Rapid Improvement in Time in Range After the Implementation of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

An automated insulin delivery system from pregestational care to postpartum in women with type 1 diabetes. Preliminary experience with telemedicine in 6 patients

INTRODUCTION

The use of most commercially available automated insulin delivery (AID) systems is off-label in pregnancy. However, an increasing number of women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) use such devices throughout pregnancy and delivery. We analysed the data of six women with T1D from a single centre (Diabetology Outpatient Clinic of District-63/Asl Salerno, Italy) who were able to start and maintain AID therapy with the MiniMed™ 780G (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) throughout the pregestational care period, pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data from six patients with T1D who received training and initiation on use of the MiniMed™ 780G and attended follow-up visits throughout pregnancy (these visits were virtual because of the COVID-19 pandemic). All patients maintained their devices in the closed-loop setting throughout pregnancy and during labour and delivery. We analysed data from the pregestational phase to the first 30 days postpartum.

RESULTS

All patients achieved the recommended metabolic goals before conception [median time in range (TIR) of 88% for 70-180 mg/dL; median pregnancy-specific TIR 63-140 mg/dL (ps-TIR) of 66% and maintained the ps-TIR until delivery (median ps-TIR 83%). All patients had slightly better metrics during the night than during the day, with a very low time below range of < 63 mg/dL. Optimal glycaemic values were also maintained on the day of labour and delivery (median ps-TIR 92.5%) and in the first 30 days postpartum, with no severe hypoglycaemia. The only neonatal complications were jaundice in one child and an interatrial defect in another child.

CONCLUSION

In our well-selected and trained patients, use of the MiniMed™ 780G helped to achieve and maintain ps-metrics from the pregestational period to delivery despite the fact that the algorithm is not set to achieve the ambitious glycaemic values recommended for pregnancy.

Effect of Christmas Holidays on Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus in Users of Glucose Flash Systems

OBJECTIVE

Christmas holidays can impact weight and glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, but their effect on type 1 diabetes (T1D) remains understudied. This study assessed how Christmas holidays affect individuals with T1D who use flash continuous glucose monitoring systems.

METHODS

This retrospective study involved 812 adults diagnosed with T1D recruited from 3 hospitals. Clinical, anthropometric, and socioeconomic data were collected. Glucose metrics from 14 days before January 1st, and before December 1st and February 1st as control periods, were recorded. Analyses adjusted for multiple variables were conducted to assess the holiday season's impact on glycemic control.

RESULTS

The average time in range during the holidays (60.0 ± 17.2%) was lower compared to December (61.9 ± 17.2%, P < .001) and February (61.7 ± 17.7%, P < .001). Time above range (TAR > 180 mg/dL) was higher during Christmas (35.8 ± 18.2%) compared to December (34.1 ± 18.3%, P < .001) and February (34.2 ± 18.4%, P < .001). Differences were also observed in TAR >250 mg/dL, coefficient of variation, and average glucose (P < .05). No differences were found in time below range or other metrics. Linear regression models showed that the holidays reduced time in range by 1.9% (β = -1.92, P = .005) and increased TAR >180 mg/dL by 1.8% (β = 1.75, P = .016).

CONCLUSION

Christmas holidays are associated with a mild and reversible deterioration in glucose metrics among individuals with T1D using flash continuous glucose monitoring, irrespective of additional influencing factors. These discoveries can be useful to advise individuals with diabetes during the festive season and to recognize potential biases within studies conducted during this timeframe.

12-Month Efficacy of Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Adult Type 1 Diabetes Patients

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have improved glycemic control in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). The "advanced hybrid closed loop" (AHCL) stands out as the most recent development in AID systems for T1D management. In a real-world clinical environment, we retrospectively evaluated the AHCL MiniMed™ 780G system's effectiveness to achieve and sustain glycemic control over a 12-month period in 22 adult T1D subjects. Within just 14 days of activating the automatic mode, the AHCL MiniMed 780G system showed rapid improvement in glycemic control, which persisted for 12 months. These findings underscore the effectiveness of AHCL systems in achieving and preserving optimal glycemic control in adults with T1D over a very long follow-up.

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.

A Multicenter Prospective Evaluation of the Benefits of Two Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems in Glucose Control and Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Real-world Setting

OBJECTIVE

Advanced hybrid closed-loop systems (AHCL) have been shown to improve glycemic control and patient-reported outcomes in type 1 diabetes. The aim was to analyze the outcomes of two commercially available AHCL in real life.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A prospective study was performed, including adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes, AHCL naïve, from 14 centers, who initiated the use of MM780G with SmartGuard or Tandem t:slimX2 with Control-IQ. Baseline and 3-month evaluations were performed, assessing HbA1c, time in different glycemic ranges, and patient-reported outcomes. The primary outcome was the between-group time in range 70-180 mg/dL difference from beginning to end of follow-up.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty participants were included, with 75 initiating each system (age: 39.9 ± 11.4 years [16-72]; 64% female; diabetes duration: 21.6 ± 11.9 years). Time in range increased from 61.53 ± 14.01% to 76.17 ± 9.48% (P < 0.001), with no between-group differences (P = 0.591). HbA1c decreased by 0.56% (95% CI 0.44%, 0.68%) (6 mmol/mol, 95% CI 5, 7) (P < 0.001), from 7.43 ± 1.07% to 6.88 ± 0.60% (58 ± 12 to 52 ± 7 mmol/mol) in the MM780G group, and from 7.14 ± 0.70% to 6.56 ± 0.53% (55 ± 8 to 48 ± 6 mmol/mol) in the Control-IQ group (both P < 0.001 to baseline, P = 0.819 between groups). No superiority of one AHCL over the other regarding fear of hypoglycemia or quality of life was found. Improvement in diabetes-related distress was higher in Control-IQ users (P = 0.012). Sleep quality was improved (PSQI: from 6.94 ± 4.06 to 6.06 ± 4.05, P = 0.004), without differences between systems. Experience with AHCL, evaluated by the INSPIRE measures, exceeded the expectations.

CONCLUSIONS

The two AHCL provide significant improvement in glucose control and satisfaction, with no superiority of one AHCL over the other.

MiniMed 780GTM in children with type 1 diabetes under seven years of age: Prospective open-label, single-arm, double-center, follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Given the steadily rising incidence of type 1 diabetes (T1D), particularly among the youngest preschool children, coupled with well-documented challenges of achieving and maintaining optimal metabolic control in this age group, there is a growing need for advanced technological devices.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate glycaemic control in children below the age of seven with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and assess the safety of the advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system in comparison to the previous treatment method, a sensor-augmented pump with predictive low-glucose suspend (SAP-PLGS).

METHOD

Data from 10 children (aged 2.60-6.98 years) with T1D who transitioned to the AHCL system from SAP-PLGS were analysed. SAP-PLGS records from two weeks prior to the initiation of AHCL were compared with records from the initial four weeks post-switch (excluding the training period). These data were examined at two 2-week intervals and compared with records from two weeks post six-month usage of the AHCL.

RESULTS

A significant decrease in the average nighttime glucose concentration was observed compared to pre-AHCL values (p= 0.001, concordance W = 0.53). The Glucose Management Indicator (GMI) value significantly decreased from 6.88 ± 0.37% to 6.52 ± 0.32% (p= 0.018, rbc = 0.93) immediately following the device switch and stabilized at 6.50 ± 0.28% (p= 0.001, W = 0.53) and 6.55 ± 0.41% (p= 0.001, W = 0.53) at subsequent stages of the study. An improvement was also observed in mean glucose values for time spent < 54 mg/dl, while the proportion of time within this range was maintained, both during the day (p< 0.001, W = 0.58) and at night (p= 0.002, W = 0.83).

CONCLUSION

The AHCL MiniMed 780GTM system improved glycaemic control in the studied group of children under seven years of age with T1D compared to previous SAP-PLGS therapy. It proved to be safe for delivering insulin in this age group.

14. Children and Adolescents: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

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

Daytime hypoglycemic episodes during the use of an advanced hybrid closed loop system

AIMS

The use of advanced hybrid closed loop systems is spreading due to the beneficial effects on glycometabolic control obtained in patients with type 1 diabetes. However, hypoglycemic episodes can be sometimes a matter of concern. We aim to compare the hypoglycemic risk of an advanced hybrid closed loop system and a predictive low glucose suspend sensor augmented pump.

METHODS

In this retrospective three months observational study, we included 30 patients using Medtronic Minimed™ 780G advanced hybrid closed loop system and 30 patients using a Medtronic Minimed™ predictive low glucose suspend sensor augmented pump.

RESULTS

The advanced hybrid closed loop system reduced the time spent above 180 mg/dL threshold and increased the time in range as compared to the predictive low glucose suspend. No severe hypoglycemia occurred in both groups and no differences were observed in the percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dl and 54 mg/dl glucose threshold. Nevertheless, more hypoglycemic episodes were recorded during daytime, but not in nighttime, with the use of the advanced hybrid closed loop system.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirmed the general improvement of glycemic outcomes obtained with the advanced hybrid closed loop system; however more hypoglycemic episodes during daytime were evident.

Glycemic Control, Basal/Bolus Distribution, BMI and Meal Management in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes and Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop

Evidence about the impact of advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) on body mass index (BMI) and eating habits in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is lacking. This real-world study aimed at evaluating glycemic control, BMI, meals and basal/bolus distribution in young subjects with T1D treated by AHCL. Glycemic metrics, HbA1c, basal/bolus distribution, meals/day, BMI, total daily dose (TDD), and carbohydrates/kg (CHO/kg) have been evaluated in 83 subjects, aged 13 ± 4.5 years, in manual mode, 3 and 6 months after auto-mode. Time in range (TIR) increased after 3 months, exceeding the target of 70% and was maintained at 6 months. While coefficient of variation (CV) did not change, the glucose management indicator (GMI) decreased in auto-mode (6.7 ± 0.3 vs. 7.1 ± 0.5%; p < 0.001), as well as HbA1c. Basal proportion decreased in favor of boluses (38.3 ± 7.3 vs. 43.6 ± 10.9%; p < 0.001). Meals increased at 3 and 6 months (4.4 ± 1.2 vs. 5.0 ± 1.5, p 0.002 and 5.1 ± 1.7, p < 0.001), as well as TDD/kg, without changes in BMI and CHO consumed. No differences in meal composition have arisen from food diaries. In conclusion, AHCL ensured the achievement and maintenance of target TIR in young T1D subjects. The number of meals, TDD, and insulin bolus proportion increased over time, but BMI remained stable.

Benchmarking Diabetes Technology Use Among 21 U.S. Pediatric Diabetes Centers

The American Diabetes Association's Standards of Care in Diabetes recommends the use of diabetes technology such as continuous glucose monitoring systems and insulin pumps for people living with type 1 diabetes. Unfortunately, there are multiple barriers to uptake of these devices, including local diabetes center practices. This study aimed to examine overall change and center-to-center variation in uptake of diabetes technology across 21 pediatric centers in the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. It found an overall increase in diabetes technology use for most centers from 2021 to 2022 with significant variation.

Safety and efficacy of the structured onboarding steps and initiation protocol for MiniMed™ 780G system among an Egyptian cohort of young people living with type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of initiation protocol for MiniMed ™ 780G system among an Egyptian cohort of young people living with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

A prospective single-arm study including 72 participants with T1D. Five days of structured education and training were provided to all users and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was initiated on the first day of the training. Users initiated the pump initially in manual mode, with suspend before low feature, for 3 days before shifting to Auto Mode.

RESULTS

The mean HbA1c decreased from 8.72 ± 2.01 % to 6.7 ± 0.4 % (p<0.01). Time in range (70-180 mg/dL) substantially improved from 55.24 % ± 10.35 to 81.7 % ± 5.12 % after spending 84 days in auto mode (p<0.001) with 2.03 % of the time spent below 70 mg/dL. Regarding AHCL compatibility, users spent at least 90 % of time in auto mode.

CONCLUSIONS

Young people with T1D successfully initiated the AHCL system, using a tailored structured on-boarding protocol. Structured stepwise initiation protocol and onboarding steps are important prerequisite for participants' adherence and engagement with the system. Patient education together with optimized pump settings are important predictors of glycemic outcomes.

MiniMed 780G™ advanced hybrid closed-loop system performance in Egyptian patients with type 1 diabetes across different age groups: evidence from real-world users

BACKGROUND

Advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system provides both automated basal rate and correction boluses to keep glycemic values in a target range.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the real-world performance of the MiniMed™ 780G system among different age groups of Egyptian patients with type 1diabetes.

METHODS

One-hundred seven AHCL system users aged from 3 to 71 years were enrolled. Data uploaded by patients were aggregated and analyzed. The mean glucose management indicator (GMI), percentage of time spent within glycemic ranges (TIR), time below range (TBR) and time above range (TAR) were determined.

RESULTS

Six months after initiating Auto Mode, patients spent a mean of 85.31 ± 22.04% of the time in Auto Mode (SmartGuard) and achieved a mean GMI of 6.95 ± 0.58% compared with 7.9 ± 2.1% before AHCL initiation (p < 0.001). TIR 70-180 mg/dL was increased post-AHCL initiation from 63.48 ± 10.14% to 81.54 ± 8.43% (p < 0.001) while TAR 180-250 mg/dL, TAR > 250 mg/dL, TBR < 70 mg/dL and TBR < 54 mg/dL were significantly decreased (p < 0.001). After initiating AHCL, TIR was greater in children and adults compared with adolescents (82.29 ± 7.22% and 83.86 ± 9.24% versus 78.4 ± 7.34%, respectively; p < 0.05). The total daily dose of insulin was increased in all age groups primarily due to increased system-initiated insulin delivery including auto correction boluses and basal insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

MiniMed™ 780G system users across different age groups achieved international consensus-recommended glycemic control with no serious adverse effects even in challenging age group as children and adolescents.

High incidence of skin reactions secondary to the use of adhesives in glucose sensors or insulin pumps for the treatment of children with type 1 diabetes

AIMS

To evaluate the incidence of the skin reactions secondary to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) or continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), sensors and the characteristics of affected children with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

An observational, retrospective, single-centre study included 198 children with type 1 diabetes, (46% girls, mean age 11.75 years). A standardised questionnaire was completed with the patient during current care to evaluate the skin reactions (mean and percentage), the type of reaction, their impact and the treatment) and the characteristics of affected children with univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven children (33.8%) reported active skin reactions: 45 children with CSII (30.4%) and 46 with CGM (23.5%). Children with skin reactions were younger (mean age 10.6 yo versus 12.34 yo, p < 0.05), with a younger age at the diagnosis of diabetes (5.59 yo versus 7.08 yo, p < 0.05). Atopy was more frequent in the group with skin reactions (76.1% versus 54.1% p < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, only the personal history of atopy was associated with skin reactions: OR 2.56 [1.16-5.97] (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the high incidence of skin reactions to adhesive devices used in the treatment of type 1 diabetes in children.

The Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop Improves Glycemia Risk Index, Continuous Glucose Monitoring Index, and Time in Range in Children with Type 1 Diabetes: Real-World Data from a Single Center Study

Introduction: The Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Index (COGI) are newly defined composite metric parameters derived from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data. GRI is divided into five separate risk zones (from lowest to highest: A-E). In this study, the effect of the advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system on GRI and COGI in children with type 1 diabetes was evaluated. Materials and Methods: Forty-five children who had started using the AHCL and whose baseline and sixth-month CGM data were available were analyzed in terms of achievement of CGM consensus goals and changes in GRI scores and zones. The paired t-test was used for the analyses. Results: The mean age and duration of diabetes of the participants were 10.95 ± 3.41 and 3.85 ± 2.67 years, respectively. The mean GRI score significantly decreased from 35.66 ± 17.46 at baseline to 22.83 ± 9.08 at 6 months (P < 0.001). Although the proportion of those in the A zone was 20% at baseline, it increased to 42% at 6 months. AHCL also improved COGI from 72.59 ± 12.44 to 82.90 ± 7.72 (P < 0.001). Time in range (TIR) increased significantly from 70.54% to 80.51% (P < 0.001) at 6 months. Conclusion: AHCL provides not only an improvement in TIR but also a significant improvement in both GRI and COGI at 6 months. The incorporation of GRI and COGI alongside TIR may enhance the assessment of the glycemic profile by providing a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis.

Glycometabolic outcomes in adult type 1 diabetic patients switching to closed-loop systems

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate glycometabolic outcomes in AID technology-naïve T1D patients after switching to Hybrid Closed Loop (HCL) and Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop (AHCL) systems.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a 12-month, prospective, observational, two-center study on 54 type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients aged 19-65 years managed with multiple daily injections (MDI) or Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) in open-loop to evaluate the superiority in terms of effectiveness and safety of Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) systems.

RESULTS

HbA1c levels significantly improved at the end of the study. Time spent with glucose levels in target range (TIR70-180 mg/dL, 3.9-10 mmol/L) increased from 50.5 ± 15.6% at baseline to 73.6 ± 8.0% at 12 months (p < 0.001); time spent above range (TAR180-250 mg/dL, 10-13.9 mmol/L and TAR≥250 mg/dL, 13.9 mmol/L) decreased from 30.6 ± 9.0% and 14.2 ± 10.2 at baseline to 19.3 ± 5.3% and 4.8 ± 3.3% at 12 months (p < 0.001 for both), respectively; time spent below range (TBR54-69 mg/dL, 3-3.8 mmol/L and TBR<54 mg/dL, 3.0 mmol/L) decreased from 3.5 ± 2.6% and 1.2 ± 1.4% at baseline to 1.9 ± 1.5% and 0.4 ± 0.7% at the end of the study (p < 0.001 for both); coefficient of variation (CV) decreased from 35.9 ± 7.8% at baseline to 33.0 ± 5.3% (p < 0.05). Satisfaction with the new technology was scored as high.

CONCLUSION

AID-naïve T1D patients switching to HCL/AHCL systems have significantly and safely improved their glycometabolic outcomes with their high satisfaction with the new type of treatment.

Patient satisfaction in three advanced hybrid closed-loop systems at 6 months of treatment in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a follow-up study

INTRODUCTION

Advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) systems have demonstrated improved glycemic control in individuals with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus. The aim of this study is to compare patient satisfaction among three available AHCL systems (Medtronic Minimed780 G, Roche Diabeloop DBLG1, and Tandem t:slim X2 Control IQ) after six months of treatment and to determine if it is related to glycemic control.

METHODS

The data of 75 individuals were analyzed, including 15 using the DBLG1 system, 9 using Control IQ, and 51 using MM780 G. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Diabetes Mellitus (DTSQc), a validated instrument.

RESULTS

All systems demonstrated treatment satisfaction. The DBLG-1 system scored 14 (-15-21) points, while Control IQ scored 21 (9-24) and M780 G scored 19 (11-24) (p = 0.004). The multivariate analysis revealed that the DBLG-1 system is associated with a lower DTSQc score (OR 0.19, p = 0.019) independent of glycemic control, sex, age, duration of diabetes, duration as an insulin pump user, and daily insulin dose.

CONCLUSION

AHCL systems are satisfactory treatments for users, with potential variations observed between each system regardless of the achieved glycemic control.

MiniMed 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Outcomes According to Pubertal Status: Awesome Study Group Real-Life Experience

Background and Aims: Achieving good glycemic control is a major challenge for adolescents with type 1 diabetes (TID). The introduction of the MiniMed 780G system, an advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) that enables an automatic correction of insulin, gave hope for improved glycemic outcomes in adolescents. We assessed specific characteristics associated with glycemic measures in youth with T1D switching to Minimed 780G. Methods: This retrospective observational real-life multicenter study from the AWeSoMe Group assessed continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics of 22 patients (59% females, median age 13.9 interquartile range [IQR 11,18] years), from a high socioeconomic background. CGM metrics were recorded for 2-week periods before AHCL, after 1, 3, 6 months, and at the end of follow-up (median 10.9 [IQR 5.4, 17.4] months). Delta-variables (Δ) were calculated as the difference between the end of follow-up and baseline. Results: Time in range (TIR)70-180mg/dL increased from 65% [52, 72] to 75% [63, 80], P = 0.008, from baseline to end of follow-up. Time above range>180mg/dL decreased from 28% [20, 46] to 22% [14, 35], P = 0.047. Advanced pubertal stage was correlated with less improvement in ΔTAR>180mg/dL, r = 0.47, P = 0.05, and less CGM usage r = -0.57, P = 0.05. A longer disease duration was associated with less improvement in ΔTAR180-250mg/dL, r = 0.48, P = 0.05. Lower pump site change frequency was associated with higher glucose management indicator, r = 0.5, P = 0.03, and lower TIR70-180mg/dL r = -0.52, P = 0.08. Conclusion: The use of AHCL enabled improvements in TIR70-180mg/dL in youth with T1D. More advanced pubertal stages, longer disease duration, and less compliance were associated with less improvement, stressing the need for continuous support, and re-education in this age group.

Unannounced Meal Challenges Using an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System

Background: The advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm combines automated basal rates and corrections yet requires meal announcement for optimal outcomes. We aimed to compare the performance of the MiniMed™ 780G AHCL algorithm with and without meal announcement. Methods: In a single-arm study involving 14 adults with type 1 diabetes, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of AHCL when meals were not announced. Participants stayed at a supervised environment for 5 days, during which the outcomes of not announcing meals (≤80 g of carbohydrate) were assessed. Next, participants entered a 90-day at-home "unannounced" phase, during which all meals (≤80 g of carbohydrate) were unannounced, followed by a 90-day at-home phase in which all meals were announced. Results: Time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was lower in the unannounced versus announced periods (67.5% ± 12.5% vs. 77.7% ± 9.5%; P < 0.01, respectively), with more time spent in hyperglycemia range 180-250 mg/dL (22.7% ± 7.7% vs. 15.7% ± 7.2%) and >250 mg/dL (7.9% ± 6.4% vs. 3.6% ± 2.7%), but less time in hypoglycemia range 54-70 mg/dL (1.6% ± 1% vs. 2.8% ± 1.8%) and <54 mg/dL (0.3% ± 0.4% vs. 0.7% ± 0.9%). Not announcing meals containing up to 60 g of carbohydrate did not lead to increase in postprandial extreme dysglycemia >250 mg/dL, and up to 20 g of unannounced carbohydrates did not significantly change the TIR 70-180 mg/dL compared with full announcement. Conclusion: The AHCL system is optimized for use with meal announcement. While not announcing meals of ≤80 g carbohydrates appears to be safe, it results in suboptimal postprandial glycemic control, especially with high-carbohydrate meals. Not announcing small meals (≤20 g carbohydrate) does not deteriorate glycemic control. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04479826.

Glucose control during Ramadan in a pediatric cohort with type 1 diabetes on MiniMed standard and advanced hybrid closed‑loop systems: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems have revolutionized the treatment of diabetes, enabling doctors to cope with challenging conditions that were previously almost impossible to manage or were very risky and difficult.

AIMS

To assess the efficacy and safety of a hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system during Ramadan fasting in a pediatric cohort with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Glucose control outcomes in older children and adolescents aged 8-16 years with automated insulin delivery for T1D were analyzed during Ramadan and 1 month before Ramadan. Participants on MiniMed standard HCL (670G) or advanced HCL (780G) systems of Medtronic were categorized as fasting or nonfasting.

RESULTS

The average age of the 19 participants (8 and 11 were on standard and advanced HCL systems, respectively) was 11.35 ± 2 years. Eleven patients fasted during Ramadan. Pump setup and sensor statistics were the same during Ramadan and the month before; no significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of insulin and glucose control metrics, with practically the same coefficient of variation, time in range (TIR) and time spent in hypoglycemia, maintained within the international recommended targets. Total daily doses were paradoxically higher in patients who fasted during Ramadan (p = 0.01), without repercussions on glucose control metrics.

CONCLUSIONS

Standard and advanced HCL use during Ramadan were safe and were associated with a maintained optimum TIR (>70 %) and no significant hypoglycemia in adolescents and older children with T1D.

Intelligent Insulin vs. Artificial Intelligence for Type 1 Diabetes: Will the Real Winner Please Stand Up?

Research in the treatment of type 1 diabetes has been addressed into two main areas: the development of "intelligent insulins" capable of auto-regulating their own levels according to glucose concentrations, or the exploitation of artificial intelligence (AI) and its learning capacity, to provide decision support systems to improve automated insulin therapy. This review aims to provide a synthetic overview of the current state of these two research areas, providing an outline of the latest development in the search for "intelligent insulins," and the results of new and promising advances in the use of artificial intelligence to regulate automated insulin infusion and glucose control. The future of insulin treatment in type 1 diabetes appears promising with AI, with research nearly reaching the possibility of finally having a "closed-loop" artificial pancreas.

Impact on glucometric variables and quality of life of the advanced hybrid closed-loop system in pediatric and adolescent type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND

In recent years, technological advances in the field of diabetes have revolutionized the management, prognosis, and quality of life of diabetes patients and their environment. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of implementing the MiniMed 780G closed-loop system in a pediatric and adolescent population previously treated with a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump and intermittent glucose monitoring.

METHODS

Data were collected from 28 patients with type 1 diabetes aged 6 to 17 years, with a follow-up of 6 months. We included both glucometric and quality of life variables, as well as quality of life in primary caregivers. Metabolic control variables were assessed at baseline (before system change) and at different cutoff points after initiation of the closed-loop system (48 hours, 7 days, 14 days, 21 days, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months).

RESULTS

Time in range 70-180 mg/dL increased from 59.44% at baseline to 74.29% in the first 48 hours after automation of the new system, and this improvement was maintained at the other cutoff points, as was time in hyperglycemia 180-250 mg/dL (24.44% at baseline to 18.96% at 48 hours) and >250 mg/dL (11.71% at baseline to 3.82% at 48 hours).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed an improvement in time in range and in all time spent in hyperglycemia from the first 48 hours after the automation of the system, which was maintained at 6 months.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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.

Simplified Meal Announcement Versus Precise Carbohydrate Counting in Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes Using the MiniMed 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop System: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Glucose Control

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare glucose control in adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using the MiniMed 780G system who used simplified meal announcement with those who used precise carbohydrate counting.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This randomized controlled trial included 34 participants (age 12-18 years) with T1D who were on multiple daily injections or insulin pump and were scheduled to start using the MiniMed 780G system at Sidra Medicine in Qatar. After a 7-day run-in period, participants were randomly assigned to the fix group (simplified meal announcement by preset of three personalized fixed carbohydrate amounts) or the flex group (precise carbohydrate counting) and followed for 12 weeks. Between-group difference in time in range (TIR) was the primary end point. Secondary end points included HbA1c and other glycometrics.

RESULTS

During the 12-week study phase, TIR was 73.5 ± 6.7% in the fix and 80.3 ± 7.4% in the flex group, with a between-group difference of 6.8% in favor of flex (P = 0.043). Time >250 mg/dL was better in the flex group (P = 0.012), whereas HbA1c (P = 0.168), time below range (P = 0.283), and time between 180 and 250 mg/dL (P = 0.114) did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Adolescents using the MiniMed 780G system with a preset of three personalized fixed carbohydrate amounts can reach international targets of glycemic control. Therefore, it may be a valuable alternative to precise carbohydrate counting in users who are challenged by precise carbohydrate counting. Because carbohydrate counting further improves outcomes, these skills remain important for MiniMed 780G users.

Real-world performance of the MiniMed 780G advanced hybrid closed loop system in Latin America: Substantial improvement in glycaemic control with each technology iteration of the MiniMed automated insulin delivery system

AIM

We studied real-world performance of MiniMed (MM) 780G system users from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Chile (geographical analysis), and the effect of each technology iteration of the MM system on glycaemic control (technology iteration analysis).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CareLink data from August 2020 to September 2022 were extracted. Endpoints included continuous glucose monitoring metrics. For the geographical analysis, aggregated endpoints for MM780G system users were calculated. For the technology iteration analysis, MM780G system user outcomes were compared with outcomes when the same individuals were still using the MM640G or MM670G system.

RESULTS

On average, 1025 MM780G system users from the geographical analysis were followed for 136 (SD 135) days, spent 91.5 (14.3)% in advanced hybrid closed loop, showed a glucose management indicator (GMI) of 6.7 (0.3)%, a time in range between 70 and 180 mg/dl (TIR) of 76.5 (9.0)%, and a time below range 70 mg/dl (TBR) of 2.7 (2.1)%. The percentage of users reaching targets of GMI <7%, TIR >70% and TBR <4% was 80.8%, 78.1% and 80.1%, respectively. The technology iteration analysis on users transitioning from MM640G to MM780G system (N = 381) showed 0.4% decrease in GMI (7.1% to 6.7%, p < .0001), 10.7% increase in TIR (65.9% to 76.6%, p < .0001), while TBR remained. The percentage of insulin delivered automatically increased as well (47.5%-57.7%, p < .0001). Users transitioning from MM670G system (N = 78) showed a similar but less pronounced pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world Latin American MM780G users on average showed good glucose control, achieving international targets. Glycaemic control increased with every technology iteration of the MM system, providing more automation each time.

One-year real-world performance of the DBLG1 closed-loop system: Data from 3706 adult users with type 1 diabetes in Germany

AIM

The Diabeloop Generation 1 (DBLG1) system is an interoperable hybrid closed-loop solution that was commercialized in Germany in March 2021. We report the longitudinal glycaemic outcomes among the first 3706 users in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective data collection of all consenting adult patients with type 1 diabetes who were equipped in Germany with the DBLG1 system before 30 April 2022, and with a minimum 14 days of closed-loop usage.

RESULTS

In total, 3706 users (41% women, age 45.1 ± 14.5 years) met the inclusion criteria, reaching a mean follow-up of 131.0 ± 85.1 days, an overall 485 600 days of continuous glucose monitoring data, and a median time spent in closed-loop of 95.0% (IQR 89.1-97.4). The median percentage time in range (70-180 mg/dl) was 72.1% (IQR 65.0-78.9); the time below 70 mg/dl was 0.9% (0.5-1.7), the time below 54 mg/dl was 0.1% (0.1-0.3), and the median Glucose Management Index was 7.0% (6.8-7.3). Exploratory analysis of a subset of 2460 patients in whom baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was available [7.4% (IQR 6.9-8.0)] showed that the achieved mean time in range was influenced by baseline HbA1c, ranging from 65.8 ± 9.9% (A1c ≥8.5%) to 81.3 ± 6.8% (A1c <6.5%).

CONCLUSION

This large real-world analysis confirms the relevance of the DBLG1 automated insulin delivery solution for the achievement of standards of care in adult patients with type 1 diabetes.

The Medtronic 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop system achieves and maintains good glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes adults despite previous treatment

INTRODUCTION

Improvements in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in recent years have changed the treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D) by permitting the automation of glucose control. The Minimed 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop (ACHL) system adapts basal infusion rates and delivers auto-correction boluses in order to achieve a user-decided glucose target (100, 110 or 120mg/dL). This study set out to evaluate the effectiveness of the Medtronic 780G system in real-life conditions over 6 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective study that included T1D subjects previously treated with insulin pump without CGM (pump group) or with sensor-augmented pump with predictive low-glucose suspend (SAP-PLGS group) who started with the Minimed 780G system. Sensor and pump data from baseline, and at 1, 3 and 6 months were downloaded and HbA1c was recorded at baseline and at 6 months.

RESULTS

Fifty T1D subjects were included; 25 were previous SAP-PLGS 640G users and 25 used 640G without CGM. 66% were female, 48.6 (40-57) years of age with 20 (12-31.5) years of diabetes duration. Time in range (TIR) improved in the total cohort from baseline to 6 months (69% (57.7-76) vs. 74% (70-82); p=0.01 as did HbA1c (7.6% (7.1-7.8) vs. 7.0% (6.8-7.5); p<0.001), with improvement in times <54, >180 and >250mg/dL. Outcomes at 6 months did not differ between groups, although the SAP-PLGS subjects were prone to hypoglycaemia and the pump group mainly presented suboptimal metabolic control.

CONCLUSION

The AHCL Medtronic Minimed 780G system achieves and maintains good glycaemic control over 6 months in real-life conditions in different profiles of T1D subjects.

Effectiveness and Safety of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Previously Treated with Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion and Flash Glucose Monitoring

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the MiniMed™ 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) previously treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion combined with flash glucose monitoring in a real-life setting. A total of 47 subjects (mean age 41 ± 13.6 years, 60% females, diabetes duration 28 ± 11 years) were included and switched to an AHCL system. Baseline and 6-month data were analyzed. Time in range 70-180 mg/dL increased from 65.3% at baseline to 73.8% at 6 months. Time in hyperglycemia >180 mg/dL decreased from 26.6% to 19.3%. Time in hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL decreased from 4.6% to 2.3%. The coefficient of variation also decreased from 36% to 31.6%. No episodes of severe hypoglycemia, diabetes ketoacidosis, or diabetes-related hospital admissions occurred. In conclusion, the MiniMed 780G AHCL system enables the safe achievement of recommended glycemic targets in people with T1D after 6 months of use.

14. Children and Adolescents: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

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

One-year follow-up comparison of two hybrid closed-loop systems in Italian children and adults with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Tandem Control-IQ and MiniMed 780G are the main Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop (AHCL) systems currently available in pediatric and adult patients with Type 1 Diabetes (T1D). The aim of our study was to evaluate glycemic control after 1-year of follow-up extending our previous study of 1-month comparison between the two systems.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared clinical and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data from the patients included in the previous study which have completed 1-year observation period. The study population consisted of 74 patients, 42 Minimed 780G users and 32 Tandem Control-IQ users. Linear mixed models with random intercept were performed to study the variations over time and the interaction between time and system; Mann-Whitney or T-test were used to compare systems at 1-year.

RESULTS

Both systems have been shown to be effective in maintaining the glycemic improvement achieved one month after starting AHCL. Significant changes over time were observed for TIR, TAR, TAR>250mg/dl, average glucose levels and SD (p<0.001). At 1-year follow-up Minimed 780G obtained better improvement in TIR (p<0.001), TAR (p=0.002), TAR>250mg/dl (p=0.001), average glucose levels (p<0.001). The comparison of the glycemic parameters at 1-year showed a significant superiority of Minimed 780G in terms of TIR (71% vs 68%; p=0.001), TAR (p=0.001), TAR>250 (p=0.009), average glucose levels(p=0.001) and SD (p=0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of AHCL systems led to a significant improvement of glycemic control at 1-month, which is maintained at 1-year follow-up. MiniMed is more effective than Tandem in reaching the International recommended glycemic targets. Continuous training and education in the use of technology is essential to get the best out of the most advanced technological tools.

Long-term effectiveness of advanced hybrid closed loop in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) systems are the newest tool to improve metabolic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Long-term glycemic control of children and adolescents with T1D switching to MiniMed™ 780G in a real clinical setting was evaluated.

METHODS

Time in range (TIR) and in different glucose ranges, glycemic variability indexes, HbA1c and basal-bolus insulin distribution were evaluated in 44 subjects (mean age 14.2 ± 4.0 years, 22 males) during manual mode period, first 14 days (A14d) and first month after auto-mode activation (A1M), first 14 days after 3 months (A3M) and 6 months (A6M) in auto-mode.

RESULTS

Mean TIR at A14d was 76.3 ± 9.6% versus 69.3 ± 12.6% in manual mode (p < 0.001), and this improvement was maintained over 6 months. Subjects with TIR >70% and >80% in manual mode were 45% and 23%, respectively, and increased to 80% (p = 0.041) and 41% (p = 0.007) at A14d. Basal-bolus distribution changed in favor of bolus, and auto-correction boluses inversely correlated with TIR. HbA1c was 7.2 ± 0.7% (55 mmol/mol) at baseline and significantly improved after 3 months (6.7 ± 0.5%, 50 mmol/mol, p < 0.001) and 6 months (6.6 ± 0.5%, 49 mmol/mol, p < 0.001). TIR was higher in individuals >13 years at all time periods (p < 0.001). Glycemic target <120 mg/dl was associated with better TIR.

CONCLUSIONS

AHCL MiniMed™ 780G allowed rapid and sustained improvement of glycemic control in young T1D patients, reaching recommended TIR. Teenagers showed good technology adherence with optimal TIR, maintained better over time compared to younger children. Stricter settings were associated with better metabolic control, without increase in severe hypoglycemia occurrence.

Predictors of time in target glucose range in real-world users of the MiniMed 780G system

AIM

Automated insulin delivery systems have improved glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus. The analysis investigated predictors of improved sensor glucose time-in-range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dl) based on real-world use of the MiniMed 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system.

METHODS

Data uploaded by MiniMed 780G system users from August 2020-July 2021 were analysed using univariate and multivariable models to identify baseline, demographic and system use characteristics associated with TIR after AHCL initiation (post-AHCL). System settings associated with improved TIR post-AHCL were identified and their impact on time below range (TBR, <70 mg/dl) post-AHCL was explored.

RESULTS

In total, 12 870 users were included, of which 2977 had baseline sensor glucose data. Baseline TIR and time in AHCL (defined as the percentage of time the system was in Auto-mode) were positively associated with TIR post-AHCL with larger values predicting greater mean TIR post-AHCL. Characteristics inversely associated with TIR post-AHCL included the percentage of daily basal insulin dose, daily autocorrection dose, number of daily AHCL exits triggered by the system and number of daily alarms, wherein larger values of these characteristics predicted lower mean TIR post-AHCL. System settings that predicted the largest mean TIR post-AHCL were active insulin time of 2 h and glucose target of 100 mg/dl. Active insulin time was not associated with TBR post-AHCL.

CONCLUSION

Modifiable factors, including optimized pump settings, can allow users to achieve glycaemic targets with >80% TIR. The findings from this analysis will potentially guide the optimal use of the MiniMed 780G system and facilitate meaningful improvements in safe glycaemic control.

Transitioning of People With Type 1 Diabetes From Multiple Daily Injections and Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Directly to MiniMed 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System: A Two-Center, Randomized, Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of transitioning to the MiniMed 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system in adult individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) naive to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technologies.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a two-center, randomized, controlled, parallel-group trial with evaluation of individuals with T1DM aged 26-60 years managed with multiple daily injections (MDI) and self-monitoring of blood glucose (BGM) with HbA1c <10%.

RESULTS

A total of 41 participants were recruited and randomized to either the AHCL (n = 20) or the MDI+BGM (n = 21) group, and 37 participants (mean ± SD age 40.3 ± 8.0 years, duration of diabetes 17.3 ± 12.1 years, BMI 25.1 ± 3.1 kg/m2, HbA1c 7.2 ± 1.0%) completed the study. Time spent with glucose levels in target range increased from 69.3 ± 12.3% at baseline to 85.0 ± 6.3% at 3 months in the AHCL group, while remaining unchanged in the control group (treatment effect 21.5% [95% CI 15.7, 27.3]; P < 0.001). The time with levels below range (<70 mg/dL) decreased from 8.7 ± 7.3% to 2.1 ± 1.7% in the AHCL group and remained unchanged in the MDI+BGM group (treatment effect -4.4% [95% CI -7.4, -2.1]; P < 0.001). Participants from the AHCL group also had significant improvements in HbA1c levels (treatment effect -0.6% [95% CI -0.9, -0.2]; P = 0.005) and in quality of life (QoL) in specific subscales compared with the MDI+BGM group.

CONCLUSIONS

People with T1DM naive to CSII and CGM technologies initiating AHCL significantly and safely improved their glycemic control, as well as their QoL and psychological well-being.

Prospective Open-Label, Single-Arm, Single-Center Follow-Up Study of the Application of the Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop System in Well-Controlled Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes

Background: The aim of this prospective open-label single-arm single-center follow-up study was to analyze glycemic control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes treated with the advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system in relation to a sensor-augmented pump with low-glucose suspend (SAP-LGS) or predictive low-glucose suspend (SAP-PLGS). Materials and Methods: The data for 50 children and adolescents (age 5.5-19.6 years) with type 1 diabetes, receiving insulin through an AHCL system after being switched from SAP-LGS/PLGS systems, were included in the analysis. The SAP-LGS/PLGS records from 2 weeks preceding the AHCL connection were compared with the records from the first 4 weeks of AHCL use, represented as two separate 2-week intervals. Results: Significant improvements in most of the parameters, namely time spent in the range of 70-140 mg/dL (from 53.80% ± 12.35% to 61.70% ± 8.42%, P < 0.001) and 70-180 mg/dL (from 76.17% ± 10.28% to 81.32% ± 7.71%, P < 0.001), average sensor glucose (from 138.61 ± 16.66 to 130.02 ± 10.91 mg/dL, P < 0.001), and glucose management indicator (from 6.54% ± 0.45% to 6.27% ± 0.29%, P = 0.001), were observed within 2 weeks of switching to the AHCL. More evident improvements were observed for the parameters monitored at night than during the day. The potential limitations of this study were the short observation time, lack of glycated hemoglobin measurements, and no control arm. Conclusion: The AHCL system can significantly improve glycemic control even in well-controlled children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes by increasing the proportion of time spent in the narrower range of 70-140 mg/dL and decreasing the mean glucose concentration, especially during the night.

Switching to the Minimed™ 780G system achieves clinical targets for CGM in adults with type 1 diabetes regardless of previous insulin strategy and baseline glucose control

AIMS

Advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) systems represent the latest introduction in the treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1DM). Randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence studies showed that AHCL systems are a safe and effective insulin management strategy. Aim of this retrospective, single-center, real-life study was to evaluate the effect on metabolic control, evaluated by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics, of the switch from four available insulin strategies to an AHCL system in adult patients with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

A total of 102 patients with T1DM (mean age 42.1 ± 16.3 years, males/females 47/55, duration of diabetes 21.4 ± 13.3 years, BMI 24.4 ± 4.5 kg/m², HbA_1c 59.9 ± 9.6 mmol/mol or 7.6 ± 0.9%), treated with four different insulin therapies [multiple daily insulin (MDI) therapy, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), sensor-augmented pump (SAP) with predictive low-glucose suspend (PLGS), and hybrid closed loop (HCL) system] were evaluated before hand, two months and six months after switching to an AHCL (Minimed™ 780G system, Medtronic, Northridge, CA) system.

RESULTS

Two months after the switch, mean GCM metrics improved in all four treatment groups. Six months after the switch, the participants of all four groups achieved a mean GMI < 53 mmol/mol, TIR > 70%, TBR < 4%, and CV < 36%, which is recommended by the ADA Standard of Medical Care in Diabetes 2022, including the MDI group with worse baseline glycemic control.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to an AHCL leads to a rapid improvement in glycemic control lasting for up to six months independently of previous insulin treatment and baseline conditions.

Advanced hybrid closed loop therapy versus conventional treatment in adults with type 1 diabetes (ADAPT): a randomised controlled study

BACKGROUND

Adults with type 1 diabetes who are treated with multiple daily injections of insulin plus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) can have suboptimal glucose control. We aimed to assess the efficacy of an advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system compared with such therapy in this population.

METHODS

The Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop Study in Adult Population with Type 1 Diabetes (ADAPT) trial is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial that involved 14 centres in three European countries (France, Germany, and the UK). We enrolled patients who were at least 18 years of age, had a type 1 diabetes duration of at least 2 years, HbA_1c of at least 8% (64 mmol/mol), and were using multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM (cohort A) or real time continuous glucose monitoring (cohort B) for at least 3 months. Here, only results for cohort A are reported. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to AHCL therapy or continuation of multiple daily injections of insulin plus continuous glucose monitoring for 6 months with an investigator-blinded block randomisation procedure. Participants and treating clinicians could not be masked to the arm assignment. The primary endpoint was the between-group difference in mean HbA_1c change from baseline to 6 months in the intention-to-treat population using AHCL therapy and those using multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM. The primary endpoint was analysed using a repeated measures random-effects model with the study arm and period as factors. Safety endpoints included the number of device deficiencies, severe hypoglycaemic events, diabetic ketoacidosis, and serious adverse events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04235504.

FINDINGS

Between July 13, 2020, and March 12, 2021, 105 people were screened and 82 randomly assigned to treatment (41 in each arm). At 6 months, mean HbA_1c had decreased by 1·54% (SD 0·73), from 9·00% to 7·32% in the AHCL group and 0·20% (0·80) in the multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM from 9·07% to 8·91% (model-based difference -1·42%, 95% CI -1·74 to -1·10; p<0·0001). No diabetic ketoacidosis, severe hypoglycaemia, or serious adverse events related to study devices occurred in either group; two severe hypoglycaemic events occurred in the run-in phase. 15 device-related non-serious adverse events occurred in the AHCL group, compared with three in the multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM group. Two serious adverse events occurred (one in each group), these were breast cancer (in one patient in the AHCL group) and intravitreous haemorrhage (in one patient in the multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM group).

INTERPRETATION

In people with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM and with HbA_1c of at least 8%, the use of AHCL confers benefits in terms of glycaemic control beyond those that can be achieved with multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM. These data support wider access to AHCL in people with type 1 diabetes not at target glucose levels.

FUNDING

Medtronic International Trading Sàrl.

Glycemic control during Ramadan fasting in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes on MiniMed™ 780G advanced hybrid closed‑loop system: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

MiniMed^TM 780G is the most advanced insulin pump system approved for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Hypoglycemic events are a serious complication associated with T1DM management during Ramadan fasting.

AIM

This prospective study assessed the safety, effectiveness and optimization of advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system on glycemic metrics and the level of hypoglycemia in T1DM patients who wished to fast Ramadan.

METHODS

Forty-two T1DM patients (mean age 15.2 ± 3.4 years) using AHCL system were divided into two groups (each n = 21): intervention group who adjusted AHCL settings and control group who kept the same settings as before Ramadan.

RESULTS

The most aggressive system settings among control group consisting of a 100 mg/dL glucose target, active insulin time of 2 h and bolus increment,maintained exceptional glycemia withtime in range reaching82.0 ± 10.2%, time above range >180 mg/dL of 12.1 ± 3.5% without an increase in hypoglycemia (time below range 3.0 ± 0.3%). All of which were non-significant in comparison to the intervention group. Overall time spent in closed loop (SmartGuard) by users averaged 98.7 ± 2.1% in Auto Mode and involved only 1.0 ± 0.7 exits per week indicating confidence in the system's performance. There were no severe hypoglycemic or diabetic ketoacidosis events during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

MiniMed™ 780G AHCL system assist in safe fasting with minimal user input and allows for achievement of recommended glycemic targets in people with T1DM during Ramadan fasting. The system demonstrated reduction in hypoglycemia exposure without compromising safety.

Long-term outcomes of an advanced hybrid closed-loop system: A focus on different subpopulations

BACKGROUND

The long-term benefit provided by advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) systems needs to be assessed in general populations and specific subpopulations.

METHODS

A prospective evaluation of subjects initiating the AHCL system 780G was performed. Time in range (70-180 mg/dl) (TIR), <70 mg/dl, <54 mg/dl, >180 mg/dl and >250 mg/dl were compared, at baseline and after one year, in different subpopulations, according to previous treatment (pump vs MDI), age (> or ≤25 years old) and hypoglycaemia risk at baseline.

RESULTS

135 subjects were included (age: 35 ± 15 years, 64 % females, diabetes duration: 21 ± 12 years). An increase in TIR was found, from 67.26 ± 11.80 % at baseline to 77.41 ± 8.85 % after one year (p < 0.001). All the subgroups showed a significant improvement in TIR, time > 180 mg/dl and >250 mg/dl. At the 1-year evaluation, no significant differences were found, between previous pump users and MDI subjects. Children and young adults had a lower time < 70 mg/dl than adults. Subjects with a high risk of hypoglycaemia at baseline had a higher time spent at <70 mg/dl and <54 mg/dl than low-risk individuals.

CONCLUSION

The initial benefit provided by the AHCL system is sustained in the long term. MDI subjects obtain the same outcomes as subjects with pump experience.

Comparison of two advanced hybrid closed loop in a pediatric population with type 1 diabetes: a real-life observational study

OBJECTIVE

The Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop (AHCL) systems have provided the potential to ameliorate glucose control in children with Type 1 Diabetes. The aim of the present work was to compare metabolic control obtained with 2 AHCL systems (Medtronic 780G system and Tandem Control IQ system) in a pediatric real-life clinical context.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

It is an observational, real-life, monocentric study; thirty one children and adolescents (M:F = 15:16, age range 7.6-18 years, mean age 13.05 ± 2.4 years, Diabetes duration > 1 year) with T1D, previously treated with Predictive Low Glucose Suspend (PLGS) systems and then upgraded to AHCL have been enrolled. CGM data of the last four weeks of "PLGS system" (PRE period) with the first four weeks of AHCL system (POST period) have been compared.

RESULTS

For both AHCL systems, Medtronic 780G and Tandem Control IQ, respectively TIR at 4 weeks significantly increased, from 65.7 to 70.5% (p < 0.01) and from 64.8 to 70.1% (p < 0.01). (p < 0.01). The comparison between CGM metrics of the 2 evaluated systems doesn't show difference at baseline (last four weeks of PLGS system) and after four weeks of AHCL use.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this study is the first real-life one comparing 2 AHCL systems in a pediatric population with T1D. It shows an improvement in glucose control when upgrading to AHCL. The comparison between the two AHCL systems did not show significant differences in the analyzed CGM metrics, meaning that the algorithms currently available are equally effective in promoting glucose control.

Glycemic outcomes of Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop system in children and adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes, previously treated with Multiple Daily Injections (MiniMed 780G system in T1D individuals, previously treated with MDI)

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to evaluate the glycemic outcomes in children and adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) previously treated with Multiple Daily Injections (MDI) using a structured initiation protocol for the Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop (AHCL) Minimed 780G insulin pump system.

METHODS

In this prospective open label single-arm, single-center, clinical investigation, we recruited children and adolescents (aged 7-17 years) with T1D on MDI therapy and HbA1c below 12.5%. All participants followed a 10-day structured initiation protocol which included 4 steps: step 1: AHCL system assessment; step 2: AHCL system training; step 3: Sensor augmented pump therapy (SAP) for 3 days; step 4: AHCL system use for 12 weeks, successfully completing the training from MDI to AHCL in 10 days. The primary outcome of the study was the change in the time spent in the target in range (TIR) of 70-180 mg/dl and HbA1c from baseline (MDI + CGM, 1 week) to study phase (AHCL, 12 weeks). The paired student t-test was used for statistical analysis and a value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Thirty-four participants were recruited and all completed the 12 weeks study. TIR increased from 42.1 ± 18.7% at baseline to 78.8 ± 6.1% in the study phase (p < 0.001). HbA1c decreased from 8.6 ± 1.7% (70 ± 18.6 mmol/mol) at baseline, to 6.5 ± 0.7% (48 ± 7.7 mmol/mol) at the end of the study (p = 0.001). No episodes of severe hypoglycemia or DKA were reported.

CONCLUSION

Children and adolescents with T1D on MDI therapy who initiated the AHCL system following a 10-days structured protocol achieved the internationally recommended goals of glycemic control with TIR > 70% and a HbA1c of < 7%.

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

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

Real-World Performance of the MiniMed™ 780G System: First Report of Outcomes from 4120 Users

Background: The MiniMed™ 780G system includes an advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) algorithm that provides both automated basal and correction bolus insulin delivery. The preliminary performance of the system in real-world settings was evaluated. Methods: Data uploaded from August 2020 to March 2021 by individuals living in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Qatar, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom were aggregated and retrospectively analyzed to determine the mean glucose management indicator (GMI), percentage of time spent within (TIR), below (TBR), and above (TAR) glycemic ranges, system use, and insulin consumption in users having ≥10 days of sensor glucose (SG) data after initiating AHCL. The impact of initiating AHCL was evaluated in a subgroup of users also having ≥10 days of SG data, before AHCL initiation. Results: Users (N = 4120) were observed for a mean of 54 ± 32 days. During this time, they spent a mean of 94.1% ± 11.4% of the time in AHCL and achieved a mean GMI of 6.8% ± 0.3%, TIR of 76.2% ± 9.1%, TBR <70 of 2.5% ± 2.1%, and TAR >180 of 21.3% ± 9.4%, after initiating AHCL. There were 77.3% and 79.0% of users who achieved a TIR >70% and a GMI of <7.0%, respectively. Users for whom comparison with pre-AHCL was possible (N = 812) reduced their GMI by 0.4% ± 0.4% (P = 0.005) and increased their TIR by 12.1% ± 10.5% (P < 0.0001), post-AHCL initiation. More users achieved the glycemic treatment goals of GMI <7.0% (37.6% vs. 75.2%, P < 0.0001) and TIR >70% (34.6% vs. 74.9%, P < 0.0001) when compared with pre-AHCL initiation. Conclusion: Most MiniMed 780G system users achieved TIR >70% and GMI <7%, while minimizing hypoglycemia, in a real-world condition.

Body mass index, basal insulin and glycemic control in children with type 1 diabetes treated with the advanced hybrid closed loop system remain stable - 1-year prospective, observational, two-center study

BACKGROUND

Information on the influence of insulin treatment using advanced hybrid closed loop systems (AHCL) on body weight of young patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is scarce. The aim of this study was to observe whether there were any changes in body mass index (BMI) of children and adolescents with T1D treated using the Medtronic Minimed 780G AHCL after 1 year of follow up and to analyze potential associations between these changes and the insulin doses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For 50 children and adolescents (age 5.4-16.8 years, 24 (48%) boys, T1D for 3.9 ± 2.56 years) using an AHCL system anthropometric and AHCL data were collected prospectively. BMI Z-scores and two-week AHCL records obtained after AHCL enrollment were compared with data after 6 months and also 1 year after starting AHCL.

RESULTS

The BMI Z-score of the patients at 1 year follow-up did not change from time of AHCL initiation (0.51 ± 2.79 vs 0.57 ± 2.85, p>0.05). There was a slight increase in total daily insulin per kg of body weight (0.67 ± 0.21 U/kg vs 0.80 ± 0.21 U/kg, p <0.001), but the percent of basal insulin was unchanged (34.88 ± 6.91% vs 35.08 ± 6.30%, p>0.05). We observed also no change (AHCL start vs after 1 year) in glycemic control parameters: average sensor glucose (131.36± 11.04 mg/dL vs 132.45 ± 13.42 mg/dL, p>0.05), coefficient of variation (34.99± 5.17% vs 34.06 ± 5.38%, p>0.05), glucose management indicator (6.45 ± 0.26% vs 6.48 ± 0.32%, p>0.05), and time spent in the range of 70-180 mg/dL (79.28 ± 8.12% vs 80.40 ± 8.25%, p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

During the 1 year of follow-up the BMI of children and adolescents with T1D treated with an AHCL system remained stable. Although there was a slight increase in the total daily insulin dose, the percent of basal insulin was unchanged. The patients maintained recommended glycemic control.

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.

Empfehlungen zur Diabetes-Behandlung mit automatischen Insulin-Dosierungssystemen

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