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

End-to-end offline reinforcement learning for glycemia control

The development of closed-loop systems for glycemia control in type I diabetes relies heavily on simulated patients. Improving the performances and adaptability of these close-loops raises the risk of over-fitting the simulator. This may have dire consequences, especially in unusual cases which were not faithfully - if at all - captured by the simulator. To address this, we propose to use model-free offline RL agents, trained on real patient data, to perform the glycemia control. To further improve the performances, we propose an end-to-end personalization pipeline, which leverages offline-policy evaluation methods to remove altogether the need of a simulator, while still enabling an estimation of clinically relevant metrics for diabetes.

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).

The Hybrid Closed-Loop System Tandem t:slim X2™ with Control-IQ Technology: Expert Recommendations for Better Management and Optimization

Technological advances in the management of diabetes, especially type 1 diabetes (T1D), have played a main role in significantly improving glycemic control of these patients in recent years. Undoubtedly, the most important advance has been the commercialization of hybrid closed-loop systems (HCL). Their effectiveness places them in the different guidelines from scientific societies as the gold standard for the treatment of people with T1D. However, obtaining the maximum performance from these systems requires a degree of expertise from the professionals who care for these patients. Specifically, the Tandem X2:slim with Control-IQ technology system, due to its features and configuration options and adjustments, allows T1D patients to better adapt the management of diabetes to multiple circumstances in their day-to-day life. It is necessary, however, to follow a systematic process to start the system and also for the subsequent follow-up, which allows its optimization in the shortest possible time. This expert recommendation reviews the main features of this HCL system, suggesting how to implement it and optimize its use after gaining experience treating many patients.

(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.

Roadmap to Continuous Glucose Monitoring Adoption and Improved Outcomes in Endocrinology: The 4T (Teamwork, Targets, Technology, and Tight Control) Program

Glucose monitoring is essential for the management of type 1 diabetes and has evolved from urine glucose monitoring in the early 1900s to home blood glucose monitoring in the 1980s to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) today. Youth with type 1 diabetes struggle to meet A1C goals; however, CGM is associated with improved A1C in these youth and is recommended as a standard of care by diabetes professional organizations. Despite their utility, expanding uptake of CGM systems has been challenging, especially in minoritized communities. The 4T (Teamwork, Targets, Technology, and Tight Control) program was developed using a team-based approach to set consistent glycemic targets and equitably initiate CGM and remote patient monitoring in all youth with new-onset type 1 diabetes. In the pilot 4T study, youth in the 4T cohort had a 0.5% improvement in A1C 12 months after diabetes diagnosis compared with those in the historical cohort. The 4T program can serve as a roadmap for other multidisciplinary pediatric type 1 diabetes clinics to increase CGM adoption and improve glycemic outcomes.

Glucose Monitoring Metrics in Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes Using Different Treatment Modalities: A Real-World Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the association between continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived glycemic metrics and different insulin treatment modalities using real-world data.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study at Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Denmark, included individuals with type 1 diabetes using CGM. Data from September 2021 to August 2022 were analyzed if CGM was used for at least 20% of a 4-week period. Individuals were divided into four groups: multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy, insulin pumps with unintegrated CGM (SUP), sensor-augmented pumps with low glucose management (SAP), and automated insulin delivery (AID). The MDI and SUP groups were further subdivided based on CGM alarm features. The primary outcome was percentage of time in range (TIR: 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) for each treatment group. Secondary outcomes included other glucose metrics and HbA1c.

RESULTS

Out of 6,314 attendees, 3,184 CGM users were included in the analysis. Among them, 1,622 used MDI, 504 used SUP, 354 used SAP, and 561 used AID. Median TIR was 54.0% for MDI, 54.9% for SUP, 62,9% for SAP, and 72,1% for AID users. The proportion of individuals achieving all recommended glycemic targets (TIR >70%, time above range <25%, and time below range <4%) was significantly higher in SAP (odds ratio [OR] 2.4 [95% CI 1.6-3.5]) and AID (OR 9.4 [95% CI 6.7-13.0]) compared with MDI without alarm features.

CONCLUSIONS

AID appears superior to other insulin treatment modalities with CGM. Although bias may be present because of indications, AID should be considered the preferred choice for insulin pump therapy.

The Tandem Control-IQ advanced hybrid system improves glycemic control in children under 18 years of age with type 1 diabetes and night rest in caregivers

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of switching from the predictive low glucose suspend (PLGS) system to the advanced hybrid Tandem Control-IQ system on glucometrics and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at one year. To assess the impact on the quality of life perceived by parents.

METHOD

Prospective study in 71 patients aged 6-18 years with type 1 diabetes (DM1), in treatment with PLGS, who switched to an advanced hybrid system. Glucometric data were collected before the change, at 4 and 8 weeks, and at one year of use; HbA1c before the change and after one year. The Diabetes Impact and Devices Satisfaction (DIDS) questionnaire was used at weeks 4 and 8.

RESULTS

An increase in time in range (TIR) was observed with a median of 76% (P<.001) at 4 weeks, which was maintained after one year (+8% in the total group). Overall, 73.24% of patients achieved a TIR above 70%. The subgroup with an initial TIR of less than 56% increased it by 14.4%. After one year there was a 0.3% reduction in HbA1c. Level 1 hypoglycaemia, level 1 and level 2 hyperglycaemia, mean glucose (GM) and coefficient of variation (CV) decreased. Auto mode stayed on 97% of the time and no dropouts occurred. Caregivers had a perception of better glycaemic control and less need to monitor blood glucose variations during the night. None of them would switch back to the previous system and they feel safe with the new system.

CONCLUSIONS

The Tandem Control-IQ advanced hybrid system was shown to be effective one year after its implementation with improvement in all glucometric parameters and HbA1c, as well as night-time rest in caregivers.

Efficacy and safety of Android artificial pancreas system use at home among adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus in China: protocol of a 26-week, free-living, randomised, open-label, two-arm, two-phase, crossover trial

INTRODUCTION

Do-it-yourself artificial pancreas system (DIY APS) is built using commercially available insulin pump, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and an open-source algorithm. Compared with commercial products, DIY systems are affordable, allow personalised settings and provide updated algorithms, making them a more promising therapy for most patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Many small and self-reported observational studies have found that their real-world use was associated with potential metabolic and psychological benefits. However, rigorous-designed studies are urgently needed to confirm its efficacy and safety.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this 26-week randomised, open-label, two-arm, two-phase, crossover trial, participants aged 18-75 years, with T1DM and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7-11%, will use AndroidAPS during one 12-week period and sensor-augmented pump during another 12-week period. This study will recruit at least 24 randomised participants. AndroidAPS consists of three components: (1) real-time CGM; (2) insulin pump; (3) AndroidAPS algorithm implemented in Android smartphone. The primary endpoint is time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) derived from CGM. The main secondary endpoints include percentage of sensor glucose values below, within and above target range; mean sensor glucose value; measures of glycaemic variability and centralised HbA1c. Safety endpoints mainly include the frequency of hypoglycaemia events, diabetic ketoacidosis and other serious adverse events.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University. There will be verbal and written information regarding the trial given to each participant. The study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

OVERALL STATUS

Recruiting.

STUDY START

11 February 2023.

PRIMARY COMPLETION

31 July 2024.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05726461).

Emerging Diabetes Technologies: Continuous Glucose Monitors/Artificial Pancreases

Over the past decade there have been many advances in diabetes technologies, such as continuous glucose monitors (CGM s), insulin-delivery devices, and hybrid closed loop systems . Now most CGMs (Medtronic-Guardian, Dexcom-G6, and Abbott-Libre-2) have MARD values of < 10%, in contrast to two decades ago when the MARD used to be > 20%. In addition, the majority of the new CGMs do not require calibrations, and the latest CGMs last for 10-14 days. An implantable 6-months CGM by Eversense-3 is now approved in the USA and Europe. Recently, the FDA approved Libre 3 which provides real-time glucose values every minute. Even though it is approved as an iCGM it is not interoperable with automatic-insulin-delivery (AID) systems. The newer CGMs that are likely to be launched in the next few months in the USA include the 10-11 days Dexcom G7 (60% smaller than the existing G6), and the 7-days Medtronic Guardian 4. Most of the newer CGM have several features like automatic initialization, easy insertion, predictive alarms, and alerts. It has also been noticed that an arm insertion site might have better accuracy than abdomen or other sites, like the buttock for kids. Lag time between YSI and different sensors have been reported differently, sometimes it is down to 2-3 min; however, in many instances, it is still 15-20 min, especially when the rate of change of glucose is > 2 mg/min. We believe that in the next decade there will be a significant increase in the number of people who use CGM for their day-to-day diabetes care.

Trial of Hybrid Closed-Loop Control in Young Children with Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Closed-loop control systems of insulin delivery may improve glycemic outcomes in young children with type 1 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of initiating a closed-loop system virtually are unclear.

METHODS

In this 13-week, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, children who were at least 2 years of age but younger than 6 years of age who had type 1 diabetes to receive treatment with a closed-loop system of insulin delivery or standard care that included either an insulin pump or multiple daily injections of insulin plus a continuous glucose monitor. 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. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of time that the glucose level was above 250 mg per deciliter or below 70 mg per deciliter, the mean glucose level, the glycated hemoglobin level, and safety outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 102 children underwent randomization (68 to the closed-loop group and 34 to the standard-care group); the glycated hemoglobin levels at baseline ranged from 5.2 to 11.5%. Initiation of the closed-loop system was virtual in 55 patients (81%). The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the glucose level was within the target range increased from 56.7±18.0% at baseline to 69.3±11.1% during the 13-week follow-up period in the closed-loop group and from 54.9±14.7% to 55.9±12.6% in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference, 12.4 percentage points [equivalent to approximately 3 hours per day]; 95% confidence interval, 9.5 to 15.3; P<0.001). We observed similar treatment effects (favoring the closed-loop system) on the percentage of time that the glucose level was above 250 mg per deciliter, on the mean glucose level, and on the glycated hemoglobin level, with no significant between-group difference in the percentage of time that the glucose level was below 70 mg per deciliter. There were two cases of severe hypoglycemia in the closed-loop group and one case in the standard-care group. One case of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this trial involving young children with type 1 diabetes, the glucose level was in the target range for a greater percentage of time with a closed-loop system than with standard care. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; PEDAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04796779.).

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

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

Human Digital Twin for Personalized Elderly Type 2 Diabetes Management

Managing Elderly type 2 diabetes (E-T2D) is challenging due to geriatric conditions (e.g., co-morbidity, multiple drug intake, etc.), and personalization becomes paramount for precision medicine. This paper presents a human digital twin (HDT) framework to manage E-T2D that exploits various patient-specific data and builds a suite of models exploiting the data for prediction and management to personalize diabetes treatment in E-T2D patients. These models include mathematical and deep-learning ones that capture different patient aspects. Consequently, the HDT virtualizes the patient from different viewpoints using an HDT that mimics the patient and has interfaces to update the virtual models simultaneously from measurements. Using these models the HDT obtains deeper insights about the patient. Further, an adaptive patient model fusing this information and a learning-based model predictive control (LB-MPC) algorithm are proposed. The geriatric conditions are captured as model parameters and constraints while solving the LB-MPC to personalize the insulin infusion for E-T2D management. The HDT is deployed on and illustrated with 15 patients using clinical trials and simulations. Our results show that HDT helps improve the time-in-range from 3–75% to 86–97% and reduces insulin infusion by 14–29%.

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.

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.

Continuous Glucose Monitor, Insulin Pump, and Automated Insulin Delivery Therapies for Type 1 Diabetes: An Update on Potential for Cardiovascular Benefits

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The incidence of type 1 diabetes (T1D) is rising in all age groups. T1D is associated with chronic microvascular and macrovascular complications but improving glycemic trends can delay the onset and slow the progression of these complications. Utilization of technological devices for diabetes management, such as continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and insulin pumps, is increasing, and these devices are associated with improvements in glycemic trends. Thus, device use may be associated with long-term prevention of T1D complications, yet few studies have investigated the direct impacts of devices on chronic complications in T1D. This review will describe common diabetes devices and combination systems, as well as review relationships between device use and cardiovascular outcomes in T1D.

RECENT FINDINGS

Findings from existing cohort and national registry studies suggest that pump use may aid in improving cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension and dyslipidemia. Furthermore, pump users have been shown to have lower arterial stiffness and better measures of myocardial function. In registry and case-control longitudinal data, pump use has been associated with fewer cardiovascular events and reduction of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality. CVD is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in T1D. Consistent use of diabetes devices may protect against the development and progression of macrovascular complications such as CVD through improvement in glycemic trends. Existing literature is limited, but findings suggest that pump use may reduce acute cardiovascular risk factors as well as chronic cardiovascular complications and overall mortality in T1D.

Practical Guidance on Open Source and Commercial Automated Insulin Delivery Systems: A Guide for Healthcare Professionals Supporting People with Insulin-Requiring Diabetes

As increasing numbers of people with insulin-managed diabetes use automated insulin delivery (AID) systems or seek such technologies, healthcare providers are faced with a steep learning curve. Healthcare providers need to understand how to support these technologies to help inform shared decision making, discussing available options, implementing them in the clinical setting, and guiding users in special situations. At the same time, there is a growing diversity of commercial and open source automated insulin delivery systems that are evolving at a rapid pace. This practical guide seeks to provide a conversational framework for healthcare providers to first understand and then jointly assess AID system options with users and caregivers. Using this framework will help HCPs in learning how to evaluate potential new commercial or open source AID systems, while also providing a guide for conversations to help HCPs to assess the readiness and understanding of users for AID systems. The choice of an AID system is not as simple as whether the system is open source or commercially developed, and indeed there are multiple criteria to assess when choosing an AID system. Most importantly, the choices and preferences of the person living with diabetes should be at the center of any decision around the ideal automated insulin delivery system or any other diabetes technology. This framework highlights issues with AID use that may lead to burnout or perceived failures or may otherwise cause users to abandon the use of AID. It discusses the troubleshooting of basic AID system operation and discusses more advanced topics regarding how to maximize the time spent on AID systems, including how to optimize settings and behaviors for the best possible outcomes with AID technology for people with insulin-requiring diabetes. This practical approach article demonstrates how healthcare providers will benefit from assessing and better understanding all available AID system options to enable them to best support each individual.

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.

Current Status and Emerging Options for Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

Combining technologies including rapid insulin analogs, insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, and control algorithms has allowed for the creation of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. These systems have proven to be the most effective technology for optimizing metabolic control and could hold the key to broadly achieving goal-level glycemic control for people with type 1 diabetes. The use of AID has exploded in the past several years with several options available in the United States and even more in Europe. In this article, we review the largest studies involving these AID systems, and then examine future directions for AID with an emphasis on usability.

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.

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.

Recent advances in closed-loop insulin delivery

Since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago, we have seen considerable advances across diabetes therapies. The more recent advent of glucose-responsive automated insulin delivery has started to revolutionise the management of type 1 diabetes in children and adults. Evolution of closed-loop insulin delivery from research to clinical practice has been rapid, and multiple systems are now commercially available. In this review, we summarise key evidence on currently available closed-loop systems and those in development. We comment on dual-hormone and do-it-yourself systems, as well as reviewing clinical evidence in special populations such as very young children, older adults and in pregnancy. We identify future directions for research and barriers to closed-loop adoption, including how these might be addressed to ensure equitable access to this novel therapy.

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

BACKGROUND

The possible advantage of hybrid closed-loop therapy (i.e., artificial pancreas) over sensor-augmented pump therapy in very young children with type 1 diabetes is unclear.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, crossover trial, we recruited children 1 to 7 years of age with type 1 diabetes who were receiving insulin-pump therapy at seven centers across Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom. Participants received treatment in two 16-week periods, in random order, in which the closed-loop system was compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy (control). The primary end point was the between-treatment difference in the percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was in the target range (70 to 180 mg per deciliter) during each 16-week period. The analysis was conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary end points included the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state (glucose level, >180 mg per deciliter), the glycated hemoglobin level, the mean sensor glucose level, and the percentage of time spent in a hypoglycemic state (glucose level, <70 mg per deciliter). Safety was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 74 participants underwent randomization. The mean (±SD) age of the participants was 5.6±1.6 years, and the baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 7.3±0.7%. The percentage of time with the glucose level in the target range was 8.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.4 to 9.9) higher during the closed-loop period than during the control period (P<0.001). The mean adjusted difference (closed-loop minus control) in the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state was -8.5 percentage points (95% CI, -9.9 to -7.1), the difference in the glycated hemoglobin level was -0.4 percentage points (95% CI, -0.5 to -0.3), and the difference in the mean sensor glucose level was -12.3 mg per deciliter (95% CI, -14.8 to -9.8) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). The time spent in a hypoglycemic state was similar with the two treatments (P = 0.74). The median time spent in the closed-loop mode was 95% (interquartile range, 92 to 97) over the 16-week closed-loop period. One serious adverse event of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the closed-loop period. One serious adverse event that was deemed to be unrelated to treatment occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

A hybrid closed-loop system significantly improved glycemic control in very young children with type 1 diabetes, without increasing the time spent in hypoglycemia. (Funded by the European Commission and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03784027.).

Review of Automated Insulin Delivery Systems for Type 1 Diabetes and Associated Time in Range Outcomes

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems play an important role in the management of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). These systems include three components: a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), an insulin pump and an algorithm that adjusts the pump based on the CGM sensor glucose readings. They are not fully automated and still require the user to administer bolus insulin doses for food. Some AID systems have automatic correction boluses, while others only have automatic basal or background insulin adjustments. As CGM has become more accurate and the technology has evolved, AID systems have demonstrated improved glycaemic outcomes. The clinical evaluation of AID systems in randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown their utility in helping glycaemic management. In this review, we compare AID systems that are commercially available in the US and summarize the literature, with a special focus on time in range in T1DM. The review also discusses new AID systems on the horizon and explores considerations for personalized care.

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.

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.

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.