1
|
Messer LH, Welsh JB, Habif S, Pinsker JE, Walker TC. Regarding Singh et al, "Effects, Safety, and Treatment Experience of Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems in Clinical Practice Among Adults Living With Type 1 Diabetes". J Diabetes Sci Technol 2024:19322968241257003. [PMID: 38801205 DOI: 10.1177/19322968241257003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/29/2024]
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Steph Habif
- Behavioral Science, Tandem Diabetes Care, San Diego, CA, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mittal R, Koutras N, Maya J, Lemos JRN, Hirani K. Blood glucose monitoring devices for type 1 diabetes: a journey from the food and drug administration approval to market availability. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2024; 15:1352302. [PMID: 38559693 PMCID: PMC10978642 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1352302] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2023] [Accepted: 02/22/2024] [Indexed: 04/04/2024] Open
Abstract
Blood glucose monitoring constitutes a pivotal element in the clinical management of Type 1 diabetes (T1D), a globally escalating metabolic disorder. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices have demonstrated efficacy in optimizing glycemic control, mitigating adverse health outcomes, and augmenting the overall quality of life for individuals afflicted with T1D. Recent progress in the field encompasses the refinement of electrochemical sensors, which enhances the effectiveness of blood glucose monitoring. This progress empowers patients to assume greater control over their health, alleviating the burdens associated with their condition, and contributing to the overall alleviation of the healthcare system. The introduction of novel medical devices, whether derived from existing prototypes or originating as innovative creations, necessitates adherence to a rigorous approval process regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Diverse device classifications, stratified by their associated risks, dictate distinct approval pathways, each characterized by varying timelines. This review underscores recent advancements in blood glucose monitoring devices primarily based on electrochemical sensors and elucidates their regulatory journey towards FDA approval. The advent of innovative, non-invasive blood glucose monitoring devices holds promise for maintaining stringent glycemic control, thereby preventing T1D-associated comorbidities, and extending the life expectancy of affected individuals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rahul Mittal
- Diabetes Research Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, United States
| | - Nicole Koutras
- Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, FL, United States
| | - Jonathan Maya
- Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, FL, United States
| | - Joana R. N. Lemos
- Diabetes Research Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, United States
| | - Khemraj Hirani
- Diabetes Research Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, United States
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Halim B, Abraham MB, Manos G, Arrieta A, Dai Z, Vogrin S, Lu J, MacIsaac R, Ekinci EI, Davis EA, Jenkins A, Shin J, Vigersky RA, Jones TW, O'Neal D. Advances in Automated Insulin Delivery with the Medtronic 780G: The Australian Experience. Diabetes Technol Ther 2024; 26:190-197. [PMID: 38444313 DOI: 10.1089/dia.2023.0348] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/07/2024]
Abstract
Aim: To assess the real-world performance of MiniMed™ 780G for Australians with type 1 diabetes (T1D) following advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) activation and to evaluate the effect of changing from MiniMed 670/770G to 780G. Methods: We analyzed deidentified Carelink™ continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data from Australian users from January 2020 to December 2022, including the proportion attaining three major consensus targets: Glucose management indicator (GMI <7.0%), time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL >70%), and time below range (TBR 70 mg/dL <4%). Results: Comparing 670/770G users (n = 5676) for mean ± standard deviation 364 ± 244 days with 780G users (n = 3566) for 146 ± 145 days, the latter achieved a higher TIR (72.6% ± 10.6% vs. 67.3% ± 11.4%; P < 0.001), lower time above range (TAR) (25.5% ± 10.9% vs. 30.6% ± 11.7%; P < 0.001), and lower GMI (6.9% ± 0.4% vs. 7.2% ± 0.4%; P < 0.001) without compromising TBR (1.9% ± 1.8% vs. 2.0% ± 1.8%; P = 0.0015). Of 1051 670/770G users transitioning to 780G, TIR increased (70.0% ± 10.7% to 74.0% ± 10.2%; P < 0.001), TAR decreased (28.1% ± 10.9% to 24.0% ± 10.7%; P < 0.001), and TBR was unchanged. The percentage of users attaining all three CGM targets was higher in 780G users (50.1% vs. 29.5%; P < 0.001). CGM metrics were stable at 12 months post-transition. Conclusion: Real-world data from Australia shows that a higher proportion of MiniMed 780G users meet clinical targets for CGM consensus metrics compared to MiniMed 670/770G users and glucose control was sustained over 12 months.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bella Halim
- Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Mary B Abraham
- Children's Diabetes Centre, Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
- Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Perth Children's Hospital, Perth, Australia
| | - Georgina Manos
- Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - Zheng Dai
- Medtronic, Northridge, California, USA
| | - Sara Vogrin
- Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Jean Lu
- Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Richard MacIsaac
- Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- The Australian Centre for Accelerating Diabetes Innovation, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Elif I Ekinci
- Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- The Australian Centre for Accelerating Diabetes Innovation, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Endocrinology, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Elizabeth A Davis
- Children's Diabetes Centre, Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
- Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Perth Children's Hospital, Perth, Australia
| | - Alicia Jenkins
- Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Diabetes and Vascular Medicine, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia
| | - John Shin
- Medtronic, Northridge, California, USA
| | | | - Timothy W Jones
- Children's Diabetes Centre, Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
- Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Perth Children's Hospital, Perth, Australia
| | - David O'Neal
- Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- The Australian Centre for Accelerating Diabetes Innovation, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Forlenza GP, Dai Z, Niu F, Shin JJ. Reducing Diabetes Burden in Medtronic's Automated Insulin Delivery Systems. Diabetes Technol Ther 2024; 26:7-16. [PMID: 38377321 DOI: 10.1089/dia.2023.0459] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/22/2024]
Abstract
Background: The MiniMed™ 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop system (MM780G) builds on the basal automation and low-glucose protection features of the MiniMed™ 670G and 770G systems. While previous publications have focused on glycemic control improvements with MM780G, burden reduction has not been fully described. Methods: Data from two 3-month pivotal trials for the MM670G with Guardian™ Sensor 3 (GS3) (104 adults; 125 children) and MM780G with Guardian™ 4 Sensor (G4S) (67 adults;109 children) were compared. Real-world data (RWD) from United States users (N = 3851) transitioning from MM770G+GS3 to MM780G+G4S were also analyzed. Analyses included a new metric for diabetes management burden (i.e., pentagon composite metric), glycemic outcomes and system burden (e.g., closed-loop exits and fingersticks per day). Results: Diabetes burden metric (-22.8% and -28.5%), time in range (+3.1% [*P = 0.035] and +6.4% [P < 0.001]) and time below range (-1.8% [*P < 0.001] and -0.7% [*P < 0.001]) significantly improved, compared to MM670G for adult and pediatric participants, respectively. The pediatric mean sensor glucose (SG) reduced by -8.6 mg/dL (*P < 0.001), while the adults' saw no change. Closed-loop use significantly increased for both cohorts (+17.1% [*P < 0.001] and +20.5% [*P < 0.001]). Closed-loop exits were significantly reduced to about 1 per week (-0.5 [*P < 0.001] and -0.7 [*P < 0.001]); fingerstick tests were also reduced (-6.2 [*P < 0.001] and -6.9 [*P < 0.001]). Similar outcomes were observed from U.S. RWD. Conclusions: MiniMed™ 780G with G4S use was associated with significant reduction in diabetes management burden with fewer closed-loop exits, fingersticks and other interactions, and improvements in glycemic control when compared to the MiniMed™ 670G with GS3.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gregory P Forlenza
- Barbara Davis Center, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | - Zheng Dai
- Medtronic Diabetes, Northridge, California, USA
| | - Fang Niu
- Medtronic Diabetes, Northridge, California, USA
| | - John J Shin
- Medtronic Diabetes, Northridge, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Thrasher JR, Arrieta A, Niu F, Cameron KR, Cordero TL, Shin J, Rhinehart AS, Vigersky RA. Early Real-World Performance of the MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System and Recommended Settings Use in the United States. Diabetes Technol Ther 2024; 26:24-31. [PMID: 38377317 DOI: 10.1089/dia.2023.0453] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/22/2024]
Abstract
Background: The MiniMed™ 780G system (MM780G) with Guardian™ 4 sensor includes a 100 mg/dL glucose target (GT) and automated insulin corrections up to every 5 min and was recently approved for use in the United States. In the present study, early real-world MM780G performance and the use of recommended system settings (100 mg/dL GT with an active insulin time of 2 h), by individuals with type 1 diabetes, were evaluated. Methods: CareLink™ personal data uploaded between the launch of the MM780G to August 22, 2023 were aggregated and underwent retrospective analysis (based on user consent) and if users had ≥10 days of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data. The 24-h day CGM metrics, including mean glucose, percentage of time spent in (%TIR), above (%TAR), and below (%TBR) target range (70-180 mg/dL), in addition to delivered insulin and closed-loop (CL) exits, were compared between an overall group (n = 7499) and individuals who used recommended settings (each, for >95% of the time). An analysis of the same metrics for MiniMed™ 770G system (MM770G) users (n = 3851) who upgraded to the MM780G was also conducted (paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < 0.05 considered statistically significant). Results: For MM780G users, CGM use, and time in CL were >90% and all MM780G CGM metrics exceeded consensus-recommended goals. With recommended settings (22% of all users), mean %TIR and %TITR (70-140 mg/dL) were 81.4% and 56.4%, respectively. For individuals who upgraded from the MM770G, %TIR and %TITR increased from 73.2% to 78.3% and 45.8% to 52.6%, respectively, while %TAR reduced from 25.1% to 20.2% (P < 0.001, for all three). CL exits/week averaged <1, for all MM780G users. Conclusions: Early real-world MM780G use in the United States demonstrated a high percentage of time in range with low time above and below range. These outcomes are similar to those observed for real-world MM780G use in other countries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James R Thrasher
- Arkansas Diabetes and Endocrinology Center, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA
| | - Arcelia Arrieta
- Medtronic International Trading Sàrl, Tolochenaz, Switzerland
| | - Fang Niu
- Medtronic Diabetes, Northridge, California, USA
| | | | | | - John Shin
- Medtronic Diabetes, Northridge, California, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Akturk HK, McKee AM. Emerging Technologies and Therapeutics for Type 1 Diabetes. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 2024; 53:81-91. [PMID: 38272600 DOI: 10.1016/j.ecl.2023.07.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/27/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Halis Kaan Akturk
- Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado, 1775 Aurora Court, Room 1319, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
| | - Alexis M McKee
- Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism & Lipid Research, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Considine EG, Sherr JL. Real-World Evidence of Automated Insulin Delivery System Use. Diabetes Technol Ther 2024; 26:53-65. [PMID: 38377315 PMCID: PMC10890954 DOI: 10.1089/dia.2023.0442] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/22/2024]
Abstract
Objective: Pivotal trials of automated insulin delivery (AID) closed-loop systems have demonstrated a consistent picture of glycemic benefit, supporting approval of multiple systems by the Food and Drug Administration or Conformité Européenne mark receipt. To assess how pivotal trial findings translate to commercial AID use, a systematic review of retrospective real-world studies was conducted. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for articles published after 2018 with more than five nonpregnant individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Data were screened/extracted in duplicate for sample size, AID system, glycemic outcomes, and time in automation. Results: Of 80 studies identified, 20 met inclusion criteria representing 171,209 individuals. Time in target range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was the primary outcome in 65% of studies, with the majority of reports (71%) demonstrating a >10% change with AID use. Change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was reported in nine studies (range 0.1%-0.9%), whereas four reported changes in glucose management indicator (GMI) with a 0.1%-0.4% reduction noted. A decrease in HbA1c or GMI of >0.2% was achieved in two-thirds of the studies describing change in HbA1c and 80% of articles where GMI was described. Time below range <70 mg/dL (<3.9 mmol/L) was reported in 16 studies, with all but 1 study showing stable or reduced levels. Most systems had >90% time in automation. Conclusion: With larger and more diverse populations, and follow-up periods of longer duration (∼9 months vs. 3-6 months for pivotal trials), real-world retrospective analyses confirm pivotal trial findings. Given the glycemic benefits demonstrated, AID is rapidly becoming the standard of care for all people living with T1D. Individuals should be informed of these systems and differences between them, have access to and coverage for these technologies, and receive support as they integrate this mode of insulin delivery into their lives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jennifer L. Sherr
- Department of Pediatrics, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Grosman B, Roy A, Lintereur L, Turksoy K, Benedetti A, Cordero TL, Vigersky RA, McVean J, Rhinehart AS, Cohen O. A Peek Under the Hood: Explaining the MiniMed™ 780G Algorithm with Meal Detection Technology. Diabetes Technol Ther 2024; 26:17-23. [PMID: 38377324 DOI: 10.1089/dia.2023.0446] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/22/2024]
Abstract
The MiniMed™ 780G system (780G) received Conformité Européenne mark in June 2020 and was, recently, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (April 2023). Clinical trials and real-world analyses have demonstrated MiniMed™ 780G system safety and effectiveness and that glycemic outcomes (i.e., time in range) improve with recommended settings use. In this publication, we will explain the iterative development of the 780G algorithm and how this technology has simplified diabetes management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Anirban Roy
- Medtronic Diabetes, Northridge, California, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Ohad Cohen
- Medtronic Diabetes, Northridge, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Akturk HK. Recent Advances in Diabetes Technology and Activities of the American Diabetes Association Diabetes Technology Interest Group. Clin Diabetes 2024; 42:316-321. [PMID: 38694248 PMCID: PMC11060631 DOI: 10.2337/cd23-0080] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/04/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Halis Kaan Akturk
- Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Bannuru RR, Bruemmer D, Collins BS, Ekhlaspour L, Hilliard ME, Johnson EL, Khunti K, Lingvay I, Matfin G, McCoy RG, Perry ML, Pilla SJ, Polsky S, Prahalad P, Pratley RE, Segal AR, Seley JJ, Stanton RC, Gabbay RA. 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024. Diabetes Care 2024; 47:S126-S144. [PMID: 38078575 PMCID: PMC10725813 DOI: 10.2337/dc24-s007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|