Safety and Performance of the Omnipod Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Adults, Adolescents, and Children with Type 1 Diabetes Over 5 Days Under Free-Living Conditions

Advancements in Insulin Pumps: A Comprehensive Exploration of Insulin Pump Systems, Technologies, and Future Directions

Insulin pumps have transformed the way diabetes is managed by providing a more accurate and individualized method of delivering insulin, in contrast to conventional injection routines. This research explores the progression of insulin pumps, following their advancement from initial ideas to advanced contemporary systems. The report proceeds to categorize insulin pumps according to their delivery systems, specifically differentiating between conventional, patch, and implantable pumps. Every category is thoroughly examined, emphasizing its unique characteristics and capabilities. A comparative examination of commercially available pumps is provided to enhance informed decision making. This section provides a thorough analysis of important specifications among various brands and models. Considered factors include basal rate and bolus dosage capabilities, reservoir size, user interface, and compatibility with other diabetes care tools, such as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices and so on. This review seeks to empower healthcare professionals and patients with the essential information to improve diabetes treatment via individualized pump therapy options. It provides a complete assessment of the development, categorization, and full specification comparisons of insulin pumps.

Automated insulin delivery in children with type 1 diabetes during physical activity: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the automated insulin delivery (AID) in adolescents, and children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) during physical activity.

METHODS

Relevant studies were searched electronically in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase utilizing the key words "Child", "Insulin Infusion Systems", and "Diabetes Mellitus" from inception to 17th March 2024 to evaluate the performance of the AID in adolescents, and children with T1D during physical activity.

RESULTS

Twelve studies involving 514 patients were identified. AID did not show a beneficial effect on duration of hypoglycemia<70 mg/dL during study period (p>0.05; I2=96 %) and during the physical activity (p>0.99). Percentage of sensor glucose values in TIR was higher in AID than the non-AID pumps during study period (p<0.001; I2=94 %). The duration of hyperglycemic time was significantly decreased in AID group compared to the non-AID pumps group during study period (p<0.05; I2>50 %).

CONCLUSIONS

AID improved TIR and decreased the duration of hyperglycemic time, but did not appear to have a significant beneficial effect on the already low post-exercise duration of hypoglycemia achievable by open loop or sensor-augmented pumps in adolescents and children with T1D during physical activity; further research is needed to confirm the beneficial effect of AID on duration of hypoglycemia.

Effects of Macronutrient Intake and Number of Meals on Glycemic Outcomes Over 1 Year in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes

Objective: Insulin bolus doses derive from glucose levels and planned carbohydrate intake, although fat and protein impact glycemic excursions. We examined the impact of macronutrients and number of daily meals/snacks on glycemic outcomes in youth with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Youth (N = 136, ages 8-17) with type 1 diabetes completed 3-day food records, wore 3-day masked continuous glucose monitoring, and had A1c measurements every 3 months for 1 year. Diet data were analyzed using Nutrition Data System for Research. Longitudinal mixed models assessed effects of macronutrient intake and number of meals/snacks on glycemic outcomes. Results: At baseline, youth (48% male) had mean age of 12.8 ± 2.5 years and diabetes duration of 5.9 ± 3.1 years; 73% used insulin pumps. Baseline A1c was 8.1% ± 1.0%, percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL (%TIR) was 49% ± 17%, % time below range <70 mg/dL (%TBR) was 6% ± 8%, % time above range >180 mg/dL (%TAR) was 44% ± 20%, and glycemic variability as coefficient of variation (CV) was 41% ± 8%; macronutrient intake included 48% ± 5% carbohydrate, 36% ± 5% fat, and 16% ± 2% protein. Most youth (56%) reported 3-4 meals/snacks daily (range 1-9). Over 1 year, greater carbohydrate intake was associated with lower A1c (P = 0.0003), more %TBR (P = 0.0006), less %TAR (P = 0.002), and higher CV (P = 0.03). Greater fat intake was associated with higher A1c (P = 0.006), less %TBR (P = 0.002), and more %TAR (P = 0.005). Greater protein intake was associated with higher A1c (P = 0.01). More daily meals/snacks were associated with lower A1c (P = 0.001), higher %TIR (P = 0.0006), and less %TAR (P = 0.0001). Conclusions: Both fat and protein impact glycemic outcomes. Future automated insulin delivery systems should consider all macronutrients for timely insulin provision. The present research study derived from secondary analysis of the study registered under NCT00999375.

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.

Feasibility and Preliminary Safety of Smartphone-Based Automated Insulin Delivery in Adolescents and Children With Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

A smartphone-based automated insulin delivery (AID) controller device can facilitate use of interoperable components and acceptance in adolescents and children.

METHODS

Pediatric participants (N = 20, 8F) with type 1 diabetes were enrolled in three sequential age-based cohorts: adolescents (12-<18 years, n = 8, 5F), school-age (8-<12 years, n = 7, 2F), and young children (2-<8 years, n = 5, 1F). Participants used the interoperable artificial pancreas system (iAPS) and zone model predictive control (MPC) on an unlocked smartphone for 48 hours, consumed unrestricted meals of their choice, and engaged in various unannounced exercises. Primary outcomes and stopping criteria were defined using fingerstick blood glucose (BG) data; secondary outcomes compared continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data with preceding sensor augmented pump (SAP) therapy.

RESULTS

During AID, there was no more than one BG <50 mg/dL except in one young child participant; no instance of more than two episodes of BG ≥300 mg/dL lasting longer than 2 hours; and no adverse events. Despite large meals (total of 404.9 grams of carbs) and unannounced exercise (total of 182 minutes), overall CGM percent time in range (TIR) of 70 to 180 mg/dL during AID was statistically similar to SAP (63.5% vs 57.3%, respectively, P = .145). Overnight glucose standard deviation was 43 mg/dL (vs SAP 57.9 mg/dL, P = .009) and coefficient of variation was 25.7% (vs SAP 34.9%, P < .001). The percent time in closed-loop mode and connected to the CGM was 92.7% and 99.6%, respectively. Surveys indicated that participants and parents/guardians were satisfied with the system.

CONCLUSIONS

The smartphone-based AID was feasible and safe in sequentially younger cohorts of adolescents and children.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV

NCT04255381 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04255381).

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.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Impact of pancreas transplantation alone on kidney function: A multicenter clinical cohort study

Pancreas transplantation alone (PTA) is a β cell replacement option for selected patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus; concerns have been raised regarding deterioration in kidney function (KF) after PTA. This retrospective multicenter study assessed actual impact of transplantation and immunosuppression on KF in PTA recipients at three Transplant Centers. The primary composite endpoint 10 years after PTA was >50% eGFR decline, eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 , and/or receiving a kidney transplant (KT). Overall, 822 PTA recipients met eligibility. Median baseline and 10-year eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2 ) were 76.3 (58.1-100.8) and 51.3 (35.3-65.9), respectively. Primary composite endpoint occurred in 98 patients (53.5%) with 45 experiencing a >50% decrease in eGFR by 10 years post-transplant, 38 eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 49 requiring KT. KF declined most significantly within 6 months post-PTA, more often in females and patients with better preserved GFR up to 5 years with 11.6% kidney failure at 10 years. Patient survival and death-censored graft survival were both 68% at 10 years with overall graft thrombosis rate 8%. KF declined initially after PTA but stabilized with further slow progression. In conclusion, prospective intervention studies are needed to test renal sparing interventions while gathering more granular data.

(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.

Experience with burdens of diabetes device use that affect uptake and optimal use in people with type 1 diabetes

Diabetes technology continues to advance, with more individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) adopting insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems that integrate real-time glucose data with an algorithm to assist with insulin dosing decisions. These technologies are linked with benefits to glycemic outcomes (e.g. increased time in target range), diabetes management behaviors, and quality of life. However, current devices and systems are not without barriers and hassles for the user. The intent of this review is to describe the personal challenges and reactions that users experience when interacting with current diabetes technologies, which can affect their acceptance and motivation to engage with their devices. This review will discuss user experiences and strategies to address three main areas: (i) the emotional burden of utilizing a wearable device; (ii) the perceived and experienced negative social consequences of device use; and (iii) the practical challenges of wearing devices.

Frequency and Causes of Nocturnal Alarms in Youth and Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Using a First-Generation Hybrid Closed-Loop System

Background

Meeting glycemic recommendations is challenging for youth with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes technology, including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and hybrid closed-loop (HCL) automated insulin delivery systems, significantly increase achievement of glycemic targets; however, many youth struggle to sustain use of early HCL systems. Nocturnal alarm fatigue contributes to disrupted sleep and device discontinuation.

Methods

We examined the frequency and causes of nocturnal (10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) alarms in pediatric patients (N = 76, median age 14.5 years [interquartile range 11.8-17.0 years, range 7-24 years]) starting on a first-generation HCL system in a prospective observational study. Device data were analyzed with linear mixed-effects models to examine change across time at 3-month intervals for 12 months.

Results

At baseline (HCL system in nonautomated mode), participants averaged 3.3 ± 0.6 alarms per night. In the 2 weeks after starting HCL (automated) mode, alarm frequency significantly increased to 5.4 ± 0.5 times per night (P <0.001). Alarm frequency decreased through the remainder of the observational period; however, CGM sensor and HCL system use also declined. The types of alarms were evenly distributed among sensor maintenance, sensor threshold, pump, and HCL-specific alarms.

Conclusion

These data show that HCL system nocturnal alarms are frequent and may be barriers to sleep quality and device use. Further research is needed to assess the impact of diabetes technology on sleep and to determine method to improve sleep quality with technology use.

The role of technology in the care of diabetes mellitus in pregnancy: an expert review

Diabetes mellitus is one of the most commonly encountered pregnancy complications and is associated with multiple adverse perinatal outcomes. Technology has progressed to address the unique challenges patients face in managing diabetes mellitus in pregnancy. Technology has bolstered diabetes mellitus education with smartphone applications focused on nutrition counseling and carbohydrate intake advice. Continuous glucose monitors and insulin infusion systems have shown benefit by simplifying glycemic monitoring and insulin administration. Improvements in glycemic control and perinatal outcomes have been seen with continuous glucose monitor use when compared with intermittent blood glucose monitoring, and more pregnant people are using insulin pumps instead of multiple daily insulin injections. Hybrid closed-loop systems are emerging and are able to integrate continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump technologies while maximizing automated features in the nonpregnant population, but these have not been endorsed for use in pregnancy yet. Applying telehealth practices has been associated with high patient satisfaction among those with diabetes mellitus in pregnancy, and leveraging remote patient monitoring through telehealth platforms and short-range wireless technologies can reduce the burden of patient visits. As technology becomes more integrated into routine management of diabetes mellitus in pregnancy, practitioners should emphasize individualized counseling and device selection to ensure patient autonomy and safety.

Outcomes in Pump- and CGM-Baseline Use Subgroups in the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial

BACKGROUND

We investigated the potential benefits of automated insulin delivery (AID) among individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in sub-populations of baseline device use determined by continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use status and insulin delivery via multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a six-month randomized, multicenter trial, 168 individuals were assigned to closed-loop control (CLC, Control-IQ, Tandem Diabetes Care), or sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. The trial included a two- to eight-week run-in phase to train participants on study devices. The participants were stratified into four subgroups: insulin pump and CGM (pump+CGM), pump-only, MDI and CGM (MDI+CGM), and MDI users without CGM (MDI-only) users. We compared glycemic outcomes among four subgroups.

RESULTS

At baseline, 61% were pump+CGM users, 18% pump-only users, 10% MDI+CGM users, and 11% MDI-only users. Mean time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) improved from baseline in the four subgroups using CLC: pump+CGM, 62% to 73%; pump-only, 61% to 70%; MDI+CGM, 54% to 68%; and MDI-only, 61% to 69%. The reduction in time below 70 mg/dL from baseline was comparable among the four subgroups. No interaction effect was detected with baseline device use for TIR (P = .67) or time below (P = .77). On the System Usability Questionnaire, scores were high at 26 weeks for all subgroups: pump+CGM: 87.2 ± 12.1, pump-only: 89.4 ± 8.2, MDI+CGM 87.2 ± 9.3, MDI: 78.1 ± 15.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a consistent benefit in patients with T1D when using CLC, regardless of baseline insulin delivery modality or CGM use. These data suggest that this CLC system can be considered across a wide range of patients.

Real-World User and Clinician Perspective and Experience with MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop System

INTRODUCTION

The advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) MiniMed™ 780G system changes basal insulin delivery every 5 min and auto bolus in response to sensor glucose values. We assessed the performance of the AHCL system in real-world settings for individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) as well as user and clinician perspectives and satisfaction.

METHODS

We held two peer group discussions: one having adults with T1DM/parents of children and adolescents with T1DM to understand their experiences with the AHCL system and another with healthcare providers (HCPs). Responses from the discussions were analyzed and categorized into themes by two independent researchers, with any inconsistencies resolved by consensus. We also analyzed data from the system uploaded to CareLink personal software. Glycemic outcomes, including time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR), time above range (TAR), mean sensor glucose (SG) levels, glucose management indicator (GMI), sensor use, and percentage of time spent in AHCL, were determined.

RESULTS

The peer group discussions revealed numerous key themes and issues for each group, such as the significance of setting reasonable expectations, carbohydrate counting and bolus dosing, technical difficulties, and overall user experience. The users (n = 25; T1DM; 17 female; age 13.8 ± 7.49 years; A1C 6.54 ± 0.45%; duration of diabetes 6 ± 6.78 years) were very satisfied with the system. Most users experienced consistent blood glucose values with very few hypoglycemic episodes. However, there were a few limitations reported, such as hyperglycemic episodes caused by inaccuracies in carb counting, issues with sensor connectivity, and cannula blockages or kinking for those using insulin Fiasp. Users achieved a mean GMI of 6.4 ± 0.26%, TIR of 83.0 ± 8.12%, TBR (54-70 mg/dL) of 2.0 ± 0.81%, TBR* (< 54 mg/dL) of 0%. All of the users achieved a TIR of > 70%.

CONCLUSION

The use of the AHCL system in T1DM resulted in robust glycemic control, minimizing hypoglycemia. Providing training to both users and HCPs can help them use the system effectively.

Maximizing Glycemic Benefits of Using Faster Insulin Formulations in Type 1 Diabetes: In Silico Analysis Under Open- and Closed-Loop Conditions

Background: Ultrarapid-acting insulin analogs that could improve or even prevent postprandial hyperglycemia are now available for both research and clinical care. However, clear glycemic benefits remain elusive, especially when combined with automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. In this work, we study two insulin formulations in silico and highlight adjustments of both open-loop and closed-loop insulin delivery therapies as a critical step to achieve clinically meaningful improvements. Methods: Subcutaneous insulin transport models for two faster analogs, Fiasp (Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark) and AT247 (Arecor, Saffron Walden, United Kingdom), were identified using data collected from prior clamp experiments, and integrated into the UVA/Padova type 1 diabetes simulator (adult cohort, N = 100). Pump therapy parameters and the aggressiveness of our full closed-loop algorithm were adapted to the new insulin pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles through a sequence of in silico studies. Finally, we assessed these analogs' glycemic impact with and without modified therapy parameters in simulated conditions designed to match clinical trial data. Results: Simply switching to faster insulin analogs shows limited improvements in glycemic outcomes. However, when insulin acceleration is accompanied by therapy adaptation, clinical significance is found comparing time-in-range (70-180 mg/dL) with Aspart versus AT247 in open-loop (+5.1%); and Aspart versus Fiasp (+5.4%) or AT247 (+10.6%) in full closed-loop with no clinically significant differences in the exposure to hypoglycemia. Conclusion: In silico results suggest that properly adjusting intensive insulin therapy profiles, or AID tuning, to faster insulin analogs is necessary to obtain clinically significant improvements in glucose control.

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.

School Nurse Confidence with Diabetes Devices in Relation to Diabetes Knowledge and Prior Training: A Study of Convergent Validity

Objective

The Diabetes Device Confidence Scale (DDCS) is a new scale designed to evaluate school nurse confidence with diabetes devices. We hypothesized that DDCS score would be associated with related constructs of school nurse diabetes knowledge, experience, and training.

Research Design and Methods

In a cross-sectional study, we co-administered the DDCS and Diabetes Knowledge Test 2 (DKT2) questionnaires to school nurses in Pennsylvania. We summarized DDCS scores (range 1-5) descriptively. We evaluated the relationship between DKT2 percent score and DDCS mean score with the Spearman correlation coefficient. Simple linear regression examined school nurse characteristics as predictors of DDCS score.

Results

A total of 271 completed surveys were received. Mean DDCS score was 3.16±0.94, indicating moderate confidence with devices overall. School nurses frequently reported low confidence in items representing specific skills, including suspending insulin delivery (40%), giving a manual bolus (42%), knowing when to calibrate a continuous glucose monitor (48%), changing an insulin pump site (54%), and setting a temporary basal rate (58%). Mean DKT2 score was 89.5±0.1%, which was weakly but not significantly correlated with DDCS score (r=0.12, p=0.06). Formal device training (p<0.001), assisting ≥5 students with diabetes devices in the past 5 years (p<0.01), and a student caseload between 1000-1500 students (p<0.001) were associated with higher mean DDCS score.

Conclusions

DDCS score is related to prior training and experience, providing evidence for the scale's convergent validity. The DDCS may be a useful tool for assessing school nurse readiness to use devices and identify areas to enhance knowledge and practical skills.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Effectiveness and safety of a model predictive control (MPC) algorithm for an artificial pancreas system in outpatients with type 1 diabetes (T1D): systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of a model predictive control (MPC) algorithm for an artificial pancreas system in outpatients with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and the Web of Science to December 2021. The eligibility criteria for study selection were randomized controlled trials comparing artificial pancreas systems (MPC, PID, and fuzzy algorithms) with conventional insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes patients. The heterogeneity of the overall results was identified by subgroup analysis of two factors including the intervention duration (overnight and 24 h) and the follow-up periods (< 1 week, 1 week to 1 month, and > 1 month).

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included a total of 41 studies. Considering the effect on the percentage of time maintained in the target range between the MPC-based artificial pancreas and conventional insulin therapy, the results showed a statistically significantly higher percentage of time maintained in the target range in overnight use (10.03%, 95% CI [7.50, 12.56] p < 0.00001). When the follow-up period was considered, in overnight use, the MPC-based algorithm showed a statistically significantly lower percentage of time maintained in the hypoglycemic range (-1.34%, 95% CI [-1.87, -0.81] p < 0.00001) over a long period of use (> 1 month).

CONCLUSIONS

Overnight use of the MPC-based artificial pancreas system statistically significantly improved glucose control while increasing time maintained in the target range for outpatients with type 1 diabetes. Results of subgroup analysis revealed that MPC algorithm-based artificial pancreas system was safe while reducing the time maintained in the hypoglycemic range after an overnight intervention with a long follow-up period (more than 1 month).

Hybrid closed-loop therapy with a first-generation system increases confidence and independence in diabetes management in youth with type 1 diabetes

AIM

Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) therapy improves glycaemic control in adolescents with type 1 diabetes; however, little is known about their lived experience using these systems. The aim of this study was to explore the lived experiences of youth with type 1 diabetes using HCL therapy, and their parents, to provide insight into their lived experiences.

METHODS

Adolescents and young adults aged 12-25 years, who used Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G HCL system during a 6-month randomised clinical trial, and their parents, were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview at the end of the study. Open-ended questions were used to explore the lived experiences of families using HCL. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis to determine the main themes.

RESULTS

In all, 17 young people with type 1 diabetes mean ± SD age: 17.5 ± 4.2 years, diabetes duration: 11.0 ± 4.9 years and HbA_1c 64 ± 9 mmol/mol (8.0 ± 0.8%) and 10 parents were interviewed. Three themes were identified: (1) 'Developing confidence and trust in the system', (2) 'Reduction in anxiety' and (3) 'Issues with device'. They reported a positive experience using HCL, with improvements in glucose levels and increased independence with diabetes management. However, frustration around the number of alarms and notifications associated with the system were also identified as issues.

CONCLUSION

Both youth and parents acknowledged the benefits of this first-generation HCL system in improving glycaemic outcomes and in providing flexibility and independence. These lived experiences provide valuable information in the introduction and provision of targeted education with HCL therapy.

Barriers and Facilitators to Diabetes Device Adoption for People with Type 1 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Diabetes technology (insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring, automated insulin delivery systems) has advanced significantly and provides benefits to the user. This article reviews the current barriers to diabetes device adoption and sustained use, and outlines the known and potential facilitators for increasing and sustaining device adoption.

RECENT FINDINGS

Barriers to diabetes device adoption continue to exist at the system-, provider-, and individual-level. Known facilitators to promote sustained adoption include consistent insurance coverage, support for providers and clinics, structured education and support for technology users, and device user access to support as needed (e.g., through online resources). Systemic barriers to diabetes device adoption persist while growing evidence demonstrates the increasing benefits of newest devices and systems. There are ongoing efforts to develop evidence-based structured education programs to support device adoption and sustained use.

Patch Pumps: What are the advantages for people with diabetes?

AIM

Patch pumps, i.e. insulin pumps without tubing, are an attractive alternative to conventional insulin pumps for people with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy. In this review, potential patient-relevant advantages and disadvantages of patch pumps are summarized and respective studies on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are assessed.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified through a systematic PubMed search. Reference lists in respective articles and Google Scholar were also checked for additional references. Articles in English published before June 30, 2021, were included; no other criteria on publication dates were set.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included. The results of this analysis provide evidence that patch pumps improve quality of life, reduce diabetes-related distress, increase patient satisfaction, and are preferred by patients compared to conventional insulin pumps and multiple daily injection therapy (MDI). However, several methodological limitations of the studies identified constrain the significance of this analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limited number of studies evaluating the benefits of patch pumps on PROs, there is increasing evidence that people with diabetes prefer patch pumps. Although there are numerous PROs for patch pumps, it is surprising that this aspect has been relatively understudied. More systematic evaluation studies of the benefits of patch pumps on PROs are needed.

Clinical Implementation of the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System: Key Considerations for Training and Onboarding People With Diabetes

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, which connect an insulin pump, continuous glucose monitoring system, and software algorithm to automate insulin delivery based on real-time glycemic data, hold promise for improving outcomes and reducing therapeutic burden for people with diabetes. This article reviews the features of the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System and how it compares to other AID systems available on or currently under review for the U.S. market. It also provides practical guidance for clinicians on how to effectively train and onboard people with diabetes on the Omnipod 5 System, including how to personalize therapy and optimize glycemia. Many people with diabetes receive their diabetes care in primary care settings rather than in a diabetes specialty clinic. Therefore, it is important that primary care providers have access to resources to support the adoption of AID technologies such as the Omnipod 5 System.

Predicting Success with a First-Generation Hybrid Closed-Loop Artificial Pancreas System Among Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Model Development and Validation Study

Background: Hybrid Closed-Loop (HCL) systems aid individuals with type 1 diabetes in improving glycemic control; however, sustained use over time has not been consistent for all users. This study developed and validated prognostic models for successful 12-month use of the first commercial HCL system based on baseline and 1- or 3-month data. Methods and Materials: Data from participants at the Barbara Davis Center (N = 85) who began use of the MiniMed 670G HCL were used to develop prognostic models using logistic regression and Lasso model selection. Candidate factors included sex, age, duration of diabetes, baseline hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), race, ethnicity, insurance status, history of insulin pump and continuous glucose monitor use, 1- or 3-month Auto Mode use, boluses per day, and time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL), and scores on behavioral questionnaires. Successful use of HCL was predefined as Auto Mode use ≥60%. The 3-month model was then externally validated against a sample from Stanford University (N = 55). Results: Factors in the final model included baseline HbA1c, sex, ethnicity, 1- or 3-month Auto Mode use, Boluses per Day, and TIR. The 1- and 3-month prognostic models had very good predictive ability with area under the curve values of 0.894 and 0.900, respectively. External validity was acceptable with an area under the curve of 0.717. Conclusions: Our prognostic models use clinically accessible baseline and early device-use factors to identify risk for failure to succeed with 670G HCL technology. These models may be useful to develop targeted interventions to promote success with new technologies.

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

Introduction: This trial assessed safety and effectiveness of an advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system with automated basal (Auto Basal) and automated bolus correction (Auto Correction) in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Materials and Methods: This multicenter single-arm study involved an intent-to-treat population of 157 individuals (39 adolescents aged 14-21 years and 118 adults aged ≥22-75 years) with T1D. Study participants used the MiniMed™ AHCL system during a baseline run-in period in which sensor-augmented pump +/- predictive low glucose management or Auto Basal was enabled for ∼14 days. Thereafter, Auto Basal and Auto Correction were enabled for a study phase (∼90 days), with glucose target set to 100 or 120 mg/dL for ∼45 days, followed by the other target for ∼45 days. Study endpoints included safety events and change in mean A1C, time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) and time below range (TBR, <70 mg/dL). Run-in and study phase values were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test or paired t-test. Results: Overall group time spent in closed loop averaged 94.9% ± 5.4% and involved only 1.2 ± 0.8 exits per week. Compared with run-in, AHCL reduced A1C from 7.5% ± 0.8% to 7.0% ± 0.5% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, n = 155), TIR increased from 68.8% ± 10.5% to 74.5% ± 6.9% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test), and TBR reduced from 3.3% ± 2.9% to 2.3% ± 1.7% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Similar benefits to glycemia were observed for each age group and were more pronounced for the nighttime (12 AM-6 AM). The 100 mg/dL target increased TIR to 75.4% (n = 155), which was further optimized at a lower active insulin time (AIT) setting (i.e., 2 h), without increasing TBR. There were no severe hypoglycemic or diabetic ketoacidosis events during the study phase. Conclusions: These findings show that the MiniMed AHCL system is safe and allows for achievement of recommended glycemic targets in adolescents and adults with T1D. Adjustments in target and AIT settings may further optimize glycemia and improve user experience. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03959423.

The Impact of Hypo- and Hyperglycemia on Cognition and Brain Development in Young Children with Type 1 Diabetes

Human and experimental animal data suggest both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia can lead to altered brain structure and neurocognitive function in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Young children with T1D are prone to extreme fluctuations in glucose levels. The overlap of these potential dysglycemic insults to the brain during the time of most active brain and cognitive development may cause cellular and structural injuries that appear to persist into adult life. Brain structure and cognition in persons with T1D are influenced by age of onset, exposure to glycemic extremes such as severe hypoglycemic episodes, history of diabetic ketoacidosis, persistent hyperglycemia, and glucose variability. Studies using brain imaging techniques have shown brain changes that appear to be influenced by metabolic abnormalities characteristic of diabetes, changes apparent at diagnosis and persistent throughout adulthood. Some evidence suggests that brain injury might also directly contribute to psychological and mental health outcomes. Neurocognitive deficits manifest across multiple cognitive domains. Moreover, impaired executive function and mental health can affect patients' adherence to treatment. This review summarizes the current data on the impact of glycemic extremes on brain structure and cognitive function in youth with T1D and the use of new diabetes technologies that may reduce these complications.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

The automated pancreas: A review of technologies and clinical practice

Insulin pumps and glucose sensors are effective in improving diabetes therapy and reducing acute complications. The combination of both devices using an algorithm-driven interoperable controller makes automated insulin delivery (AID) systems possible. Many AID systems have been tested in clinical trials and have proven safety and effectiveness. However, currently, none of these systems are available for routine use in children younger than 6 years in Europe. For continued use, both users and prescribers must have sound knowledge of the features of the individual AID systems. Presently, all systems require various user interactions (e.g. meal announcements) because fully automated systems are not yet developed. Open-source systems are non-regulated variants to circumvent existing regulatory conditions. There are risks here for both users and prescribers. To evaluate AID therapy, the metric data of the glucose sensors, 'time in target range' and 'glucose management index', are novel recognized and suitable parameters allowing a consultation based on real glucose and insulin pump download data from the daily life of people with diabetes. Read out via cloud-based software or automatic download of such individual treatment data provides the ideal technical basis for shared decision-making through telemedicine, which must be further evaluated for general use.

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.

Barriers to Uptake of Insulin Technologies and Novel Solutions

Diabetes-related technology has undergone great advancement in recent years. These technological devices are more commonly utilized in the type 1 diabetes population, which requires insulin as the primary treatment modality. Available devices include insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, and hybrid systems referred to as automated insulin delivery systems or hybrid closed-loop systems, which combine those two devices along with software algorithms to achieve advanced therapeutic capabilities, including automatic modulation of insulin delivery based on sensor-derived glucose levels to minimize abnormal glucose trends. Use of diabetes technology is associated with significant positive health and psychosocial outcomes, yet utilization rates are generally lacking across both adult and pediatric type 1 diabetes populations in the United States and other countries. There are consistent themes in existing barriers to technology uptake reported by individuals with type 1 diabetes or parents of children with type 1 diabetes, including physical burdens associated with wearing the devices, concerns in navigating the technology and the devices’ abilities to meet user expectations, high cost, inadequate resources within the healthcare team to support device use, disparities in technology access, and psychosocial barriers. It is important to understand the common barriers to uptake of not only the automated insulin delivery systems but also their component devices (insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors) to fully support individuals in utilizing these devices and optimizing health benefits. The purpose of this article is to summarize the current automated insulin delivery devices that are available for use in management of type 1 diabetes, review common barriers to uptake of those systems and their component devices, and provide expert opinion on existing and future solutions to identified barriers.

The Evolution of Insulin Administration in Type 1 Diabetes

Insulin has been utilized in the treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D) for 100 years. While there is still no cure for T1D, insulin administration has undergone a remarkable evolution which has contributed to improvements in quality of life and life expectancy in individuals with T1D. The advent of faster-acting and longer-acting insulins allowed for the implementation of insulin regimens more closely resembling normal insulin physiology. These improvements afforded better glycemic control, which is crucial for limiting microvascular complications and improving T1D outcomes. Suspension of insulin delivery in response to actual and forecasted hypoglycemia has improved quality of life and mitigated hypoglycemia without compromising glycemic control. Advances in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin pumps, efforts to model glucose and insulin kinetics, and the application of control theory to T1D have made the automation of insulin delivery a reality. This review will summarize the past, present, and future of insulin administration in T1D.

Automated Insulin Delivery Systems: Today, Tomorrow and User Requirements

Automated insulin delivery (AID) is the most recent advance in type 1 diabetes (T1D) management. It has the potential to achieve glycemic targets without disabling hypoglycemia, to improve quality of life and reduce diabetes distress and burden associated with self-management. Several AID systems are currently licensed for use by people with T1D in Europe, United States, and the rest of the world. Despite AID becoming a reality in routine clinical practice over the last few years, the commercially hybrid AID and other systems, are still far from a fully optimized automated diabetes management tool. Implementation of AID systems requires education and support of healthcare professionals taking care of people with T1D, as well as users and their families. There is much to do to increase usability, portability, convenience and to reduce the burden associated with the use of the systems. Co-design, involvement of people with lived experience of T1D and robust qualitative assessment is critical to improving the real-world use of AID systems, especially for those who may have greater need. In addition to this, information regarding the psychosocial impact of the use of AID systems in real life is needed. The first commercially available AID systems are not the end of the development journey but are the first step in learning how to optimally automate insulin delivery in a way that is equitably accessible and effective for people living with T1D.

Current Advances of Artificial Pancreas Systems: A Comprehensive Review of the Clinical Evidence

Since Banting and Best isolated insulin in the 1920s, dramatic progress has been made in the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). However, dose titration and timely injection to maintain optimal glycemic control are often challenging for T1DM patients and their families because they require frequent blood glucose checks. In recent years, technological advances in insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring systems have created paradigm shifts in T1DM care that are being extended to develop artificial pancreas systems (APSs). Numerous studies that demonstrate the superiority of glycemic control offered by APSs over those offered by conventional treatment are still being published, and rapid commercialization and use in actual practice have already begun. Given this rapid development, keeping up with the latest knowledge in an organized way is confusing for both patients and medical staff. Herein, we explore the history, clinical evidence, and current state of APSs, focusing on various development groups and the commercialization status. We also discuss APS development in groups outside the usual T1DM patients and the administration of adjunct agents, such as amylin analogues, in APSs.

100 Years of Insulin: Lifesaver, immune target, and potential remedy for prevention

In this review, we bring our personal experiences to showcase insulin from its breakthrough discovery as a life-saving drug 100 years ago to its uncovering as the autoantigen and potential cause of type 1 diabetes and eventually as an opportunity to prevent autoimmune diabetes. The work covers the birth of insulin to treat patients, which is now 100 years ago, the development of human insulin, insulin analogues, devices, and the way into automated insulin delivery, the realization that insulin is the primary autoimmune target of type 1 diabetes in children, novel approaches of immunotherapy using insulin for immune tolerance induction, the possible limitations of insulin immunotherapy, and an outlook how modern vaccines could remove the need for another 100 years of insulin therapy.

Real-world performance of hybrid closed loop in youth, young adults, adults and older adults with type 1 diabetes: Identifying a clinical target for hybrid closed-loop use

AIM

To describe real-world hybrid closed loop (HCL) use and glycaemic outcomes across the lifespan and identify a clinical threshold for HCL use associated with meeting the internationally recommended target of 70% sensor glucose time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Mixed models examined MiniMed 670G HCL use and glycaemic outcomes in 276 people with type 1 diabetes from four age groups: youth (aged <18 years), young adults (18-25 years), adults (26-49 years) and older adults (≥50 years) for 1 year. ROC analysis identified the minimum percentage HCL use associated with meeting the TIR goal of 70%.

RESULTS

HCL use at month 1 was 70.7% ± 2.9% for youth, 71.0% ± 3.8% for young adults, 78.9% ± 2.1% for adults and 84.7% ± 3.8% in older adults. HCL use declined significantly at 12 months to 49.3% ± 3.2% in youth (P < .001) and 55.7% ± 4.3% in young adults (P = .002). HCL use was sustained at 12 months in adults (76.4% ± 2.2%, P = .36) and older adults (80.4% ± 3.9%, P = .36). HCL use of 70.6% was associated with 70% TIR (sensitivity 58.3%, specificity 85%, AUC 0.77). Older age, 80% or higher continuous glucose monitor use and four or more blood glucose checks per day were associated with attaining the HCL-use threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

HCL use of 70% or higher may be a useful target for clinicians to use to assist people with diabetes in attaining glycaemic goals. Youth may struggle with HCL use more than adults and require clinical intervention to help sustain HCL use across time.

Multicenter Trial of a Tubeless, On-Body Automated Insulin Delivery System With Customizable Glycemic Targets in Pediatric and Adult Participants With Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Advances in diabetes technology have transformed the treatment paradigm for type 1 diabetes, yet the burden of disease is significant. We report on a pivotal safety study of the first tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery system with customizable glycemic targets.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This single-arm, multicenter, prospective study enrolled 112 children (age 6-13.9 years) and 129 adults (age 14-70 years). A 2-week standard therapy phase (usual insulin regimen) was followed by 3 months of automated insulin delivery. Primary safety outcomes were incidence of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis. Primary effectiveness outcomes were change in HbA_1c and percent time in sensor glucose range 70-180 mg/dL ("time in range").

RESULTS

A total of 235 participants (98% of enrolled, including 111 children and 124 adults) completed the study. HbA_1c was significantly reduced in children by 0.71% (7.8 mmol/mol) (mean ± SD: 7.67 ± 0.95% to 6.99 ± 0.63% [60 ± 10.4 mmol/mol to 53 ± 6.9 mmol/mol], P < 0.0001) and in adults by 0.38% (4.2 mmol/mol) (7.16 ± 0.86% to 6.78 ± 0.68% [55 ± 9.4 mmol/mol to 51 ± 7.4 mmol/mol], P < 0.0001). Time in range was improved from standard therapy by 15.6 ± 11.5% or 3.7 h/day in children and 9.3 ± 11.8% or 2.2 h/day in adults (both P < 0.0001). This was accomplished with a reduction in time in hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL among adults (median [interquartile range]: 2.00% [0.63, 4.06] to 1.09% [0.46, 1.75], P < 0.0001), while this parameter remained the same in children. There were three severe hypoglycemia events not attributable to automated insulin delivery malfunction and one diabetic ketoacidosis event from an infusion site failure.

CONCLUSIONS

This tubeless automated insulin delivery system was safe and allowed participants to significantly improve HbA_1c levels and time in target glucose range with a very low occurrence of hypoglycemia.

Health-Related Quality of Life and Treatment Satisfaction in Parents and Children with Type 1 Diabetes Using Closed-Loop Control

Introduction: Hybrid closed-loop systems increase time-in-range (TIR) and reduce glycemic variability. Person-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential to assess the utility of new devices and their impact on quality of life. This article focuses on the PROs for pediatric participants (ages 6-13 years) with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and their parents during a trial using the Tandem Control-IQ system, which was shown to increase TIR and improve other glycemic metrics. Research Design and Methods: One hundred and one children 6 to 13 years old with T1D were randomly assigned to closed-loop control (CLC) or sensor-augmented pump (SAP) in a 16-week randomized clinical trial with extension to 28 weeks during which the SAP group crossed over to CLC. Health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction measures were obtained from children and their parents at baseline, 16 weeks, and 28 weeks. Results: Neither the children in the CLC group nor their parents had statistically significant changes in PRO outcomes compared with the SAP group at the end of the 16-week randomized controlled trial and the 28-week extension. Parents in the CLC group reported nonsignificant improvements in some PRO scores when compared with the SAP group at 16 weeks, which were sustained at 28 weeks. Sleep scores for parents improved from "poor sleep quality" to "adequate sleep quality" between baseline and 16 weeks, however, the change in scores was not statistically different between groups. Conclusions: Children with T1D who used the Control-IQ system did not experience increased burden compared with those using SAP based on person-reported outcomes from the children and their parents. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT03844789.

First Outpatient Evaluation of a Tubeless Automated Insulin Delivery System with Customizable Glucose Targets in Children and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Background: The objective of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of the first commercial configuration of a tubeless automated insulin delivery system, Omnipod^® 5, in children (6-13.9 years) and adults (14-70 years) with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in an outpatient setting. Materials and Methods: This was a single-arm, multicenter, prospective clinical study. Data were collected over a 14-day standard therapy (ST) phase followed by a 14-day hybrid closed-loop (HCL) phase, where participants (n = 36) spent 72 h at each of three prespecified glucose targets (130, 140, and 150 mg/dL, 9 days total) then 5 days with free choice of glucose targets (110-150 mg/dL) using the Omnipod 5. Remote safety monitoring alerts were enabled during the HCL phase. Primary endpoints were difference in time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) between ST and HCL phases and proportion of participants reporting serious device-related adverse events. Results: Mean TIR was significantly higher among children in the free-choice period overall (64.9% ± 12.2%, P < 0.01) and when using a 110 mg/dL target (71.2% ± 10.2%, P < 0.01), a 130 mg/dL target (61.5% ± 7.7%, P < 0.01), and a 140 mg/dL target (64.8% ± 11.6%, P < 0.01), and among adults using a 130 mg/dL target (75.1% ± 11.6%, P < 0.05), compared to the ST phase (children: 51.0% ± 13.3% and adults: 65.6% ± 15.7%). There were no serious device-related adverse events reported during the HCL phase, nor were there episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis. Conclusion: The Omnipod 5 System was safe and effective when used at glucose targets from 110 to 150 mg/dL for 14 days at home in children and adults with T1D.

Current treatment options and challenges in patients with Type 1 diabetes: Pharmacological, technical advances and future perspectives

Type 1 diabetes mellitus imposes a significant burden of complications and mortality, despite important advances in treatment: subjects affected by this disease have also a worse quality of life-related to disease management. To overcome these challenges, different new approaches have been proposed, such as new insulin formulations or innovative devices. The introduction of insulin pumps allows a more physiological insulin administration with a reduction of HbA1c level and hypoglycemic risk. New continuous glucose monitoring systems with better accuracy have allowed, not only better glucose control, but also the improvement of the quality of life. Integration of these devices with control algorithms brought to the creation of the first artificial pancreas, able to independently gain metabolic control without the risk of hypo- and hyperglycemic crisis. This approach has revolutionized the management of diabetes both in terms of quality of life and glucose control. However, complete independence from exogenous insulin will be obtained only by biological approaches that foresee the replacement of functional beta cells obtained from stem cells: this will be a major challenge but the biggest hope for the subjects with type 1 diabetes. In this review, we will outline the current scenario of innovative diabetes management both from a technological and biological point of view, and we will also forecast some cutting-edge approaches to reduce the challenges that hamper the definitive cure of diabetes.

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.

Evaluation of the Accuracy of Current Tubeless Pumps for Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion

Background: Recently two new tubeless pumps for insulin therapy were introduced. They were tested for accuracy and occlusion detection and compared with the established patch pump Omnipod^® (OP). Methods: Using a modified setup for tubeless pumps based on IEC 60601-2-24, the basal rate and bolus delivery of the Accu-Chek^® Solo micropump system (ACS) and the A6 TouchCare^® System (A6) were measured with a microgravimetric method. Bolus sizes of 0.2, 1, and 10 U, and basal rates of 0.1 and 1 U/h were evaluated in nine repetitions. For each parameter, mean deviation and number of individual boluses or 1-h basal rate windows within ±15% from target were calculated. In addition, occlusion detection time at basal rates of 0.1 and 1 U/h was determined. Results: Mean deviation of boluses of different volumes in the pumps ranged from -3.3% to +4.0% and 40%-100% of individual boluses were within ±15% of the target. During basal rate delivery, 48% to 98% of 1-h windows were within ±15% of the target with a mean deviation between -5.3% and +6.5%. In general, considerable differences between pump models were observed and deviations decreased with increasing doses. In most parameters, ACS was more accurate, and A6 less accurate, than OP. Mean occlusion detection time ranged from ∼3 to 7.5 h at 1 U/h and was >24 h or absent at 0.1 U/h. Conclusions: In this evaluation, significant differences between the tested tubeless pump models were observed that became most evident when regarding delivery errors over short time and small volumes.

Performance of an Automated Insulin Delivery System: Results of Early Phase Feasibility Studies

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have demonstrated improvements in time-in-range (TIR, blood glucose 70-180 mg/dL) without increasing hypoglycemia. Testing a closed-loop system in an inpatient environment with supervised challenges allows for initial evaluation of performance and safety of the system. Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) were enrolled into two similar studies (n = 10 per study), with 3-day inpatient analysis periods. Participants tested a Lilly hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system comprising an investigational insulin pump, insulin lispro, a pump-embedded model predictive control algorithm, a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and an external dedicated controller. Each protocol included meal-related and exercise challenges to simulate real-world diabetes self-management errors. Only study staff interacted with the HCL system. Performance was assessed using standard CGM metrics overall and within prespecified periods. Results: Participants (25% male) had mean ± standard deviation (SD) age 44.7 ± 14.2 years, T1D duration 30.2 ± 11.1 years, A1C 7.2% ± 0.8%, and insulin usage 0.53 ± 0.21 U/(kg·day). Percentage TIR 70-180 mg/dL (mean ± SD) was 81.2 ± 8.4 overall, 85.2 ± 8.1 outside of challenge periods, 97.3 ± 5.3 during the nocturnal periods, and 74.5 ± 16.2 for the postprandial periods. During challenge periods, percentage TIR for the overbolus challenge was 65.4 ± 29.2 and that for the delayed bolus challenge was 57.1 ± 25.1. No adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, or unanticipated adverse device events occurred while participants were using the HCL system. Conclusions: In participants with T1D, Lilly AID system demonstrated expected algorithm performance and safety with satisfactory glycemic outcomes overall and in response to simulated diabetes management challenges. Additional studies in less supervised conditions and with broader patient populations are warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration number NCT03743285, NCT03849612.

Assessing the efficacy, safety and utility of closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in very young children with type 1 diabetes (KidsAP02 study): an open-label, multicentre, multinational, randomised cross-over study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes management in very young children remains challenging. Glycaemic targets are achieved at the expense of high parental diabetes management burden and frequent hypoglycaemia, impacting quality of life for the whole family. Our objective is to assess whether automated insulin delivery can improve glycaemic control and alleviate the burden of diabetes management in this particular age group.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study adopts an open-label, multinational, multicentre, randomised, crossover design and aims to randomise 72 children aged 1-7 years with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy. Following screening, participants will receive training on study insulin pump and study continuous glucose monitoring devices. Participants will be randomised to 16-week use of the hybrid closed-loop system (intervention period) or to 16-week use of sensor-augmented pump therapy (control period) with 1-4 weeks washout period before crossing over to the other arm. The order of the two study periods will be random. The primary endpoint is the between-group difference in time spent in the target glucose range from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L based on sensor glucose readings during the 16-week study periods. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Key secondary endpoints are between group differences in time spent above and below target glucose range, glycated haemoglobin and average sensor glucose. Participants' and caregivers' experiences will be evaluated using questionnaires and qualitative interviews, and sleep quality will be assessed. A health economic analysis will be performed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been obtained from Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee (UK), Ethics Committees of the University of Innsbruck, the University of Vienna and the University of Graz (Austria), Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Leipzig (Germany) and Comité National d'Ethique de Recherche (Luxembourg). The results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03784027.

Time in range centered diabetes care

Optimal glycemic control remains challenging and elusive for many people with diabetes. With the comprehensive clinical evidence on safety and efficiency in large populations, and with broader reimbursement, the adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is rapidly increasing. Standardized visual reporting and interpretation of CGM data and clear and understandable clinical targets will help professionals and individuals with diabetes use diabetes technology more efficiently, and finally improve long-term outcomes with less everyday disease burden. For the majority of people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, time in range (between 70 and 180 mg/dL, or 3.9 and 10 mmol/L) target of more than 70% is recommended, with each incremental increase of 5% towards this target being clinically meaningful. At the same time, the goal is to minimize glycemic excursions: a recommended target for a time below range (< 70 mg/dL or < 3.9 mmol/L) is less than 4%, and time above range (> 180 mg/dL or 10 mmol/L) less than 25%, with less stringent goals for older individuals or those at increased risk. These targets should be individualized: the personal use of CGM with the standardized data presentation provides all necessary means to accurately tailor diabetes management to the needs of each individual with diabetes.