A Comparison of Postprandial Glucose Control in the Medtronic Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Versus 670G

Postprandial Glucose Control With Different Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems According to Type of Meal in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems (HCLs) may not perform optimally on postprandial glucose control. We evaluated how first-generation and advanced HCLs manage meals varying in carbohydrates, fat, and protein.

METHOD

According to a cross-sectional design, seven-day food records and HCLs reports from 120 adults with type 1 diabetes (MiniMed670G: n = 40, MiniMed780G: n = 49, Control-IQ [C-IQ]: n = 31) were analyzed. Breakfasts (n = 570), lunches (n = 658), and dinners (n = 619) were divided according to the median of their carbohydrate (g)/fat (g) plus protein (g) ratio (C/FP). After breakfast (4-hour), lunch (6-hour), and dinner (6-hour), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics and early and late glucose incremental area under the curves (iAUCs) and delivered insulin doses were evaluated. The association of C/FP and HCLs with postprandial glucose and insulin patterns was analyzed by univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a two-factor design.

RESULTS

Postprandial glucose time-in-range 70 to 180 mg/dL was optimal after breakfast (78.3 ± 26.9%), lunch (72.7 ± 26.1%), and dinner (70.8 ± 27.3%), with no significant differences between HCLs. Independent of C/FP, late glucose-iAUC after lunch was significantly lower in C-IQ users than 670G and 780G (P < .05), with no significant differences at breakfast and dinner. Postprandial insulin pattern (Ins3-6h minus Ins0-3h) differed by type of HCLs at lunch (P = .026) and dinner (P < .001), being the early insulin dose (Ins0-3h) higher than the late dose (Ins3-6h) in 670G and 780G users with an opposite pattern in C-IQ users.

CONCLUSIONS

Independent of different proportions of dietary carbohydrates, fat, and protein, postprandial glucose response was similar in users of different HCLs, although obtained through different automatic insulin delivery patterns.

Safety, Metabolic and Psychological Outcomes of Medtronic MiniMed 780G™ in Children, Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review

The MiniMed™ 780G is a second-generation automated insulin delivery system that implements a modified proportional-integral-derivative algorithm with some features of an MD-Logic artificial pancreas algorithm. The system may deliver automatic correction boluses up to every 5 min, and it allows the user to choose between three glucose target setpoints (100, 110 and 120 mg/dL). We aimed to review the current evidence on this device in children, adolescents, and young adults living with type 1 diabetes. We screened 783 papers, but only 31 manuscripts were included in this review. Data on metabolic outcomes show that this system is safe as regards severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis. The glycated haemoglobin may drop to levels about 7%, with CGM reports showing a time in range of 75-80%. The time above range and the time below range are within the recommended target in most of the subjects. Few studies evaluated the psychological outcomes. This system seems to be more effective than the first-generation automated insulin delivery systems. The MiniMed™ 780G has been associated with an improvement in sleep quality in subjects living with diabetes and their caregivers, along with an improvement in treatment satisfaction. Psychological distress is as reduced as the glucose control is improved. We also discuss some case reports describing particular situations in clinical practice. Finally, we think that data show that this system is a further step towards the improvement of the treatment of diabetes as concerns both metabolic and psychological outcomes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A Comparison of Faster Insulin Aspart with Standard Insulin Aspart Using Hybrid Automated Insulin Delivery System in Active Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Double-Blind Crossover Trial

Objective: To evaluate the use of faster acting (FIA) and standard insulin aspart (SIA) with hybrid automated insulin delivery (AID) in active youth with type 1 diabetes. Research Design and Methods: In this double-blind multinational randomized crossover trial, 30 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (16 females; aged 15.0 ± 1.7 years; baseline HbA1c 7.5% ± 0.9% [58 ± 9.8 mmol/mol]) underwent two unrestricted 4-week periods using hybrid AID with either FIA or SIA in random order. During both interventions, participants were using the hybrid AID (investigational version of MiniMed™ 780G; Medtronic). Participants were encouraged to exercise as frequently as possible, capturing physical activity with an activity monitor. The primary outcome was the percentage of sensor glucose time above range (180 mg/dL [10.0 mmol/L]) measured by continuous glucose monitoring. Results: In an intention-to-treat analysis, mean time above range was 31% ± 15% at baseline, 19% ± 6% during FIA use, and 20% ± 6% during SIA use with no difference between treatments: mean difference = -0.9%; 95% CI: -2.4% to 0.6%; P = 0.23. Similarly, there was no difference in mean time in range (TIR) (78% and 77%) or median time below range (2.5% and 2.8%). Glycemic outcomes during exercise or postprandial periods were comparable for the two treatment arms. No severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis events occurred. Conclusions: FIA was not superior to SIA with hybrid AID system use in physically active children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Nonetheless, both insulin formulations enabled high overall TIR and low time above and below ranges, even during and after documented exercise. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04853030.

Real-World Performance of First- Versus Second-Generation Automated Insulin Delivery Systems on a Pediatric Population With Type 1 Diabetes: A One-Year Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this single-center observational study was to assess the real-world performance of first- and second-generation automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in a cohort of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes over a one-year follow-up.

METHODS

Demographic, anamnestic, and clinical data of the study cohort were collected at the start of automatic mode. Data on continuous glucose monitoring metrics, system settings, insulin requirements, and anthropometric parameters at three different time points (start period, six months, 12 months) were retrospectively gathered and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty-four individuals (55.6% of females) aged 7 to 18 years switching to AID therapy were included in the analysis. Two weeks after starting automatic mode, subjects using advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) showed a better response than hybrid closed-loop (HCL) users in terms of time in range (P = .016), time above range 180 to 250 mg/dl (P = .022), sensor mean glucose (P = .047), and glycemia risk index (P = .012). After 12 months, AHCL group maintained better mean sensor glucose (P = .021) and glucose management indicator (P = .027). Noteworthy, both HCL and AHCL users achieved the recommended clinical targets over the entire study period. The second-generation AID system registered longer time spent with automatic mode activated and fewer shifts to manual mode at every time point (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both systems showed sustained and successful glycemic outcomes in the first year of use. However, AHCL users achieved tighter glycemic targets, without an increase of hypoglycemia risk. Improved usability of the device may also have contributed to optimal glycemic outcomes by ensuring better continuity of the automatic mode activation.

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.