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

Safety and Psychological Outcomes of Tandem t:Slim X2 Insulin Pump with Control-IQ Technology in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review

The Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump is a second-generation automated insulin delivery system with Control-IQ technology. It consists of an X2 insulin pump, an integrated Dexcom sensor, and an embedded 'Control-IQ' algorithm, which predicts glucose levels 30 min in the future, adapting the programmed basal insulin rates to get glucose levels between 112.5 and 160 mg/dl (8.9 mmol/l). The system delivers automatic correction boluses of insulin when glucose levels are predicted to rise > 180 mg/dl (10 mmol/l). It has been commercially available since 2016. We reviewed the current evidence about the psychological, safety, and exercise-related outcomes of this device in children, adolescents, and young adults living with type 1 diabetes. We screened 552 papers, but only 21 manuscripts were included in this review. Fear of hypoglycemia is significantly reduced in young people with diabetes and their parents. Interestingly, diabetes-related distress is decreased; thus, the system is well accepted by the users. The sleeping quality of subjects living with diabetes and their caregivers is improved to a lesser extent as well. Despite the small number of data, this system is associated with a low rate of exercise-related hypoglycemia. Finally, evidence from the literature shows that this system is safe and effective in improving psychological personal outcomes. Even if further steps toward the fully closed loop are still mandatory, this second-generation automated insulin delivery system reduces the burden of diabetes. It properly addresses most psychological issues in children, adolescents, and young adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus; thus, it appears to be well accepted.

Use of diabetes technology in children

Children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers face numerous challenges navigating the unpredictability of this complex disease. Although the burden of managing diabetes remains significant, new technology has eased some of the load and allowed children with type 1 diabetes to achieve tighter glycaemic management without fear of excess hypoglycaemia. Continuous glucose monitor use alone improves outcomes and is considered standard of care for paediatric type 1 diabetes management. Similarly, automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have proven to be safe and effective for children as young as 2 years of age. AID use improves not only blood glucose levels but also quality of life for children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers and should be strongly considered for all youth with type 1 diabetes if available and affordable. Here, we review key data on the use of diabetes technology in the paediatric population and discuss management issues unique to children and adolescents.

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.

Quality of life, diabetes-related stress and treatment satisfaction are correlated with glycemia risk index (GRI), time in range and hypoglycemia/hyperglycemia components in type 1 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the relationship between the GRI -component of hypoglycemia (CHypo) and hyperglycemia (CHyper)- with diabetes quality of life (DQoL), diabetes-related stress (DDS), perception of hypoglycemia (Clarke Test), visual analogic scale (VAS) and diabetes-knowledge (DKQ2) in T1D.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study in 92 patients with T1D under intensive insulin treatment (21.7% CSII) and flash glucose monitoring (isCGM). Clinical, metabolic and glycometric parameters and quality of life/satisfaction questionnaires were analyzed.

RESULTS

92 patients (54.3% male, BMI 25.4 ± 4.5 kg/m2, HbA1c 7.5 ± 1.0%, TIR 53.9 ± 15.9%) with mean age 36.1 ± 12.6years and 17.8 ± 11.3 T1D duration. The mean GRI was 60.6 ± 22.2 with a CHypo and CHyper of 5.9 ± 4.8 and 27.3 ± 14.4, respectively. 19.1% presented a pathological Clarke's test. Patients with TIR > 70% and GRI < 40 showed better VAS (8.8 ± 1.3 vs 9.3 ± 0.9, p < 0.05) and DDS (46.4 ± 22.1 vs 36.7 ± 16.6, p < 0.05) scores, showing no differences between groups. CHyper > 15 and Chypo > 3.4 were related to worse levels of DQoL (91.1 ± 23.9 vs 76.6 ± 18.6 and 94.6 ± 24.8 vs 79.8 ± 20.1, p < 0.01), DDS(49.8 ± 22.4 vs 35.7 ± 16.5 and 49.8 ± 22.4 vs 35.7 ± 16.5, p < 0.01),and DKQ2 (24.4 ± 4.3 vs 26.8 ± 5.2 and 24.1 ± 4.8 vs 26.0 ± 4.6, p < 0.05), respectively. Worse metabolic control defined by GRI correlated with worse scores in VAS (r = -0.209, p < 0.05), DQoL (r = 0.205, p < 0.05), and DDS (r = 0.205, p < 0.05). No difference was observed in knowledge´s scale. CHyper correlated with worse scores in VAS (r = -0.231, p < 0.05), DQoL (r = 0.422, p < 0.01), and DDS (r = 0.341, p < 0.01) and lower degree of knowledge DKQ2 (r = -0.231, p < 0.05). When analyzing DQoL as a dependent variable in a multiple lineal regression, only age (β = 0.747; p < 0.001) and CHyper (β = 0.717; p < 0.001) maintained statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher GRI was related to worse quality of life, diabetes-related stress and satisfaction with treatment, analogous to the TIR results.CHyper an Chypo were related to a greater decline in quality of life, diabetes-related stress, and lower satisfaction with treatment.However, in a multiple linear regression, only CHyper maintained statistical significance.

Hybrid Closed Loop Systems Improve Glycemic Control and Quality of Life in Historically Minoritized Youth with Diabetes

Background: We assessed changes in glycemic control and person-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology use among historically minoritized youth who are least likely to access hybrid closed loop (HCL) technology. Methods: This single-arm, prospective pilot study enrolled 15 publicly insured, insulin pump-naïve, non-Hispanic Black youth ages 6 to <21 years with type 1 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥10% in a 6-month study of HCL use. The primary outcome was absolute change in time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes included other continuous glucose monitor metrics, PROMs, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) incidence. Results: For 13 youth (median 14.8 years, 53.3% female, HbA1c 11.7%) who completed the study, baseline TIR of 12.3% (6.3-27.1%) increased 23.7%-points (16.9, 30.5%; P < 0.001) or 5.7 h per day. Percent time >250 mg/dL decreased 33.9%-points (-44.8, -23.1%; P < 0.001) or 8.1 h per day from a baseline of 69.4% (51.6, 84.0%). Median time in HCL was 78.3% (59.7, 87.3%). Youth received 10.1 (9.2, 11.9) boluses per day, 71.7% (63.8, 79.3%) of which were HCL-initiated autoboluses. Diabetes-specific quality of life increased among parents (P < 0.001) and youth (P = 0.004), and diabetes distress decreased in both groups (P < 0.001, P = 0.005). Improvements in glycemia did not correlate with any baseline youth or parent PROMs. DKA was high at baseline (67 episodes/100-person years) and did not increase during the intervention (72 episodes/100-person years, P = 0.78). Conclusion: Improvements in glycemic control and quality of life exceeding pivotal trial findings without increased safety risks among historically minoritized youth emphasize the need for equitable access to HCL systems. ClinicalTrials.gov: clinicaltrials.gov ID (NCT04807374).

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.

Real-World Use of Control-IQ Technology Is Associated with a Lower Rate of Severe Hypoglycemia and Diabetic Ketoacidosis Than Historical Data: Results of the Control-IQ Observational (CLIO) Prospective Study

Objective: Severe hypoglycemia (SH) and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) remain significant risks with intensive insulin therapy. While these adverse event (AE) rates are generally very low in advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) clinical studies, prospectively collected real-world AE rates are lacking. Research Design and Methods: The Control-IQ Observational (CLIO) study was a single-arm, prospective, longitudinal, postmarket surveillance study of individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) age 6 years and older who began the use of t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology in the real-world outpatient setting. AEs were reported monthly over 12 months and were compared to historical data from the T1D Exchange. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed quarterly. All study visits were virtual. Results: Three thousand one hundred fifty-seven participants enrolled from August 2020 through March 2022. Two thousand nine hundred ninety-eight participants completed through 12 months. SH rates were significantly lower than historic rates for children (9.31 vs. 19.31 events/100 patient years, d = 0.29, P < 0.01) and adults (9.77 vs. 29.49 events/100 patient years, d = 0.53, P < 0.01). DKA rates were also significantly lower in both groups. Lower observed rates of AEs occurred independent of baseline hemoglobin A1c or prior insulin delivery method. Time in range 70-180 mg/dL was 70.1% (61.0-78.8) for adults, 61.2% (52.4-70.5) for age 6-13, 60.9% (50.1-71.8) for age 14-17, and 67.3% (57.4-76.9) overall. Reduction in diabetes burden was consistently reported. Conclusions: SH and DKA rates were lower for users of t:slim X2 with Control-IQ technology compared to historical data for both adults and children. Real-world use of this AHCL system proved safe and effective in this virtual study design. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04503174).

Psychosocial Impact of the Insulin-Only iLet Bionic Pancreas for Adults, Youth, and Caregivers of Youth with Type 1 Diabetes

Objective: To evaluate the psychosocial impact and user experience for the insulin-only configuration of iLet bionic pancreas (BP) in persons 6-83 years years of age with type 1 diabetes. Research Design and Methods: In this multicenter, randomized controlled, 13-week trial, 275 adults (221 randomly assigned to the BP group and 54 to the standard of care [SC] group) and 165 youth and their caregivers (112 randomly assigned to the BP group and 53 to the SC group) completed psychosocial questionnaires at baseline, mid-study, and the end of the trial. Results: In all age groups, most participants would recommend using the BP, including those with previous experience using automated insulin delivery devices. Similarly, the vast majority of participants reported a high level of perceived benefits and a low number of perceived burdens. Adult participants reported significant decreases in the fear of hypoglycemia and in diabetes-specific emotional distress, as well as improvements in their perceived well-being. Conclusion: Findings demonstrate acceptability, reduced burden, and positive psychosocial outcomes for adults. Children and teenagers also report high acceptability and reduced burden, but less clear improvements in psychosocial outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT04200313.

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.

Glucose control and psychosocial outcomes with use of automated insulin delivery for 12 to 96 weeks in type 1 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Glycaemic control of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) remains a challenge due to hypoglycaemic episodes and the burden of insulin self-management. Advancements have been made with the development of automated insulin delivery (AID) devices, yet, previous reviews have only assessed the use of AID over days or weeks, and potential benefits with longer time of AID use in this population remain unclear.

METHODS

 We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing AID (hybrid and fully closed-loop systems) to usual care (sensor augmented pumps, multiple daily insulin injections, continuous glucose monitoring and predictive low-glucose suspend) for adults and children with T1DM with a minimum duration of 3 months. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Clinicaltrials.gov for studies published up until April 4, 2023. Main outcomes included time in range 70-180 mg/dL as the primary outcome, and change in HbA1c (%, mmol/mol), glucose variability, and psychosocial impact (diabetes distress, treatment satisfaction and fear of hypoglycaemia) as secondary outcomes. Adverse events included diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and severe hypoglycaemia. Statistical analyses were conducted using mean differences and odds ratios. Sensitivity analyses were performed according to age, study duration and type of AID device. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42022366710.

RESULTS

We identified 25 comparisons from 22 studies (six crossover and 16 parallel designs) including a total of 2376 participants (721 in adult studies, 621 in paediatric studies, and 1034 in combined studies) which were eligible for analysis. Use of AID devices ranged from 12 to 96 weeks. Patients using AID had 10.87% higher time in range [95% CI 9.38 to 12.37; p < 0.0001, I2 = 87%) and 0.37% (4.77 mmol/mol) lower HbA1c (95% CI - 0.49% (- 6.39 mmol/mol) to - 0.26 (- 3.14 mmol/mol); p < 0·0001, I2 = 77%]. AID systems decreased night hypoglycaemia, time in hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia and improved patient distress, with no increase in the risk of DKA or severe hypoglycaemia. No difference was found regarding treatment satisfaction or fear of hypoglycaemia. Among children, there was no difference in glucose variability or time spent in hypoglycaemia between the use of AID systems or usual care. In sensitivity analyses, results remained consistent with the overall analysis favouring AID.

CONCLUSION

The use of AID systems over 12 weeks, regardless of technical or clinical differences, improved glycaemic outcomes and diabetes distress without increasing the risk of adverse events in adults and children with T1DM.

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.

New therapies towards a better glycemic control in youths with type 1 diabetes

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is the most frequent form of diabetes in pediatric age, affecting more than 1.5 million people younger than age 20 years worldwide. Early and intensive control of diabetes provides continued protection against both microvascular and macrovascular complications, enhances growth, and ensures normal pubertal development. In the absence of definitive reversal therapy for this disease, achieving and maintaining the recommended glycemic targets is crucial. In the last 30 years, enormous progress has been made using technology to better treat T1D. In spite of this progress, the majority of children, adolescents and young adults do not reach the recommended targets for glycemic control and assume a considerable burden each day. The development of promising new therapeutic advances, such as more physiologic insulin analogues, pioneering diabetes technology including continuous glucose monitoring and closed loop systems as well as new adjuvant drugs, anticipate a new paradigm in T1D management over the next few years. This review presents insights into current management of T1D in youths.

Measures of Patient-Reported Expectations, Acceptance, and Satisfaction Using Automated Insulin Delivery Systems: A Review

In people with type 1 diabetes, Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) systems adjust insulin delivery in response to sensor glucose data and consist of three components: an insulin pump, a continuous glucose sensor, and an algorithm that determines insulin delivery. To date, all the available AID systems require users to announce carbohydrate intake and deliver meal boluses, as well as respond to system alarms. The use of AID devices both initially and over time may be influenced by a variety of psychological factors. Analysis of patient-related outcomes should be taken into account, while recruiting applicants for the systems who are motivated and have realistic expectations in order to prevent AID dropout. We report an up-to-date summary of the available measures and semi-structured interview content to assess AID expectations, acceptance, and satisfaction using the AID systems. In conclusion, we suggest, before and after starting using AID systems, performing a specific evaluation of the related psychological implications, using validated measures and semi-structured interviews, that allows diabetes care providers to tailor their education approach to the factors that concern the patient at that time; they can teach problem-solving skills and other behavioral strategies to support sustained use of the AID system.

Differences in positive expectancy of hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems do not explain racial differences in HCL use

Aims

Hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems improve glycemia and quality of life among youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D), however there are inequities in use. We aimed to evaluate whether differences in positive expectancy of HCL systems may explain differences in use.

Methods

Fifteen publicly-insured, non-Hispanic Black (NHB) youth with hemoglobin A1_C (HbA1c) ≥ 10% enrolled in a study exploring changes in glycemia and person reported outcomes (PRO) during 6 months of Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology. At baseline youth and parents completed PROs, including Insulin Delivery Systems: Perceptions, Ideas, Reflections and Expectations (INSPIRE) survey assessing positive expectancy of HCL use, and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) survey assessing diabetes-related distress. Differences between this cohort and the Tandem Control-IQ pediatric pivotal trial (DCLP5) cohort were assessed.

Results

As compared to the DCLP5 cohort (0% NHB, 10% publicly-insured), baseline glycemic indicators were suboptimal (M_HbA1c 11.9 ± 1.4% vs 7.6 ± 0.9%, p < 0.0001; continuous glucose monitor (CGM) time-above-range > 180 mg/dL 82 ± 15% vs 45 ± 18%, p < 0.0001). INSPIRE scores in both cohorts were equally high among youth (80 ± 10 vs 77 ± 13, p = 0.41) and parents (88 ± 14 vs 85 ± 11, p = 0.37). PAID scores were higher among parents (68 ± 19 vs 43 ± 16, p < 0.0001), but not youth (43 ± 16 vs 35 ± 16, p = 0.09) in the historically marginalized cohort as compared to the DCLP5 cohort.

Conclusions

Despite differences in glycemic control and diabetes related burden, positive expectancy of HCL systems is comparable among historically marginalized youth with T1D and the predominantly non-Hispanic White, privately insured DCLP5 cohort. These findings suggest that differences in perceptions of HCL technology may not explain inequities in use.

Switching from treatment with sensor augmented pump to hybrid closed loop system in type 1 diabetes: impact on glycemic control and neuropsychological tests in the real world

AIMS

The aim of this study is to assess in the real world the impact of initiating hybrid closed loop (HCL) on glycemic control and quality of life in patients using sensor-augmented pump (SAP).

METHODS

In this prospective study, patients using SAP changed to an HCL system in a specialized hospital. HCL devices used were Medtronic 780G®, Tandem Control-IQ® and Diabeloop® system. Glucometric data and hypoglycemia and neuropsychological tests were assessed at baseline and 3 months after initiating HCL.

RESULTS

A total of 66 consecutive patients were included (74% women, mean age 44±11 years, diabetes duration 27.2 ±11 years). Significant improvements were observed in coefficient of variation (from 35.6% to 33.1%), time in range (from 62.2 % to 73.8%), time above 180 mg/dl (from 26.9% to 18%), time below 70 mg/dl (from 3.3% to 2.1%) and time below 55 mg/dl (from 0.7% to 0.3%). In addition, significant improvements were observed in fear of hypoglycemia and grade of distress associated to treatment and to interpersonal sphere.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from SAP to HCL system improves time in range and reduces time in hypoglycemia and glycemic variability at 3 months. These changes are accompanied by significant reduction of neuropsychological burden related to diabetes.

A Systematic Review of Commercial Hybrid Closed-Loop Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

INTRODUCTION

Several different forms of automated insulin delivery systems (AID systems) have recently been developed and are now licensed for type 1 diabetes (T1D). We undertook a systematic review of reported trials and real-world studies for commercial hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems.

METHODS

Pivotal, phase III and real-world studies using commercial HCL systems that are currently approved for use in type 1 diabetes were reviewed with a devised protocol using the Medline database.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies were included in the systematic review (19 for 670G; 8 for 780G; 11 for Control-IQ; 14 for CamAPS FX; 4 for Diabeloop; and 3 for Omnipod 5). Twenty were real-world studies, and 39 were trials or sub-analyses. Twenty-three studies, including 17 additional studies, related to psychosocial outcomes and were analysed separately.

CONCLUSIONS

These studies highlighted that HCL systems improve time In range (TIR) and arouse minimal concerns around severe hypoglycaemia. HCL systems are an effective and safe option for improving diabetes care. Real-world comparisons between systems and their effects on psychological outcomes require further study.

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

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

Quality of life and psychological well-being among children and adolescents with diabetes and their caregivers using open-source automated insulin delivery systems: Findings from a multinational survey

BACKGROUND

Open-source automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have shown to be safe and effective in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in real-world studies. However, there is a lack of evidence on the effect on their caregivers' quality-of-life (QoL) and well-being. The aim of this study was to assess the QoL of caregivers and children and adolescents using open-source AID systems using validated measures.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional online survey we examined the caregiver-reported QoL and well-being of users and non-users. Validated questionnaires assessed general well-being (WHO-5), diabetes-specific QoL (PAID, PedsQL) and sleep quality (PSQI).

RESULTS

168 caregivers from 27 countries completed at least one questionnaire, including 119 caregivers of children using open-source AID and 49 not using them. After inclusion of covariates, all measures but the PAID and one subscale of the PedsQL showed significant between-group differences with AID users reporting higher general (WHO-5: p = 0.003), sleep-related (PSQI: p = 0.001) and diabetes-related QoL (PedsQL: p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results show the potential impact of open-source AID on QoL and psychological well-being of caregivers and children and adolescents with T1D, and can therefore help to inform academia, regulators, and policymakers about the psychosocial health implications of open-source AID.

Lived experience of CamAPS FX closed loop system in youth with type 1 diabetes and their parents

AIM

To examine changes in the lived experience of type 1 diabetes after use of hybrid closed loop (CL), including the CamAPS FX CL system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The primary study was conducted as an open-label, single-period, randomized, parallel design contrasting CL versus insulin pump (with or without continuous glucose monitoring). Participants were asked to complete patient-reported outcomes before starting CL and 3 and 6 months later. Surveys assessed diabetes distress, hypoglycaemia concerns and quality of life. Qualitative focus group data were collected at the completion of the study.

RESULTS

In this sample of 98 youth (age range 6-18, mean age 12.7 ± 2.8 years) and their parents, CL use was not associated with psychosocial benefits overall. However, the subgroup (n = 12) using the CamAPS FX system showed modest improvements in quality of life and parent distress, reinforced by both survey (p < .05) and focus group responses. There were no negative effects of CL use reported by study participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Closed loop use via the CamAPS FX system was associated with modest improvements in aspects of the lived experience of managing type 1 diabetes in youth and their families. Further refinements of the system may optimize the user experience.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

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.

Bring Blood Glucose Down! An intervention to reduce fear of hypoglycemia in caregivers of adolescents with type 1 diabetes: Study design and participant characteristics

Fear of hypoglycemia (FOH) is anxiety or extreme worry about having a low blood glucose and its consequences. FOH is common in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) of all ages, as well as their caregivers, and can lead to inappropriate T1D self-management and suboptimal health outcomes. Despite its prevalence and serious health consequences, there has been very little attention focused on developing interventions to reduce FOH and its associated maladaptive T1D management behaviors. The primary aim of the present study, Bring BG Down!, was to implement a pilot intervention targeting FOH in mothers of adolescents with T1D. Exploratory aims included determining if the intervention had an impact on the adolescent's FOH, glycemia, as well as other generalized anxiety symptoms or symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder in both the mother and adolescent. Caregiver participants and their adolescents with T1D were randomized to either the Bring BG Down! group or the Control group. Individuals in the Bring BG Down! group participated in intervention sessions for 6 months via telehealth and they completed questionnaires, whereas those in the Control group only completed questionnaires. Follow-up occurred at 7-months and 10-months. The purpose of this paper is to describe the Bring BG Down! study design and rationale, and participant characteristics at the start of the study.

The Psychological Implications of Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in Type 1 Diabetes Care

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have brought important glycemic benefits to type 1 diabetes management. The present paper provides an overview of their psychological implications. Trials and real-world observational studies report improvements in diabetes-specific quality of life, with qualitative work describing reduced management burden, increased flexibility and improved relationships. Not all experiences are positive, however, evidenced by dropping algorithm use soon after device initiation. Apart from finance and logistics, reasons for discontinuation include technology frustrations, wear-related issues and unmet glycemic and work load expectations. New challenges include distrust in proper AID functioning, overreliance and deskilling, compensatory behaviors to override or trick the system and optimize time in range, and concerns related to wearing multiple devices on the body. Research efforts may focus on incorporating a diversity perspective, updating existing person-reported outcome measures according to new technology developments, addressing implicit or explicit health professional bias in technology access, examining the merits of incorporating stress reactivity in the AID algorithm, and developing concrete approaches for psychological counseling and support related to technology use. An open dialogue with health professionals and peers about expectations, preferences and needs may foster the collaboration between the person with diabetes and the AID system.

Improvements in Parental Sleep, Fear of Hypoglycemia, and Diabetes Distress With Use of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System

OBJECTIVE

Parental sleep quality may contribute to glycemic control in youth with type 1 diabetes. In this article we present sleep analysis from a multicenter, randomized trial of children ages 6-13 years with type 1 diabetes evaluating the Tandem Control-IQ (CIQ) hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) scores were assessed at baseline to identify parents as "poor" sleepers (PSQI >5). Glycemic and psycho-behavioral outcomes before and after CIQ use were analyzed in poor sleepers (n = 49) and their children.

RESULTS

Nocturnal time in range (P < 0.001) and time hyperglycemic (P < 0.001), Hypoglycemia Fear Survey for Parents score (P < 0.001), Problem Areas in Diabetes scale score (P < 0.001), PSQI score (P < 0.001), and Hypoglycemia Fear Survey for Children score (P = 0.025) significantly improved. Of poor sleepers, 27 became good sleepers (PSQI score <5).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of CIQ in youth with type 1 diabetes ages 6-13 years significantly improved sleep and psychosocial measures in parent poor sleepers, coinciding with improvements in child nocturnal glycemia, highlighting the relationship between HCL systems and parent sleep quality.

To sleep or not to sleep: An Italian Control-IQ-uestion

OBJECTIVE

Tandem Control-IQ is an advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system with a Sleep Activity Mode to intensify glycemic control overnight. The aim of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of using Sleep Mode or not among Tandem Control-IQ users.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective Tandem Control-IQ data download for patients followed at IRCCS G. Gaslini Pediatric Diabetes Centre. We divided the patients into group 1 (Sleep Mode users) and group 2 (non-users) and compared their overall glycemic data, particularly during nighttime.

RESULTS

Group 1 (n = 49) does not show better nocturnal glycemic control as expected when compared with group 2 (n = 34). Group 2 shows a nighttime TIR% of 69.50 versus 66.25 (p = 0.20). Only the patients who do not use Sleep Mode and with sensor and automatic mode use ≥90% reached TIR >70% during nighttime, as well as lower nocturnal TAR% (18.80 versus 21.78, p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study that evaluates the real-life effectiveness of the use of Sleep Mode in young patients with T1D. Control-IQ Sleep Activity Mode may not be as effective in Italian patients as in American patients due to the different habits.

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.

Psychometric Properties of the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey in a Clinical Sample of Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes and Their Caregivers

OBJECTIVE

A previously published exploratory factor analysis suggested that the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-Child and Parent Versions, is comprised of three subscales: Maintain High Blood Glucose, Helplessness/Worry About Low Blood Glucose, and Worry About Negative Social Consequences. The primary aim of this study was to confirm this three-factor model with a clinical population of adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and their caregivers.

METHODS

Participants included N = 1,035 youth ages 10-17.99 years with T1D, and their female (N = 835) and/or male (N = 326) caregivers who completed the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey independently during a routine medical appointment. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis and examined reliability of the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey and its associations with demographics and clinical outcomes (e.g., mean blood glucose, glycemic control).

RESULTS

Confirmatory factor analysis supported the three-factor model in youth and female and male caregivers. The internal consistencies for Maintain High Blood Glucose, Helplessness/Worry About Low Blood Glucose, and Worry About Negative Social Consequences were acceptable. The majority of demographic and clinical outcome variables correlated as hypothesized with the three subscales.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a large clinical sample of adolescents with T1D and their caretakers, we confirmed the three-factor model for the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey, which is sufficiently reliable to be used in a clinical setting. Important areas of future research include examining moderators for the effect of fear of hypoglycemia on clinical outcomes, and possible inclusion of items related to modern diabetes devices.