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

Automated Insulin Delivery System and People With Type 2 Diabetes: A Topic With Many Facets

Optimizing glucose control is of interest also for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). While systems for automated insulin delivery are widely used for patients with type 1 diabetes, as documented by many publications, this is not the case with T2D. Because of the number of such patients, this will change drastically in the next years. Manufacturers can transfer many learnings from type 1 to type 2; however, specific clinical aspects have to be considered. This commentary will discuss these aspects and some of the current activities. Future automated insulin delivery (AID) systems will take data from multisensor systems into account to individualize the AID algorithm, supported by artificial intelligence. There is a high need to document the benefits of AID systems in this patient group.

Safety and Effectiveness of MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Intensification in Adults with Insulin-Requiring Type 2 Diabetes

Background: Early feasibility studies have demonstrated safe and effective automated insulin delivery use in individuals with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D). The present study investigated MiniMed™ 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) therapy safety and effectiveness in adults with insulin-requiring T2D. Materials and Methods: This 13-site, single-arm, open-label study included 95 adults (mean ± standard deviation [SD] age of 60.3 ± 10.8 years and T2D duration of 18.6 ± 8.6 years) using basal-bolus insulin therapy. Participants underwent a run-in period (∼21 days) of open-loop or HCL followed by a study period (∼90 days) of AHCL. The primary safety end point was mean change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to the end of the 3-month study period. The primary and secondary effectiveness end points were noninferiority and superiority in the percentage of time in range (%TIR 70-180 mg/dL) during the last 6 weeks of the study period (computed by the Hodges-Lehmann method). Safety metrics, including the rates of severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS), were summarized. Results: HbA1c was reduced from 7.9% ± 1.0% (62.4 ± 10.4 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7.2 ± 0.7% (54.7 ± 8.0 mmol/mol) (P < 0.001). The %TIR estimate was 80.9% (95% confidence interval: 78.4%, 83.1%), and the significance criteria for both the primary and secondary effectiveness end points were met (P < 0.001). While total daily insulin dose was increased from run-in to the end of the study (77.4 ± 38.5 U vs. 91.8 ± 49.3 U, P < 0.0001), announced carbohydrates were unchanged, and the number of daily user-initiated boluses was reduced (3.9 ± 1.9 vs. 3.2 ± 1.8, P < 0.0001). There was no significant change in participant weight or body mass index, no severe hypoglycemia, DKA, or HHS, and no serious or unanticipated adverse device effects. Conclusions: These findings show that MiniMed 780G AHCL use provides safe insulin intensification in type 2 diabetes and significantly improves mean HbA1c and %TIR.

EValuating Glucose ContrOL Using a Next-GeneraTION Automated Insulin Delivery Algorithm in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: The EVOLUTION Study

This study evaluated a next-generation automated insulin delivery (AID) algorithm for Omnipod in type 1 and type 2 diabetes across multiple phases: 14-day run-in with usual therapy, 48-h AID use in a hotel setting (type 1 only), and up to 6 weeks of outpatient AID use. Participants did, or did not, deliver manual boluses at alternating periods. Twelve adults with type 1 diabetes completed the hotel phase; 9 of those 12 plus 8 adults with type 2 diabetes completed the subsequent outpatient phase. Outpatient % continuous glucose monitor readings >250 mg/dL decreased from 33.5% at baseline to 9.4% with, and 14.3% without, manual boluses in type 1 diabetes and from 20.8% to 7.7% with, and 10.5% without, manual boluses in type 2 diabetes. Time below 70 mg/dL remained <4% during all phases. No adverse events occurred. In conclusion, a next-generation AID algorithm demonstrated feasibility in people with diabetes.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2025

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.

Real-world glycaemic outcomes in children and young people on advanced hybrid closed-loop therapy: A population-based study in Western Australia

AIMS

To evaluate real-world glycaemic outcomes in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) commencing advanced hybrid closed loop therapy (AHCL) and to explore these outcomes based on the cohort's clinical and socioeconomic characteristics.

METHODS

A single-centre, population-based retrospective study in children commencing AHCL (Smart Guard, Control IQ, CamAPS) with minimum 70% data from two-weeks CGM pre-AHCL was conducted between December 2021 and June 2023 in Western Australia. CGM metrics (time in range (TIR) 3.9-10 mmol/L, time below range (TBR) < 3.9 mmol/L, glucose management indicator (GMI)) were analysed at baseline, monthly and 6 months. HbA1c at baseline and 6 months were also collected. The proportion meeting glycaemic targets of TIR > 70%, TBR < 4% and GMI < 7.0% were determined. Change in TIR from baseline to 6 months was examined by the following characteristics: %TIR, age group and Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage (IRSD) of residential postcode.

RESULTS

CGM data of 309 children, mean (SD) age 12.4 (3.2) years were analysed. Glycaemia improved from baseline to 6 months with (mean) TIR +8% (95% CI 7, 9; P ≤ 0.001), GMI -0.3% (95% CI -0.3, -0.2; P < 0.001) and (median) TBR -0.3% (95% CI -0.4, -0.1; P < 0.001). Proportion meeting glycaemic targets increased from 13.3% at baseline to 30.6% at 6 months. Improvement in TIR did not differ based on age group or IRSD Quintile. Greater increase in TIR was seen in those with lowest TIR at baseline (+20.9%, -0.2%; P < 0.001 for baseline TIR < 40%, >70%). There was a 0.27% reduction in HbA1c in 6 months (n = 116) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

AHCL improves glycaemia, irrespective of age and socioeconomic characteristics, with greatest changes seen in those with lowest baseline TIR.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2025

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.

13. Older Adults: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2025

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.

The DERMIS Study: Methodologies, Results, and Implications for the Future

Ongoing innovation in diabetes technologies has led to the development of advanced tools such as automated insulin delivery (AID) systems that adjust insulin delivery in response to current and predicted glucose levels, residual insulin action, and other inputs (eg, meal and exercise announcements). However, infusion sets continue to be the "Achilles heel" of accurate and precise insulin delivery and continued device use. A recent study by Kalus et al (DERMIS Study) revealed higher vessel density and signals of inflammation by optical coherence tomography (OCT), in addition to increased inflammation, fat necrosis, fibrosis, and eosinophilic infiltration by histopathology. Although the study provided a comprehensive description of what was happening, the results raise important questions that require additional research. On February 29, 2024, the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust sponsored a conference to begin addressing these issues. This article summarizes the DERMIS study findings and testing methodologies discussed at the conference and proposes the next steps for developing insulin infusion sets that reduce the variability in insulin delivery and extend wear.

Hybrid closed-loop systems for managing blood glucose levels in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and economic modelling

Background

Hybrid closed-loop systems are a new class of technology to manage type 1 diabetes mellitus. The system includes a combination of real-time continuous glucose monitoring from a continuous glucose monitoring device and a control algorithm to direct insulin delivery through an insulin pump. Evidence suggests that such technologies have the potential to improve the lives of people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and their families.

Aim

The aim of this appraisal was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hybrid closed-loop systems for managing glucose in people who have type 1 diabetes mellitus and are having difficulty managing their condition despite prior use of at least one of the following technologies: continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, real-time continuous glucose monitoring or flash glucose monitoring (intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring).

Methods

A systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence following predefined inclusion criteria informed by the aim of this review. An independent economic assessment using iQVIA CDM to model cost-effectiveness.

Results

The clinical evidence identified 12 randomised controlled trials that compared hybrid closed loop with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring. Hybrid closed-loop arm of randomised controlled trials achieved improvement in glycated haemoglobin per cent [hybrid closed loop decreased glycated haemoglobin per cent by 0.28 (95% confidence interval -0.34 to -0.21), increased per cent of time in range (between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/l) with a MD of 8.6 (95% confidence interval 7.03 to 10.22), and significantly decreased time in range (per cent above 10.0 mmol/l) with a MD of -7.2 (95% confidence interval -8.89 to -5.51), but did not significantly affect per cent of  time below range (< 3.9 mmol/l)]. Comparator arms showed improvements, but these were smaller than in the hybrid closed-loop arm. Outcomes were superior in the hybrid closed-loop arm compared with the comparator arm. The cost-effectiveness search identified six studies that were included in the systematic review. Studies reported subjective cost-effectiveness that was influenced by the willingness-to-pay thresholds. Economic evaluation showed that the published model validation papers suggest that an earlier version of the iQVIA CDM tended to overestimate the incidences of the complications of diabetes, this being particularly important for severe visual loss and end-stage renal disease. Overall survival's medium-term modelling appeared good, but there was uncertainty about its longer-term modelling. Costs provided by the National Health Service Supply Chain suggest that hybrid closed loop is around an annual average of £1500 more expensive than continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring, this being a pooled comparator of 90% continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring and 10% continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + real-time continuous glucose monitoring due to clinical effectiveness estimates not being differentiated by continuous glucose monitoring type. This net cost may increase by around a further £500 for some systems. The Evidence Assessment Group base case applies the estimate of -0.29% glycated haemoglobin for hybrid closed loop relative to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring. There was no direct evidence of an effect on symptomatic or severe hypoglycaemia events, and therefore the Evidence Assessment Group does not include these in its base case. The change in glycated haemoglobin results in a gain in undiscounted life expectancy of 0.458 years and a gain of 0.160 quality-adjusted life-years. Net lifetime treatment costs are £31,185, with reduced complications leading to a net total cost of £28,628. The cost-effectiveness estimate is £179,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

Conclusions

Randomised controlled trials of hybrid closed-loop interventions in comparison with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring achieved a statistically significant improvement in glycated haemoglobin per cent in time in range between 3.9 and 10 mmol/l, and in hyperglycaemic levels.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021248512.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR133547) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 80. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Efficacy and Safety of Different Hybrid Closed Loop Systems for Automated Insulin Delivery in People With Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of different hybrid closed loop (HCL) systems in people with diabetes through a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PubMed for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling children, adolescents and/or adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, evaluating Minimed 670G, Minimed 780G, Control-IQ, CamAPS Fx, DBLG-1, DBLHU, and Omnipod 5 HCL systems against other types of insulin therapy, and reporting time in target range (TIR) as outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 28 RCTs, all enrolling people with type 1 diabetes, were included. HCL systems significantly increased TIR compared with subcutaneous insulin therapy without continuous glucose monitoring (SIT). Minimed 780G achieved the highest TIR ahead of Control IQ (mean difference (MD) 5.1%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) [0.68; 9.52], low certainty), Minimed 670G (MD 7.48%, 95% CI [4.27; 10.7], moderate certainty), CamAPS Fx (MD 8.94%, 95% CI [4.35; 13.54], low certainty), and DBLG1 (MD 10.69%, 95% CI [5.73; 15.65], low certainty). All HCL systems decreased time below target range, with DBLG1 (MD -3.69%, 95% CI [-5.2; -2.19], high certainty), Minimed 670G (MD -2.9%, 95% CI [-3.77; -2.04], moderate certainty) and Minimed 780G (MD -2.79%, 95% CI [-3.94; -1.64], high certainty) exhibiting the largest reductions compared to SIT. The risk of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis was similar to other types of insulin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

We show a hierarchy of efficacy among the different HCL systems in people with type 1 diabetes, thus providing support to clinical decision-making.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023453717.

Evaluation of time in tight range and the glycaemia risk index in adults with type 1 diabetes using an advanced hybrid closed loop system: A 1-year real-world assessment

AIM

To assess the long-term glycaemic outcomes, with additional metrics, in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using the Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ technology advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system.

METHODS

This was a single-centre, retrospective study involving 56 T1D patients who transitioned to the Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ system. The primary and secondary endpoints consisted of variations in time in tight range (TiTR; 70-140 mg/dL) and the glycaemia risk index (GRI), respectively. Additional standardized continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics, mean sensor glucose, coefficient of variation, the glucose management indicator (GMI), HbA1c and insulin daily dose, were also evaluated. Variables were measured at baseline and at 15 days, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year after Tandem t:slim X2 Control-IQ initiation. Glucose outcomes are expressed as mean (standard deviation).

RESULTS

Use of Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ over 1 year was associated with an increase in mean TiTR, from 38.11% (17.05%) to 43.10% (13.20%) (P = .059), and with a decline in the GRI, from 41.03 (25.48) to 28.55 (16.27) (P = .008). CGM metrics, including time in range and time above range, showed consistent improvements. Mean sensor glucose, the GMI and HbA1c decreased significantly over time. After an initial increase, insulin daily dose remained stable throughout the 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The results highlight the sustained effectiveness of Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ in improving glycaemic outcomes over 1 year and support the use of this technology for the management of T1D.

Real-world glycaemic outcomes of automated insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes: A meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the real-world effectiveness of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies published up until 2 March 2024. We included pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and before-after studies that compared AID systems with conventional insulin therapy in real-world settings and reported continuous glucose monitoring outcomes. Percent time in range (TIR; 3.9-10 mmol/L), time below range (TBR; <3.9 mmol/L), time above range (TAR; >10 mmol/L), and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level were extracted. Data were summarized as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

A total of 23 before-after studies (101 704 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. AID systems were associated with an increased percentage of TIR (11.61%, 10.47 to 12.76; p < 0.001). The favourable effect of AID systems was consistently observed when used continuously for 6 (11.76%) or 12 months (11.33%), and in both children (12.16%) and adults (11.04%). AID systems also showed favourable effects on TBR (-0.53%, -0.63 to -0.42), TAR (-9.65%, -10.63 to -8.67) and HbA1c level (-0.42%, -0.47 to -0.37) when compared with previous treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar improvements in glycaemic parameters were observed in real-world settings in RCTs using AID systems in T1D. AID systems benefit both children and adults by increasing TIR for both short- and long-term interventions.

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

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

Increase Access, Reduce Disparities: Recommendations for Modifying Medicaid CGM Coverage Eligibility Criteria

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical value of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) populations. However, the eligibility criteria for CGM coverage required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ignore the conclusive evidence that supports CGM use in various diabetes populations that are currently deemed ineligible. In an earlier article, we discussed the limitations and inconsistencies of the agency's CGM eligibility criteria relative to current scientific evidence and proposed practice solutions to address this issue and improve the safety and care of Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes. Although Medicaid is administered through CMS, there is no consistent Medicaid policy for CGM coverage in the United States. This article presents a rationale for modifying and standardizing Medicaid CGM coverage eligibility across the United States.

Neural-Net Artificial Pancreas: A Randomized Crossover Trial of a First-in-Class Automated Insulin Delivery Algorithm

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) is now integral to the clinical practice of type 1 diabetes (T1D). The objective of this pilot-feasibility study was to introduce a new regulatory and clinical paradigm-a Neural-Net Artificial Pancreas (NAP)-an encoding of an AID algorithm into a neural network that approximates its action and assess NAP versus the original AID algorithm. Methods: The University of Virginia Model-Predictive Control (UMPC) algorithm was encoded into a neural network, creating its NAP approximation. Seventeen AID users with T1D were recruited and 15 participated in two consecutive 20-h hotel sessions, receiving in random order either NAP or UMPC. Their demographic characteristics were ages 22-68 years old, duration of diabetes 7-58 years, gender 10/5 female/male, White Non-Hispanic/Black 13/2, and baseline glycated hemoglobin 5.4%-8.1%. Results: The time-in-range (TIR) difference between NAP and UMPC, adjusted for entry glucose level, was 1 percentage point, with absolute TIR values of 86% (NAP) and 87% (UMPC). The two algorithms achieved similar times <70 mg/dL of 2.0% versus 1.8% and coefficients of variation of 29.3% (NAP) versus 29.1 (UMPC)%. Under identical inputs, the average absolute insulin-recommendation difference was 0.031 U/h. There were no serious adverse events on either controller. NAP had sixfold lower computational demands than UMPC. Conclusion: In a randomized crossover study, a neural-network encoding of a complex model-predictive control algorithm demonstrated similar performance, at a fraction of the computational demands. Regulatory and clinical doors are therefore open for contemporary machine-learning methods to enter the AID field. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT05876273.

Diabetes Technology in People with Type 2 Diabetes: Novel Indications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Diabetes technology has been continuously evolving. Current versions of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) use minimally invasive designs, monitor glucose values with high accuracy, and can be used to guide insulin dosing. Extensive evidence supports the use of diabetes technology for monitoring and insulin administration in people with type 1 diabetes. However, there is emerging evidence for people with type 2 diabetes. In this review, we present the different technological devices used to monitor glucose and deliver insulin and the evidence supporting their use in people with type 2 diabetes.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of CGMs in people with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin or non-insulin therapies has been associated with improvements in glycemic control and time spent in hypoglycemia. Smart insulin pens and smart connected devices are options to track compliance and guide insulin delivery in people who do not require insulin pump therapy. Mechanical patch pumps can be used to reduce the burden of multiple daily insulin injections. Automated insulin delivery algorithms improve glycemic control without an increase in hypoglycemia. The use of technology in the management of type 2 diabetes generates glycemic data previously inaccessible, reduces barriers for insulin initiation, improves glycemic control, tracks adherence to therapy, and improves user satisfaction.

Emerging Technologies and Therapeutics for Type 1 Diabetes

Recent years witnessed advancements in diabetes technologies and therapeutics. People with type 1 diabetes have more options to control their blood glucose, prevent hypoglycemia, and spend more time with their loved ones. Newer diabetes technologies and therapeutics improve the quality of life and boost the confidence of people with type 1 diabetes. In parallel to changes in the diabetes technology field, stem cell research has been evolving. Gene editing and production of β cells from stem cells are ongoing. The current focus of cure studies is how to increase the survival of cells produced with stem cells. New adjunctive therapies are under development.

Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery Systems for People with Type 1 Diabetes and Chronic Very Poor Metabolic Control: It Works and Is Safe!

To evaluate the percentage of patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and very poor metabolic control who would agree to be treated with a hybrid closed-loop (HCL) insulin delivery system, and to assess metabolic improvement and safety. In a single center, we identified all patients aged >18 years with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) >11% (97 mmol/mol) before HCL treatment. We collected metabolic control and safety data up to 1 year post-HCL in those who accepted HCL after it was proposed to them. We identified 65 patients eligible for the study, 32 (50%) already used, or accepted to start using HCL. Patients were aged 18-49 years; mean(±standard deviation) baseline HbA1c was 12.5(±1.8)% (113 ± 20 mmol/mol). After 1 year, 25 patients (78%) were still using HCL and their mean HbA1c decreased to 9.4(±1.9)% (79 mmol/mol) (P < 0.001). The rate of acute metabolic events was similar during the year of follow-up to the rate in the 3 years before HCL initiation. HCL systems should be considered in patients with T1D and very poor metabolic control. ClinicalTrials registration no. NCT05282264.

13. Older Adults: 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.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: 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.

7. Diabetes Technology: 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.

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

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

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

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

Real-World Glycemic Outcomes with Early Omnipod 5 Use in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes

Background: Pivotal trials of diabetes technologies have demonstrated glycemic improvements; however, these trials include patients of limited diversity and ranges of glycemic control. We assessed changes in glycemic control during the first 90 days of Omnipod 5 use in a real-world cohort of youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Youth 2-21 years with T1D initiating Omnipod 5 at two pediatric academic centers were included. Fourteen days of baseline (BL) continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data were compared against data from the first 90 days of Omnipod 5 use. Outcome measures included changes in time in range (TIR), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and CGM and insulin pump metrics based on the duration of Omnipod 5 use. Results: Among 195 youth (78.9% non-Hispanic White, 15.4% publicly insured, age 11.7 years, T1D duration 3.3 years) TIR increased 11%-points, from 49% to 61% (P < 0.001), and HbA1c decreased 0.5%-points, from 7.5% to 6.9% (P < 0.001). TIR improved within the first 9 days of Omnipod 5 use (p < 0.001) and did not change significantly thereafter (P = 0.1) despite decreases in user-initiated boluses (5.1 vs. 5.0, P = 0.01) and carbohydrate entries (4.2 vs. 4.1, P = 0.005) from days 1-9 to days 1-90. TIR improved 15%-points among youth with BL TIR <60% compared to a 5%-point increase for youth with BL TIR ≥60% (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Glycemic control improved within 9 days of Omnipod 5 initiation in this real-world cohort, and improvements were sustained over the first 90 days of use despite concomitant decreases in user-initiated boluses. These improvements were comparable to those observed in the pivotal trial.

Beneficial Effects of Control-IQ Automated Insulin Delivery in Basal-Bolus and Basal-Only Insulin Users With Type 2 Diabetes

The t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology (Control-IQ) advanced hybrid closed-loop automated insulin delivery system was evaluated in this prospective single-arm trial. Thirty adults with type 2 diabetes using the Control-IQ system showed substantial glycemic improvement with no increase in hypoglycemia. Mean time in range (70-180 mg/dL) improved 15%, representing an increase of 3.6 hours/day, and mean glucose decreased by 22 mg/dL.

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.

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.