0.042). Patients with FIAsp consumed more meals per day compared to those with aspart/lispro (P = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

Real-world data confirm that use of FIAsp in insulin pumps in paediatric populations improves glycaemic control long-term.

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.

Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery Technologies in Clinical Practice

The significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers, and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past 6 years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage.

Safety, metabolic and psychological outcomes of Medtronic MiniMed 670G in children, adolescents and young adults: a systematic review

Hybrid closed loop (HCL) systems are the combination of a pump for insulin delivery and a glucose sensor for continuous glucose monitoring. These systems are managed by an algorithm, which delivers insulin on the basis of the interstitial glucose levels. The MiniMed™ 670G system was the first HCL system available for clinical purpose. In this paper, we reviewed the literature about metabolic and psychological outcomes in children, adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes treated with MiniMed™ 670G. Only 30 papers responded to the inclusion criteria and thus were considered. All the papers show that the system is safe and effective in managing glucose control. Metabolic outcomes are available up to 12 months of follow-up; longer study period are lacking. This HCL system may improve HbA1c up to 7.1% and time in range up to 73%. The time spent in hypoglycaemia is almost neglectable. Better improvement in blood glucose control is observed in patients with higher HbA1c at HCL system start and larger daily use of auto-mode functionality.     Conclusion: The Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G is safe and well accepted, without any increase in the burden for patients. Some papers report an improvement in the psychological outcomes, but other papers do not confirm this finding. So far, it significantly improves the management of diabetes mellitus in children, adolescents and young adults. Proper training and support by the diabetes team are mandatory. Studies for a period longer than 1 year would be appreciated to better understand the potentiality of this system. What is Known: • The Medtronic MiniMed^TM 670G is a hybrid closed loop system which combines a continuous glucose monitoring sensor with an insulin pump. • It has been the first hybrid closed loop system available for clinical purpose. Adequate training and patients support play a key role in diabetes management. What is New: • The Medtronic MiniMed^TM 670G may improve HbA1c and CGM metrics up to 1-year of follow-up, but the improvement appears lower than advanced hybrid closed loop systems. This system is effective to prevent hypoglycaemia. • The psychosocial effects remain less understood in terms of improvement of psychosocial outcomes. The system has been considered to provide flexibility and independence by the patients and their caregivers. The workload required to use this system is perceived as a burden by the patients who decrease the use of auto-mode functionality over time.

MiniMed 780G™ in 2- to 6-Year-Old Children: Safety and Clinical Outcomes After the First 12 Weeks

Objective: The safety and impact of the advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system on glycemic outcome in 2- to 6-year-old children with type 1 diabetes and the diabetes distress of caregivers were evaluated. Research Design and Methods: This was an open-label prospective study (n = 35) with historical controls matched by treatment unit, diabetes duration, age, gender, and baseline treatment modality. The inclusion criteria were (1) type 1 diabetes diagnosis >6 months, (2) total daily dose of insulin ≥8 U/day, (3) HbA1c <10% (85 mmol/mol), and (4) capability to use insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring. The MiniMed 780G™ AHCL in SmartGuard™ Mode was used for 12 weeks. Parental diabetes distress was evaluated with a validated Problem Areas In Diabetes-Parent, revised (PAID-PR) survey. Results: No events of diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred. Between 0 and 12 weeks, HbA1c (mean change = -2.7 mmol/mol [standard deviation 5.7], P = 0.010), mean sensor glucose value (SG) (-0.8 mmol/L [1.0], P < 0.001), and time above range (TAR) (-8.6% [9.5], P < 0.001) decreased and time in range (TIR) (8.3% [9.3], P < 0.001) increased significantly, whereas no significant change in time below range (TBR) was observed. At the same time, PAID-PR score decreased from 37.5 (18.2) to 27.5 (14.8) (P = 0.006). Conclusions: MiniMed 780G™ AHCL is a safe system and 12-week use was associated with improvements in glycemic control in 2- to 6-year-old children with type 1 diabetes. In addition, AHCL is associated with a reduction in parental diabetes distress after 12-week use. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT04949022.

In-home use of a hybrid closed loop achieves time-in-range targets in preschoolers and school children: Results from a randomized, controlled, crossover trial

AIM

To obtain additional information on the incremental differences between using a sensor-augmented pump (SAP) without automated insulin delivery (AID), using it with predictive low-glucose management (PLGM) or as hybrid closed loop (HCL), in preschool and school children.

METHODS

We conducted a monocentric, randomized, controlled, two-phase crossover study in 38 children aged 2-6 and 7-14 years. The primary endpoint was the percentage of time in range (TIR) of 70-180 mg/dl. Other continuous glucose sensor metrics, HbA1c, patient-related outcomes (DISABKIDS questionnaire, Fear of Hypoglycaemia Survey) and safety events were also assessed. Results from 2 weeks of SAP, 8 weeks of PLGM and 8 weeks of HCL were compared using a paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

Overall, we found a high rate of TIR target (>70%) achievement with HCL in preschool (88%) and school children (50%), with average times in Auto Mode of 93% and 87%, respectively. Preschool children achieved a mean TIR of 73% ± 6% (+8% vs. SAP, +6% vs. PLGM) and school children 69% ± 8% (+15% vs. SAP and + 14% vs. PLGM). Overall, HbA1c improved from 7.4% ± 0.9% to 6.9% ± 0.5% (P = .0002). Diabetes burden and worries and fear of hypoglycaemia remained at low levels, without significant changes versus PLGM. No events of severe hypoglycaemia or diabetic ketoacidosis occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Preschool children profit from AID at least as much as those aged 7 years and older. To ensure safe use and prescribing modalities, regulatory approval is also required for young children.

Parents' experiences of using a hybrid closed-loop system (CamAPS FX) to care for a very young child with type 1 diabetes: Qualitative study

AIMS

To explore parents' experiences of using a hybrid closed-loop system (CamAPS FX) when caring for a very young child (aged 1-7 years) with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

Interviews with n = 33 parents of 30 children who used the system during a randomised controlled trial. Data analysis used a descriptive thematic approach.

RESULTS

While some parents were initially reticent about handing control to the system, all reported clinical benefits to using the technology, having to do less diabetes-related work and needing less clinical input over time. Parents welcomed opportunities to enhance the system's efficacy (using Ease-off and Boost functions) as required. Parents described how the system's automated glucose control facilitated more normality, including sleeping better, worrying less about their child, and feeling more confident and able to outsource care. Parents also described more normality for the child (alongside better sleep, mood and concentration, and lessened distress) and siblings. Parents liked being able to administer insulin using a smartphone, but suggested refinements to device size and functionality.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a hybrid closed-loop system in very young children can facilitate greater normality and may result in a lessened demand for health professionals' input. Systems may need to be customised for very young children.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Emotional and Physical Health Impact in Children and Adolescents and their Caregivers Using Open-Source Automated Insulin Delivery: Qualitative Analysis of Lived Experiences. (Preprint)

Background

Given the limitations in the access and license status of commercially developed automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, open-source AID systems are becoming increasingly popular among people with diabetes, including children and adolescents.

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the lived experiences and physical and emotional health implications of children and their caregivers following the initiation of open-source AID, their perceived challenges, and sources of support, which have not been explored in the existing literature.

Methods

Data were collected through 2 sets of open-ended questions from a web-based multinational survey of 60 families from 16 countries. The narratives were thematically analyzed, and a coding framework was identified through iterative alignment.

Results

A range of emotions and improvements in quality of life and physical health were reported, as open-source AID enabled families to shift their focus away from diabetes therapy. Caregivers were less worried about hypoglycemia at night and outside their family homes, leading to increased autonomy for the child. Simultaneously, the glycemic outcomes and sleep quality of both the children and caregivers improved. Nonetheless, the acquisition of suitable hardware and technical setup could be challenging. The #WeAreNotWaiting community was the primary source of practical and emotional support.

Conclusions

Our findings show the benefits and transformative impact of open-source AID and peer support on children with diabetes and their caregivers and families, where commercial AID systems are not available or suitable. Further efforts are required to improve the effectiveness and usability and facilitate access for children with diabetes, worldwide, to benefit from this innovative treatment.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/15368

Open-source automated insulin delivery: international consensus statement and practical guidance for health-care professionals

Open-source automated insulin delivery systems, commonly referred to as do-it-yourself automated insulin delivery systems, are examples of user-driven innovations that were co-created and supported by an online community who were directly affected by diabetes. Their uptake continues to increase globally, with current estimates suggesting several thousand active users worldwide. Real-world user-driven evidence is growing and provides insights into safety and effectiveness of these systems. The aim of this consensus statement is two-fold. Firstly, it provides a review of the current evidence, description of the technologies, and discusses the ethics and legal considerations for these systems from an international perspective. Secondly, it provides a much-needed international health-care consensus supporting the implementation of open-source systems in clinical settings, with detailed clinical guidance. This consensus also provides important recommendations for key stakeholders that are involved in diabetes technologies, including developers, regulators, and industry, and provides medico-legal and ethical support for patient-driven, open-source innovations.

Empfehlungen zur Diabetes-Behandlung mit automatischen Insulin-Dosierungssystemen

Das Prinzip der automatischen Insulindosierung, kurz „AID“ genannt, zeigt in Zulassungsstudien und Real-World-Erfahrungen ausgezeichnete Behandlungsergebnisse. Beim AID wird eine Insulinpumpe mit einem System zur kontinuierlichen Glukosemessung zusammengeschaltet, während ein Rechenprogramm, der sogenannte Algorithmus, die Steuerung der Insulingabe nach Bedarf übernimmt. Idealerweise wäre das System ein geschlossener Kreis, bei dem die Menschen mit Diabetes keine Eingabe mehr machen müssten. Jedoch sind bei den heute verfügbaren Systemen verschiedene Grundeinstellungen und Eingaben erforderlich (insbesondere von Kohlenhydratmengen der Mahlzeiten oder körperlicher Aktivität), die sich von den bisherigen Empfehlungen der sensorunterstützten Pumpentherapie in einzelnen Aspekten unterscheiden. So werden die traditionellen Konzepte von „Basal“ und „Bolus“ mit AID weniger nützlich, da der Algorithmus beide Arten der Insulinabgabe verwendet, um die Glukosewerte dem eingestellten Zielwert zu nähern. Daher sollte bei diesen Systemen statt der Erfassung von „Basal“ und „Bolus“, zwischen einer „nutzerinitiierten“ und einer „automatischen“ Insulindosis unterschieden werden. Gemeinsame Therapieprinzipien der verschiedenen AID-Systeme umfassen die passgenaue Einstellung des Kohlenhydratverhältnisses, die Bedeutung des Timings der vom Anwender initiierten Insulinbolusgaben vor der Mahlzeit, den korrekten Umgang mit einem verzögerten oder versäumten Mahlzeitenbolus, neue Prinzipien im Umgang mit Sport oder Alkoholgenuss sowie den rechtzeitigen Umstieg von AID zu manuellem Modus bei Auftreten erhöhter Ketonwerte. Das Team vom Diabetes-Zentrum AUF DER BULT in Hannover hat aus eigenen Studienerfahrungen und der zugrunde liegenden internationalen Literatur praktische Empfehlungen zur Anwendung und Schulung der gegenwärtig und demnächst in Deutschland kommerziell erhältlichen Systeme zusammengestellt. Für den Erfolg der AID-Behandlung scheint das richtige Erwartungsmanagement sowohl beim Behandlungsteam und als auch beim Anwender von großer Bedeutung zu sein.

First year on commercial hybrid closed-loop system-experience on 111 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

The hybrid close-loop system (HCL) is a rapidly emerging treatment method for type 1 diabetes (T1D), but the long-term effectiveness of the system remains unclear. This study investigates the influence of the HCL on glycemic control in children and adolescents with T1D in a real-life setting during the first year on HCL.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective study included all the patients (n = 111) aged 3 to 16 years with T1D who initiated the HCL system between 1st of December 2018 and 1st of December 2019 in the Helsinki University Hospital. Time in range (TIR), HbA1c, mean sensor glucose (SG) value, time below range (TBR), and SG coefficient of variance (CV) were measured at 0, 1, 3, 6, and 12 month. The changes over time were analyzed with a repeated mixed model adjusted with baseline glycemic control.

RESULTS

After the initiation of HCL, all measures of glycemic control, except HbA1c, improved and the effect lasted throughout the study period. Between 0 and 12 month, TIR increased (β = -2.5 [95%CI: -3.6 - (-1.3)], p < 0.001), whereas mean SG values (β = -0.7 [95%CI: -0.9 - (-0.4)]), TBR (β = -2.5 [95%CI: -3.6 - (-1.3)]), and SG CV (β = -4.5 [95%CI: -6.3 - [-2.8]) decreased significantly (p < 0.001). Importantly, the changes occurred regardless of the age of the patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Measurements of glycemic control, except HbA1c, improved significantly after the initiation of the HCL system and the favorable effect lasted throughout the follow-up. These results support the view that HCL is an efficacious treatment modality for children and adolescents with T1D of all ages.

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

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

Pre-school and school-aged children benefit from the switch from a sensor-augmented pump to an AndroidAPS hybrid closed loop: A retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

Data on closed loop systems in young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) are limited. We tested the efficacy and safety of an open-source, do-it-yourself automated insulin delivery system AndroidAPS in preschool and school-aged children.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed diabetes control in 18 preschool (3-7 years) and 18 school-aged children (8-14 years) with T1D who switched from a sensor-augmented pump (SAP) to AndroidAPS. We compared the CGM parameters and HbA1c levels 3 months before and 6 months after the initiation of AndroidAPS therapy and evaluated frequency of severe adverse events during AndroidAPS use, the most frequent reasons for its interruption, and the experience and psychosocial benefits of AndroidAPS use.

RESULTS

General glycemic control was significantly improved after the switch from SAP to AndroidAPS. Time in range (TIR) increased in both preschool (70.8%-78.6%, p = 0.004) and school-aged children (77.2%-82.9%, p < 0.001), whereas HbA1c levels decreased (preschool children 53.8-48.5 mmol/mol, p < 0.001; school-aged children 52.6-45.1 mmol/mol, p = 0.001). Time spent in range of 3.0-3.8 mmol/L increased slightly in school children (2.6%-3.8%, p = 0.040), but not in preschool children (3.0%-3.0%, p = 0.913). Time spent at <3 mmol/L remained unchanged in both preschool (0.95%-0.67%, p = 0.432) and school-aged children (0.8%-0.8%, p = 1.000). No episodes of severe hypoglycemia or DKA and significant improvement of quality of life were reported by AndroidAPS users.

CONCLUSIONS

AndroidAPS seems effective for T1D control both in preschool and school-age children but further validation by prospective studies is necessary.

Safety and Performance of the Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ Automated Insulin Delivery System in Toddlers and Preschoolers

Background: Glycemic control is particularly challenging for toddlers and preschoolers with type 1 diabetes (T1D), and data on the use of closed-loop systems in this age range are limited. Materials and Methods: We studied use of a modified investigational version of the Tandem t:slim X2 Control-IQ system in children aged 2 to 5 years during 48 h in an outpatient supervised hotel (SH) setting followed by 3 days of home use to examine the safety of this system in young children. Meals and snacks were not restricted and boluses were estimated per parents' usual routine. At least 30 min of daily exercise was required during the SH phase. All participants were remotely monitored by study staff while on closed-loop in addition to monitoring by at least one parent throughout the study. Results: Twelve participants diagnosed with T1D for at least 3 months with mean age 4.7 ± 1.0 years (range 2.0-5.8 years) and hemoglobin A1c of 7.3% ± 0.8% were enrolled at three sites. With use of Control-IQ, the percentage of participants meeting our prespecified goals of less than 6% time below 70 mg/dL and less than 40% time above 180 mg/dL increased from 33% to 83%. Control-IQ use significantly improved percent time in range (70-180 mg/dL) compared to baseline (71.3 ± 12.5 vs. 63.7 ± 15.1, P = 0.016). All participants completed the study with no adverse events. Conclusions: In this brief pilot study, use of the modified Control-IQ system was safe in 2-5-year-old children with T1D and improved glycemic control.

Benefits and Challenges of Current Closed-Loop Technologies in Children and Young People With Type 1 Diabetes

Recent advances in diabetes technology have led to the development of closed-loop insulin delivery systems for the management of type 1 diabetes. Several such systems are now commercially available for children and young people. While all available systems have been shown to improve glycaemic control and quality of life in this population, qualitative data also highlights the challenges in using closed-loop systems, which vary among different pediatric age-groups. Very young children require systems that are able to cope with low insulin doses and significant glycaemic variability due to their high insulin sensitivity and unpredictable eating and exercise patterns. Adolescents' compliance is often related to size and number of devices, usability of the systems, need for calibrations, and their ability to interact with the system. Given the speed of innovations, understanding the capabilities and key similarities and differences of current systems can be challenging for healthcare professionals, caregivers and young people with type 1 diabetes alike. The aim of this review is to summarize the key evidence on currently available closed-loop systems for children and young people with type 1 diabetes, as well as commenting on user experience, where real-world data are available. We present findings on a system-basis, as well as identifying specific challenges in different pediatric age-groups and commenting on how current systems might address these. Finally, we identify areas for future research with regards to closed-loop technology tailored for pediatric use and how these might inform reimbursement and alleviate disease burden.

Diabetes education in pediatrics: How to survive diabetes

Diabetes mellitus is the most common abnormal carbohydrate metabolism disorder affecting millions of people worldwide. It is characterized by hyperglycemia as a result of ß-cell destruction or dysfunction by both genetic and environmental factors. Over time chronic hyperglycemia leads to microvascular (i.e., retinopathy, nephropathy and neuropathy) and macrovascular (i.e., ischemic heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, and cerebrovascular disease) complications of diabetes. Diabetes complication trials showed the importance of achieving near-normal glycemic control to prevent and/or reduce diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. There is a staggering rate of increased incidence of diabetes in youth, raising concerns for future generations' health, quality of life and its enormous economic burden. Despite advancements in the technology, diabetes management remains cumbersome. Training individuals with diabetes to gain life-long survival skills requires a comprehensive and ongoing diabetes education by a multidisciplinary team. Diabetes education and training start at the time of diagnosis of diabetes and should be continuous throughout the course of disease. The goal is to empower the individuals and families to gain diabetes self-management skills. Diabetes education must be individualized depending on the individual's age, education, family dynamics, and support. In this article, we review the history of diabetes, etiopathogenesis and clinical presentation of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes in children as well as adolescents. We then focus on diabetes management with education methods and materials.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Prospective Analysis of the Impact of Commercialized Hybrid Closed-Loop System on Glycemic Control, Glycemic Variability, and Patient-Related Outcomes in Children and Adults: A Focus on Superiority Over Predictive Low-Glucose Suspend Technology

Background: Automatization of insulin delivery by closed-loop systems represents a major step in type 1 diabetes management. The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of the commercialized hybrid closed-loop system, the MiniMed 670G system, on glycemic control, glycemic variability, and patient satisfaction. Methods: A prospective study, including type 1 diabetes patients consecutively starting on the 670G system in one adult and two pediatric hospitals, was performed. Baseline and 3-month visits were documented. Two weeks of data from the system were downloaded. Glycemic variability measures were calculated. Adults and adolescents completed a set of questionnaires (Gold and Clarke scores, Hypoglycemia Fear Survey, Diabetes Quality of Life [DQoL], Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction [DTS], Diabetes Distress Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index). Results: Fifty-eight patients were included (age: 28 ± 15 years [7-63], <18 years old: 38% [n = 22], 59% [n = 34] females, previous use of SAP-PLGS [predictive low-glucose suspend]: 60% [n = 35]). HbA1c was reduced from 57 ± 10 to 53 ± 7 mmol/L (7.4% ± 0.9% to 7.0% ± 0.6%) (P < 0.001) and time in range 70-180 mg/dL was increased from 63.0% ± 11.4% to 72.7% ± 8.7% (P < 0.001). In patients with high baseline hypoglycemia risk, time <54 and <70 mg/dL were reduced from 0.9% ± 1.1% to 0.45% ± 0.7% (P = 0.021) and from 3.3% ± 2.8% to 2.1% ± 2.1% (P = 0.019), respectively. Glycemic variability measures improved. Time in auto mode was 85% ± 17%, the number of auto mode exits was 0.6 ± 0.3 per day, and the number of alarms was 8.5 ± 3.7 per day. Fear of hypoglycemia, DQoL, DTS, and diabetes distress improved, while the percentage of patients with poor sleep quality was reduced. The discontinuation rate was 3%. Conclusion: The commercialized hybrid closed-loop system improves glycemic control and glycemic variability in children and adults, reducing the burden of living with type 1 diabetes.

Practical implementation of automated closed-loop insulin delivery: A French position statement

Automated closed-loop (CL) insulin therapy has come of age. This major technological advance is expected to significantly improve the quality of care for adults, adolescents and children with type 1 diabetes. To improve access to this innovation for both patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs), and to promote adherence to its requirements in terms of safety, regulations, ethics and practice, the French Diabetes Society (SFD) brought together a French Working Group of experts to discuss the current practical consensus. The result is the present statement describing the indications for CL therapy with emphasis on the idea that treatment expectations must be clearly defined in advance. Specifications for expert care centres in charge of initiating the treatment were also proposed. Great importance was also attached to the crucial place of high-quality training for patients and healthcare professionals. Long-term follow-up should collect not only metabolic and clinical results, but also indicators related to psychosocial and human factors. Overall, this national consensus statement aims to promote the introduction of marketed CL devices into standard clinical practice.

A Randomized Trial of Closed-Loop Control in Children with Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

A closed-loop system of insulin delivery (also called an artificial pancreas) may improve glycemic outcomes in children with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

In a 16-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial, we assigned, in a 3:1 ratio, children 6 to 13 years of age who had type 1 diabetes to receive treatment with the use of either a closed-loop system of insulin delivery (closed-loop group) or a sensor-augmented insulin pump (control group). The primary outcome was the percentage of time that the glucose level was in the target range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter, as measured by continuous glucose monitoring.

RESULTS

A total of 101 children underwent randomization (78 to the closed-loop group and 23 to the control group); the glycated hemoglobin levels at baseline ranged from 5.7 to 10.1%. The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the glucose level was in the target range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter increased from 53±17% at baseline to 67±10% (the mean over 16 weeks of treatment) in the closed-loop group and from 51±16% to 55±13% in the control group (mean adjusted difference, 11 percentage points [equivalent to 2.6 hours per day]; 95% confidence interval, 7 to 14; P<0.001). In both groups, the median percentage of time that the glucose level was below 70 mg per deciliter was low (1.6% in the closed-loop group and 1.8% in the control group). In the closed-loop group, the median percentage of time that the system was in the closed-loop mode was 93% (interquartile range, 91 to 95). No episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this 16-week trial involving children with type 1 diabetes, the glucose level was in the target range for a greater percentage of time with the use of a closed-loop system than with the use of a sensor-augmented insulin pump. (Funded by Tandem Diabetes Care and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03844789.).

Closed-loop control in insulin pumps for type-1 diabetes mellitus: safety and efficacy

INTRODUCTION

Type 1 diabetes is a lifelong disease with high management burden. The majority of people with type 1 diabetes fail to achieve glycemic targets. Algorithm-driven automated insulin delivery (closed-loop) systems aim to address these challenges. This review provides an overview of commercial and emerging closed-loop systems.

AREAS COVERED

We review safety and efficacy of commercial and emerging hybrid closed-loop systems. A literature search was conducted and clinical trials using day-and-night closed-loop systems during free-living conditions were used to report on safety data. We comment on efficacy where robust randomized controlled trial data for a particular system are available. We highlight similarities and differences between commercial systems.

EXPERT OPINION

Study data shows that hybrid closed-loop systems are safe and effective, consistently improving glycemic control when compared to standard therapy. While a fully closed-loop system with minimal burden remains the end-goal, these hybrid closed-loop systems have transformative potential in diabetes care.

CREATE (Community deRivEd AutomaTEd insulin delivery) trial. Randomised parallel arm open label clinical trial comparing automated insulin delivery using a mobile controller (AnyDANA-loop) with an open-source algorithm with sensor augmented pump therapy in type 1 diabetes

Background

Commercialised automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have demonstrated improved outcomes in type 1 diabetes (T1D), however, they have limited capacity for algorithm individualisation, and can be prohibitively expensive if an individual is without access to health insurance or health funding subsidy. Freely available open-source algorithms, which have the ability to individualise algorithm parameters paired with commercial insulin pumps, and continuous glucose monitoring make up the so-called "do it yourself" (DIY) approach to AID. Limited data on the open-source approach have shown promising results, but data from a large randomised control trial are lacking.

Methods

The CREATE (Community deRivEd AutomaTEd insulin delivery) trial is an open-labelled, randomised, parallel 24-week, multi-site trial comparing sensor augmented pump therapy (SAPT) to our AnyDANA-loop. The three components of AnyDANA-loop are: 1) OpenAPS algorithm implemented in a smartphone (a version of AndroidAPS), 2) DANA-i™ insulin pump and, 3) Dexcom G6^R continuous glucose monitor (CGM). The primary outcome measure is the percentage of time in target sensor glucose range (3.9 -10mmol/L). Secondary outcomes include psycho-social factors and platform performance. Analysis of online collective learning, characteristic of the open-source approach, is planned. 100 participants with T1D aged 7 - 70 years (age stratified into children/adolescents 7-15 years and adults 16-70 years), will be recruited from four sites in New Zealand. A 24-week continuation phase follows, to assess long-term safety.

Long-term real-life glycaemic outcomes with a hybrid closed-loop system compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes

AIM

To compare glycaemic metrics at 3 and 6 months in patients with type 1 diabetes on a 670G hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system after using a sensor-augmented pump (SAP) for at least 3 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study from a centre that has the largest number of 670G users in the United States was conducted. Data from 202 SAP users were reviewed. Sixty-one patients were excluded (two for steroid use, four for pregnancy, 27 for previous Enlite use, and 28 for non-continuous use of 670G). Out of 141 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 127 (aged 21-68 years) had complete data.

RESULTS

HbA1c levels decreased by 0.4% at 3 months and were maintained at 6 months (7.6 ± 0.07 vs. 7.2 ± 0.08, P < 0.001) with no weight gain at 6 months. Time-in-range (70-180 mg/dL) increased from 59.5% ± 1.1% to 70.2% ± 1.2% and 70.1% ± 1.1% at 3 and 6 months (P < 0.001), respectively. At 6 months, time spent in hypoglycaemia (<70 mg/dL) and time spent in hyperglycaemia (>180 mg/dL) were reduced by 30% (2.2% ± 0.2% vs. 3.2% ± 0.2%; P < 0.05) and 26% (28.3% ± 1.2% vs. 38.1% ± 1.2%; P < 0.001), respectively. More time in auto-mode was associated with improved continuous glucose monitoring metrics, lower HbA1c and decreased glycaemic variability. Time in auto-mode declined in men after 3 months, while women maintained similar auto-mode use throughout the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The HCL system improved HbA1c levels and time-in-range, and decreased time spent in hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia at 6 months. Auto-mode use was significantly correlated with continuous glucose monitoring metrics and glycaemic outcomes.

Switching from Suspend-Before-Low Insulin Pump Technology to a Hybrid Closed-Loop System Improves Glucose Control and Reduces Glucose Variability: A Retrospective Observational Case-Control Study

There are no data whether hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems are superior to sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy with predictive low glucose suspend (PLGS) feature in improving glucose control. Aim of our study was to evaluate the effect on metabolic control and glucose variability of the switch from SAP therapy with PLGS to a HCL system in type 1 diabetic individuals. Forty adults with type 1 diabetes, who had been using SAP therapy with PLGS feature (Minimed 640G; Medtronic, Northridge, CA) for at least 12 months were evaluated in a 6-month case-control observational retrospective study. Twenty subjects who consecutively switched from Minimed 640G to a HCL system (Minimed 670G; Medtronic) (670G group) were compared with a control group consisting of 20 subjects who continued with the MiniMed 640G pump (640G group) matched for age, gender, and HbA_1c. At the end of the study there was a significant reduction in average HbA_1c levels (-4.9 ± 6.4 mmol/mol [-0.4% ± 0.6%], P < 0.01), sensor glucose concentrations (-15.4 ± 17.7 mg/dL, P < 0.005), coefficient of variation of sensor glucose concentrations (-3.8% ± 3.6%, P < 0.01), percentage time spent in both hyperglycemic range 181-250 mg/dL (-5.1% ± 4.5%, P < 0.05), and >250 mg/dL (-6.1% ± 6.9%, P < 0.05) in the 670G group, whereas they remained unchanged in the 640G group. Percentage of time spent in euglycemic range significantly increased (11.6% ± 8.3%, P < 0.005) only in the 670G group. There was no change in time spent in hypoglycemic range in both groups. In adults with type 1 diabetes, switching from a 640G to a 670G system significantly improved glucose control and reduced glucose variability, thus reaching in most cases the recommended targets for time spent in euglycemic and hyperglycemic ranges without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia.

RETRACTED: Glycemic control outcomes of adults using the MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system: A single-center study

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief. A number of individuals who fulfilled authorship requirements for the article were omitted by the sole author. Secondly, the conclusions drawn are statistically incorrect. The scientific inaccuracies include: incorrect use of available analysis sets, insufficient definition of statistical methodology (including in measurement of HbA1c), incorrect methodology, lack of statistical significance for correlations made, and data errors.

MiniMed 670G hybrid closed loop artificial pancreas system for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus: overview of its safety and efficacy

Introduction: Automated insulin delivery for people with type 1 diabetes has been a major goal in the diabetes technology field for many years. While a fully automated system has not yet been accomplished, the MiniMed™ 670G artificial pancreas (AP) system is the first commercially available insulin pump that automates basal insulin delivery, while still requiring user input for insulin boluses. Determining the safety and efficacy of this system is essential to the development of future devices striving for more automation. Areas Covered: This review will provide an overview of how the MiniMed 670G system works including its safety and efficacy, how it compares to similar devices, and anticipated future advances in diabetes technology currently under development. Expert Opinion: The ultimate goal of advanced diabetes technologies is to reduce the burden and amount of management required of patients with diabetes. In addition to reducing patient workload, achieving better glucose control and improving hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values are essential for reducing the threat of diabetes-related complications further down the road. Current devices come close to reaching these goals, but understanding the unmet needs of patients with diabetes will allow future technologies to achieve these goals more quickly.