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

Point-Counterpoint: The Need for Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Open Source (OS) AID Systems in Type 1 Diabetes Management

In the last decade, technology developed by people with diabetes and their loved ones has added to the options for diabetes management. One such example is that of automated insulin delivery (AID) algorithms, which were created and shared as open source by people living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) years before commercial systems were first available. Now, numerous options for commercial systems exist in some countries, yet tens of thousands of people with diabetes are still choosing Open-Source AID (OS-AID), previously called "do-it-yourself" (DIY) systems, which are noncommercial versions of these open-source AID systems. In this article, we provide point and counterpoint perspectives regarding (1) safety and efficacy, (2) regulation and support, (3) user choice and flexibility, (4) access and affordability, and (5) patient and provider education, for open source and commercial AID systems. The perspectives reflected here include that of a person living with T1D who uses and has developed OS-AID systems, a physician-researcher based in the United States who conducts clinical trials to support development of commercial AID systems and supports people with diabetes using all types of AID, and an endocrinologist with T1D who uses both systems and treats people with diabetes using all types of AID.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparative Effectiveness of Hybrid Closed-Loop Automated Insulin Delivery Systems Among Patients with Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems, yet few studies have compared outcomes in the real-world setting.

METHOD

This retrospective study analyzed patients from an academic endocrinology practice between January 1, 2018, and November 18, 2022. The inclusion criteria were diagnosis code for type I diabetes (T1D), >18 years of age, new to any HCL system [Medtronic 670G/770G (MT), Tandem Control IQ (CIQ), or Omnipod 5 (OP5)], and availability of a pump download within three months. The outcomes included %time in range (TIR) of 70 to 180 mg/dL, %time below range (TBR) <70 mg/dL at 90 days, and HbA1c for 91 to 180 days.

RESULT

Of the 176 participants, 47 were MT, 74 CIQ, and 55 OP5. Median (25%, 75%) change in HbA1c was -0.1 (-0.8, 0.3), -0.6 (-1.1, -0.15), and -0.55 (-0.98, 0)% for MT, CIQ, and OP5, respectively, (P = .04). TIR was 70 (57, 76), 67 (59, 75), and 68 (60, 76)% (P = .95) at 90 days while TBR was 2 (1, 3), 1 (0, 2), and 1 (0, 1)%, respectively, (P = .002). The %time in automated delivery was associated with TIR and change in HbA1c. After controlling other factors including %time in automated delivery, HCL type was not an independent predictor of change in HbA1c nor TIR but remained a significant predictor of TBR.

CONCLUSION

There were significant reductions in HbA1c in CIQ and OP5. TIR was similar across pumps, but TBR was highest with MT. The %time in automated delivery likely explains differences in change in HbA1c but not TBR between HCL systems.

Early Real-World Performance of the MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System and Recommended Settings Use in the United States

Background: The MiniMed™ 780G system (MM780G) with Guardian™ 4 sensor includes a 100 mg/dL glucose target (GT) and automated insulin corrections up to every 5 min and was recently approved for use in the United States. In the present study, early real-world MM780G performance and the use of recommended system settings (100 mg/dL GT with an active insulin time of 2 h), by individuals with type 1 diabetes, were evaluated. Methods: CareLink™ personal data uploaded between the launch of the MM780G to August 22, 2023 were aggregated and underwent retrospective analysis (based on user consent) and if users had ≥10 days of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data. The 24-h day CGM metrics, including mean glucose, percentage of time spent in (%TIR), above (%TAR), and below (%TBR) target range (70-180 mg/dL), in addition to delivered insulin and closed-loop (CL) exits, were compared between an overall group (n = 7499) and individuals who used recommended settings (each, for >95% of the time). An analysis of the same metrics for MiniMed™ 770G system (MM770G) users (n = 3851) who upgraded to the MM780G was also conducted (paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < 0.05 considered statistically significant). Results: For MM780G users, CGM use, and time in CL were >90% and all MM780G CGM metrics exceeded consensus-recommended goals. With recommended settings (22% of all users), mean %TIR and %TITR (70-140 mg/dL) were 81.4% and 56.4%, respectively. For individuals who upgraded from the MM770G, %TIR and %TITR increased from 73.2% to 78.3% and 45.8% to 52.6%, respectively, while %TAR reduced from 25.1% to 20.2% (P < 0.001, for all three). CL exits/week averaged <1, for all MM780G users. Conclusions: Early real-world MM780G use in the United States demonstrated a high percentage of time in range with low time above and below range. These outcomes are similar to those observed for real-world MM780G use in other countries.

Real-World Evidence of Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System Use in 69,902 People with Type 1 Diabetes

Background: The Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System was associated with favorable glycemic outcomes for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in two pivotal clinical trials. Real-world evidence is needed to explore effectiveness in nonstudy conditions. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the United States Omnipod 5 System users (aged ≥2 years) with T1D and sufficient data (≥90 days of data; ≥75% of days with ≥220 continuous glucose monitor readings/day) available in Insulet Corporation's device and person-reported datasets as of July 2023 was performed. Target glucose setting usage (i.e., 110-150 mg/dL in 10 mg/dL increments) was summarized and glycemic outcomes were examined. Subgroup analyses of those using the lowest average glucose target (110 mg/dL) and stratification by baseline characteristics (e.g., age, prior therapy, health insurance coverage) were conducted. Results: In total, 69,902 users were included. Multiple and higher glucose targets were more commonly used in younger age groups. Median percentage of time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL) was 68.8%, 61.3%, and 53.6% for users with average glucose targets of 110, 120, and 130-150 mg/dL, respectively, with minimal time <70 mg/dL (all median <1.13%). Among those with an average glucose target of 110 mg/dL (n = 37,640), median TIR was 65.0% in children and adolescents (2-17 years) and 69.9% in adults (≥18 years). Subgroup analyses of users transitioning from Omnipod DASH or multiple daily injections and of Medicaid/Medicare users demonstrated favorable glycemic outcomes among these groups. Conclusion: These glycemic outcomes from a large and diverse sample of nearly 70,000 children and adults demonstrate effective use of the Omnipod 5 System under real-world conditions.

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

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

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.

Situational Awareness and Proactive Engagement Predict Higher Time in Range in Adolescents and Young Adults Using Hybrid Closed-Loop

Background

Adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes have high HbA1c levels and often struggle with self-management behaviors and attention to diabetes care. Hybrid closed-loop systems (HCL) like the t:slim X2 with Control-IQ technology (Control-IQ) can help improve glycemic control. The purpose of this study is to assess adolescents' situational awareness of their glucose control and engagement with the Control-IQ system to determine significant factors in daily glycemic control.

Methods

Adolescents (15-25 years) using Control-IQ participated in a 2-week prospective study, gathering detailed information about Control-IQ system engagements (boluses, alerts, and so on) and asking the participants' age and gender about their awareness of glucose levels 2-3 times/day without checking. Mixed models assessed which behaviors and awareness items correlated with time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dl, 3.9-10.0 mmol/L).

Results

Eighteen adolescents/young adults (mean age 18 ± 1.86 years and 86% White non-Hispanic) completed the study. Situational awareness of glucose levels did not correlate with time since the last glucose check (p = 0.8). In multivariable modeling, lower TIR was predicted on days when adolescents underestimated their glucose levels (r = -0.22), received more CGM alerts (r = -0.31), and had more pump engagements (r = -0.27). A higher TIR was predicted when adolescents responded to CGM alerts (r = 0.20) and entered carbohydrates into the bolus calculator (r = 0.49).

Conclusion

Situational awareness is an independent predictor of TIR and may provide insight into patterns of attention and focus that could positively influence glycemic outcomes in adolescents. Proactive engagements predict better TIR, whereas reactive engagement predicted lower TIR. Future interventions could be designed to train users to develop awareness and expertise in effective diabetes self-management.

Cost-effectiveness of the tubeless automated insulin delivery system vs standard of care in the management of type 1 diabetes in the United States

BACKGROUND: A tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery (AID) system (Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System) demonstrated improved glycated hemoglobin A1c levels and increased time in range (70 mg/dL to 180 mg/dL) for both adults and children with type 1 diabetes in a 13-week multicenter, single-arm study. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of the tubeless AID system compared with standard of care (SoC) in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the United States. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted from a US payer's perspective, using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (version 9.5), with a time horizon of 60 years and an annual discount of 3.0% on both costs and effects. Simulated patients received either tubeless AID or SoC, the latter being defined as either continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (86% of patients) or multiple daily injections. Two cohorts (children: <18 years; adults: ≥18 years) of patients with T1D and 2 thresholds for nonsevere hypoglycemia (nonsevere hypoglycemia event [NSHE] <54 mg/dL and <70 mg/dL) were considered. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects of different risk factors for tubeless AID were sourced from the clinical trial. Utilities and cost of diabetes-related complications were obtained from published sources. Treatment costs were derived from US national database sources. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Treating children with T1D with tubeless AID, considering an NSHE threshold of less than 54 mg/dL, brings incremental life-years (1.375) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (1.521) at an incremental cost of $15,099 compared with SoC, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9,927 per QALY gained. Similar results were obtained for adults with T1D assuming an NSHE threshold of less than 54 mg/dL (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $10,310 per QALY gained). Furthermore, tubeless AID is a dominant treatment option for children and adults with T1D assuming an NSHE threshold of less than 70 mg/dL compared with SoC. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses results showed that compared with SoC, in both children and adults with T1D, tubeless AID was cost-effective in more than 90% of simulations, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. The key drivers of the model were the cost of ketoacidosis, duration of treatment effect, threshold of NSHE, and definition of severe hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: The current analyses suggest that the tubeless AID system can be considered a cost-effective treatment compared with SoC in people with T1D from a US payer's perspective. DISCLOSURES: This research was funded by Insulet. Mr Hopley, Ms Boyd, and Mr Swift are full-time Insulet employees and own stock in Insulet Corporation. IQVIA, the employer of Ms Ramos and Dr Lamotte, received consulting fees for this work. Dr Biskupiak is receiving research support and consulting fees from Insulet. Dr Brixner has received consulting fees from Insulet. The University of Utah has received research funding from Insulet. Dr Levy is a consultant with Dexcom and Eli Lilly and has received grant/research support from Insulet, Tandem, Dexcom, and Abbott Diabetes. Dr Forlenza conducted research sponsored by Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem, Insulet, Beta Bionics, and Lilly. He has been speaker/consultant/advisory board member for Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem, Insulet, Beta Bionics, and Lilly.

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.

The Evolution of Diabetes Technology - Options Towards Personalized Care

Advances in diabetes technology, especially in the last few decades, have transformed our ability to deliver care to persons with diabetes (PWD). Developments in glucose monitoring, especially continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGM), have revolutionized diabetes care and empowered our patients to manage their disease. CGM has also played an integral role in advancing automated insulin delivery systems. Currently available and upcoming advanced hybrid-closed loop systems aim to decrease patient involvement and are approaching the functionality of a fully automated artificial pancreas. Other advances, such as smart insulin pens and daily patch pumps, offer more options for patients and require less complicated and costly technology. Evidence to support the role of diabetes technology is growing, and PWD and clinicians must choose the right type of technology with a personalized strategy to manage diabetes effectively. Here, we review currently available diabetes technologies, summarize their individual features and highlight key patient factors to consider when creating a personalized treatment plan. We also address current challenges and barriers to the adoption of diabetes technologies.

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.

Assessing non-adjunctive CGM safety at home and in new markets (ANSHIN)

INTRODUCTION

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) can guide treatment for people with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). The ANSHIN study assessed the impact of non-adjunctive CGM use in adults with diabetes using intensive insulin therapy (IIT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-arm, prospective, interventional study enrolled adults with T1D or T2D who had not used CGM in the prior 6 months. Participants wore blinded CGMs (Dexcom G6) during a 20-day run-in phase, with treatment based on fingerstick glucose values, followed by a 16-week intervention phase and then a randomized 12-week extension phase with treatment based on CGM values. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes were CGM metrics. Safety endpoints were the number of severe hypoglycaemic (SH) and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) events.

RESULTS

Of the 77 adults enrolled, 63 completed the study. Those enrolled had mean (SD) baseline HbA1c of 9.8% (1.9%), 36% had T1D, and 44% were ≥65 years old. Mean HbA1c decreased by 1.3, 1.0 and 1.0 percentage points for participants with T1D, T2D or age ≥65, respectively (p < .001 for each). CGM-based metrics including time in range also improved significantly. SH events decreased from the run-in period (67.3 per 100 person-years) to the intervention period (17.0 per 100 person-years). Three DKA events unrelated to CGM use occurred during the total intervention period.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-adjunctive use of the Dexcom G6 CGM system improved glycaemic control and was safe for adults using IIT.

Interruption of CGM: Frequency and Adverse Consequences

BACKGROUND

Removal of diabetes devices, including insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), is a common practice due to hospital policies, interference with imaging studies, medications, and surgical interventions. Furthermore, these devices are inherently prone to malfunction, adhesive failure, and issues with insertion that can lead to a reduction in wear time. Prescription and dispensing practices provide an exact number of sensors per month without redundancy to account for the realities of daily CGM use.

METHODS

A RedCap survey was completed by adult patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (T1D or T2D) who utilize CGM followed in the Diabetes Center at Washington University in St Louis.

RESULTS

Of 384 surveys sent, 99 were completed. Participants had a mean age of 54 years, T1D 69%, female 70%, White 96%, non-Hispanic 96%, and a mean duration of diabetes mellitus (DM) 28 years. Of the cohort, 100% used CGM (80.2% Dexcom, 13.5% Freestyle Libre, 6.3% Medtronic), 61% insulin pump, and 41% Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems. CGM-related disruption events included device malfunction (in 85.4% of participants), insertion problems (63.5%), and falling off (61.4%). Medical care-related disruption occurred most frequently in the setting of imaging (41.7%), followed by surgery/procedures (11.7%) and hospitalization (4.4%). Adverse glycemic events attributed to CGM disruption, including hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, occurred ≥4 times in 36.5% and 12.4% of the cohort, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Disruption in CGM use is common. Lack of redundancy of CGM supplies contributes to care disruption and adverse glycemic events.

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.

Improved Glycemia with Hybrid Closed-Loop Versus Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: To evaluate safety and effectiveness of MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed loop (HCL) in comparison with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy for 6 months in persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Adults (aged 18-80 years), adolescents, and children (aged 2-17 years) with T1D who were using CSII therapy were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to 6 months of HCL intervention (n = 151, mean age of 39.9 ± 19.8 years) or CSII without continuous glucose monitoring (n = 151, 35.7 ± 18.4 years). Primary effectiveness endpoints included change in A1C for Group 1 (baseline A1C >8.0%), from baseline to the end of study, and difference in the end of study percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL (%TBR <70 mg/dL) for Group 2 (baseline A1C ≤8.0%), to show superiority of HCL intervention versus control. Secondary effectiveness endpoints were change in A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 2 and Group 1, respectively, to show noninferiority of HCL intervention versus control. Primary safety endpoints were rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Results: Change in A1C and difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for the overall group were significantly improved, in favor of HCL intervention. In addition, a significant mean (95% confidence interval) change in A1C was observed for both Group 1 (-0.8% [-1.1% to -0.4%], P < 0.0001) and Group 2 (-0.3% [-0.5% to -0.1%], P < 0.0001), in favor of HCL intervention. The same was observed for difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 1 (-2.2% [-3.6% to -0.9%]) and Group 2 (-4.9% [-6.3% to -3.6%]) (P < 0.0001 for both). There was one DKA event during run-in and six severe hypoglycemic events: two during run-in and four during study (HCL: n = 0 and CSII: n = 4 [6.08 per 100 patient-years]). Conclusions: This RCT demonstrates that the MiniMed 670G HCL safely and significantly improved A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL compared with CSII control in persons with T1D, irrespective of baseline A1C level.

Real-World Evidence Supporting Tandem Control-IQ Hybrid Closed-Loop Success in the Medicare and Medicaid Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Populations

Background: The Tandem Control-IQ (CIQ) system has demonstrated significant glycemic improvements in large randomized controlled and real-world trials. Use of this system is lower in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) government-sponsored insurance and those with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of CIQ in these groups. Methods and Materials: A retrospective analysis of CIQ users was performed. Users age ≥6 years with a t:slim X2 Pump and >30 days of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data pre-CIQ and >30 days post-CIQ technology initiation were included. Results: A total of 4243 Medicare and 1332 Medicaid CIQ users were analyzed among whom 5075 had T1D and 500 had T2D. After starting CIQ, the Medicare beneficiaries group saw significant improvement in time in target range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR; 64% vs. 74%; P < 0.0001), glucose management index (GMI; 7.3% vs. 7.0%; P < 0.0001), and the percentage of users meeting American Diabetes Association (ADA) CGM Glucometrics Guidelines (12.8% vs. 26.3%; P < 0.0001). The Medicaid group also saw significant improvement in TIR (46% vs. 60%; P < 0.0001), GMI (7.9% vs. 7.5%; P < 0.0001), and percentage meeting ADA guidelines (5.7% vs. 13.4%; P < 0.0001). Patients with T2D and either insurance saw significant glycemic improvements. Conclusions: The CIQ system was effective in the Medicare and Medicaid groups in improving glycemic control. The T2D subgroup also demonstrated improved glycemic control with CIQ use. Glucometrics achieved in this analysis are comparable with those seen in previous randomized controlled clinical trials with the CIQ system.

Efficacy and Safety of Tandem Control IQ Without User-Initiated Boluses in Adults with Uncontrolled Type 1 Diabetes

Background: Adults with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes (T1D) who are missing meal boluses are typically excluded from clinical trials of diabetes technologies. We investigated the long-term real-life outcomes of the Tandem Control IQ automated insulin delivery (AID) system in adults with T1D who are missing meal boluses. Methods: In this single-center study with 30 adults with T1D, we evaluated efficacy (A1c and time in target range [TIR]) and safety (time below range [TBR]) in adults with T1D who initiated Tandem Control IQ with minimal or no user-initiated boluses (auto >90%) compared with age, gender, and diabetes duration matched adults with T1D with intermediate (auto 50%-90%) and high bolusing behaviors (auto 10%-49%). Results: Regardless of engagement with Control IQ system, there were significant improvements in A1c and TIR in all three groups over 3, 6, and 12 months. Compared with baseline, there was significant decrease in A1c by 1.6% ± 0.8% and increase in TIR by 19.3% ± 6.4% (P < 0.001 for both) over 12 months of Tandem Control IQ use in auto >90% use group without increasing TBR. Conclusions: Tandem Control IQ is effective in lowering A1c and improving TIR without increasing TBR regardless of users' engagement with the system. Therefore, adults with T1D with high A1c who are mostly missing meal boluses should not be considered as inappropriate candidates for Control IQ AID system.

How introduction of automated insulin delivery systems may influence psychosocial outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes: Findings from the first investigation with the Omnipod® 5 System

AIMS

To evaluate psychosocial outcomes for adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using the tubeless Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System.

METHODS

A single-arm, multicenter (across the United States), prospective safety and efficacy study of the tubeless AID system included 115 adults with T1D. Participants aged 18-70 years completed questionnaires assessing psychosocial outcomes - diabetes distress (T1-DDS), hypoglycemic confidence (HCS), well-being (WHO-5), sleep quality (PSQI), insulin delivery satisfaction (IDSS), diabetes treatment satisfaction (DTSQ), and system usability (SUS) - before and after 3 months of AID use. Associations among participant characteristics, psychosocial measures and glycemic outcomes were evaluated using linear regression analyses.

RESULTS

Adults using the tubeless AID system demonstrated improvements in diabetes-specific psychosocial measures, including diabetes distress, hypoglycemic confidence, insulin delivery satisfaction, diabetes treatment satisfaction, and system usability after 3 months (all P < 0.001). No changes in general well-being or sleep quality were observed. The psychosocial outcomes assessed were not consistently associated with baseline participant characteristics (i.e., age, sex, diabetes duration, glycemic outcomes including percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL, percent time below range < 70 mg/dL, hemoglobin A1c, or insulin regimen).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the Omnipod 5 AID system was associated with significant improvements in diabetes-related psychosocial outcomes for adults with T1D.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04196140.

A review on artificial pancreas and regenerative medicine used in the management of Type 1 diabetes mellitus

Diabetes mellitus is one of the fastest-growing lifestyle disorders in the world. While numerous regimes have been developed to manage diabetes, there continue to be high numbers of diabetes-related deaths worldwide. The review gives a brief introduction to the pathology and aetiology of the disorder, different solutions developed over time with their advantages and disadvantages, and highlights the technological components and challenges of the latest technologies: artificial pancreas and regenerative medicine. The study is restricted to a set of high-quality publications from the last decade.

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.

Closed-Loop Artificial Pancreas Therapy for Type 1 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Closed-loop insulin pump systems (artificial pancreas) represent the cutting edge of insulin delivery technology. There are only a few systems currently approved for use in the USA: the MiniMed 670G/770G (which share an algorithm), t:slim X2 Control IQ, and the Omnipod 5. We review these systems and look into the future of the technology.

RECENT FINDINGS

All of the approved closed-loop insulin pump systems have demonstrated in multicenter prospective trials improvements in time in range, hemoglobin A1c, and time spent in hypoglycemia. The newer systems have also improved time spent in automation. Comparisons between the systems with regard to glycemic control are difficult to make due to differences in clinical trial design, but there are notable differences in the user experience between systems. The past few years have been a time of exponential development in the field of closed-loop insulin pump systems. However, more research is needed to provide full automation of these systems without any need for information from the user.

Meal and Physical Activity Detection from Free-Living Data for Discovering Disturbance Patterns of Glucose Levels in People with Diabetes

Objective: The interpretation of time series data collected in free-living has gained importance in chronic disease management. Some data are collected objectively from sensors and some are estimated and entered by the individual. In type 1 diabetes (T1D), blood glucose concentration (BGC) data measured by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems and insulin doses administered can be used to detect the occurrences of meals and physical activities and generate the personal daily living patterns for use in automated insulin delivery (AID). Methods: Two challenges in time-series data collected in daily living are addressed: data quality improvement and the detection of unannounced disturbances of BGC. CGM data have missing values for varying periods of time and outliers. People may neglect reporting their meal and physical activity information. In this work, novel methods for preprocessing real-world data collected from people with T1D and the detection of meal and exercise events are presented. Four recurrent neural network (RNN) models are investigated to detect the occurrences of meals and physical activities disjointly or concurrently. Results: RNNs with long short-term memory (LSTM) with 1D convolution layers and bidirectional LSTM with 1D convolution layers have average accuracy scores of 92.32% and 92.29%, and outperform other RNN models. The F1 scores for each individual range from 96.06% to 91.41% for these two RNNs. Conclusions: RNNs with LSTM and 1D convolution layers and bidirectional LSTM with 1D convolution layers provide accurate personalized information about the daily routines of individuals. Significance: Capturing daily behavior patterns enables more accurate future BGC predictions in AID systems and improves BGC regulation.

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.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/15368

Clinical Evaluation of a Novel CGM-Informed Bolus Calculator with Automatic Glucose Trend Adjustment

Background: Expert opinion guidelines and limited data from clinical trials recommend adjustment to bolus insulin doses based on continuous glucose monitor (CGM) trend data, yet minimal evidence exists to support this approach. We performed a clinical evaluation of a novel CGM-informed bolus calculator (CIBC) with automatic insulin bolus dose adjustment based on CGM trend used with sensor-augmented pump therapy. Materials and Methods: In this multicenter, outpatient study, participants 6-70 years of age with type 1 diabetes (T1D) used the Omnipod^® 5 System in Manual Mode, first for 7 days without a connected CGM (standard bolus calculator, SBC, phase 1) and then for 7 days with a connected CGM using the CIBC (CIBC phase 2). The integrated bolus calculator used stored pump settings plus user-estimated meal size and/or either a manually entered capillary glucose value (SBC phase) or an imported current CGM value and trend (CIBC phase) to recommend a bolus amount. The CIBC automatically increased or decreased the suggested bolus amount based on the CGM trend. Results: Twenty-five participants, (mean ± standard deviation) 27 ± 15 years of age, with T1D duration 12 ± 9 years and A1C 7.0% ± 0.9% completed the study. There were significantly fewer sensor readings <70 mg/dL 4 h postbolus with the CIBC compared to the SBC (2.1% ± 2.0% vs. 2.8 ± 2.7, P = 0.03), while percent of sensor readings >180 and 70-180 mg/dL remained the same. There was no difference in insulin use or number of boluses given between the two phases. Conclusion: The CIBC was safe when used with the Omnipod 5 System in Manual Mode, with fewer hypoglycemic readings in the postbolus period compared to the SBC. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04320069).

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.

Automated insulin dosing systems: Advances after a century of insulin

The daily complexities of insulin therapy and glucose variability in type 1 diabetes still pose significant challenges, despite advancements in modern insulin analogues. Minimising hypoglycaemia and optimising time spent within target glucose range are recommended to reduce the risk of diabetes-related complications and distress. Access to structured education and adjuvant diabetes technologies, such as insulin pumps and glucose sensors, are recommended by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to enable people with type 1 diabetes achieve their glycaemic goals. One hundred years after the discovery of insulin, automated insulin dosing (AID, a.k.a. closed loop or artificial pancreas) systems are a reality with a number of systems available and being used in usual clinical practice. Evidence from randomised clinical trials and real-world prospective studies support efficacy, effectiveness and safety of AID systems. Qualitative evaluations reveal treatment satisfaction and positive effects on quality of life. Current insulin-only AID systems still require carbohydrate and activity announcement (hybrid closed loop) due to the inherent pharmacokinetic limitations of rapid-acting insulin analogies. Ultra-rapid acting insulin and adjunctive use of other therapies (e.g. glucagon, pramlitide) are being evaluated to achieve full closed loop. Open-source AID (OS-AID) systems have been developed by the diabetes community, driven by a desire for safety and to accelerate technological advancement. In addition to effectiveness and safety, real-world prospective studies suggest that OS-AID systems fulfil unmet needs of commercially approved systems. The development, ongoing challenges and expectations of AID are outlined in this review.

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.

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.

Lost in Translation: A Disconnect Between the Science and Medicare Coverage Criteria for Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical value and safety of insulin pump therapy in type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes populations. However, the eligibility criteria for insulin pump coverage required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) discount conclusive evidence that supports insulin pump use in diabetes populations that are currently deemed ineligible. This article discusses the limitations and inconsistencies of the insulin pump eligibility criteria relative to current scientific evidence and proposes workable solutions to address this issue and improve the safety and care of all individuals with diabetes.

Type 1 diabetes glycemic management: Insulin therapy, glucose monitoring, and automation

Despite innovations in insulin therapy since its discovery, most patients living with type 1 diabetes do not achieve sufficient glycemic control to prevent complications, and they experience hypoglycemia, weight gain, and major self-care burden. Promising pharmacological advances in insulin therapy include the refinement of extremely rapid insulin analogs, alternate insulin-delivery routes, liver-selective insulins, add-on drugs that enhance insulin effect, and glucose-responsive insulin molecules. The greatest future impact will come from combining these pharmacological solutions with existing automated insulin delivery methods that integrate insulin pumps and glucose sensors. These systems will use algorithms enhanced by machine learning, supplemented by technologies that include activity monitors and sensors for other key metabolites such as ketones. The future challenges facing clinicians and researchers will be those of access and broad clinical implementation.

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.

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.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: The Use of Advanced Technology in the Management of Persons With Diabetes Mellitus

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of advanced technology in the management of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, health care professionals, and other stakeholders.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) conducted literature searches for relevant articles published from 2012 to 2021. A task force of medical experts developed evidence-based guideline recommendations based on a review of clinical evidence, expertise, and informal consensus, according to established AACE protocol for guideline development.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes of interest included hemoglobin A1C, rates and severity of hypoglycemia, time in range, time above range, and time below range.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 37 evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for advanced diabetes technology and contains 357 citations that inform the evidence base.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Evidence-based recommendations were developed regarding the efficacy and safety of devices for the management of persons with diabetes mellitus, metrics used to aide with the assessment of advanced diabetes technology, and standards for the implementation of this technology.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced diabetes technology can assist persons with diabetes to safely and effectively achieve glycemic targets, improve quality of life, add greater convenience, potentially reduce burden of care, and offer a personalized approach to self-management. Furthermore, diabetes technology can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of clinical decision-making. Successful integration of these technologies into care requires knowledge about the functionality of devices in this rapidly changing field. This information will allow health care professionals to provide necessary education and training to persons accessing these treatments and have the required expertise to interpret data and make appropriate treatment adjustments.

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.