Aiming for the Best Glycemic Control Beyond Time in Range: Time in Tight Range as a New Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metric in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Using Different Treatment Modalities

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.

'We're taught green is good': Perspectives on time in range and time in tight range from youth with type 1 diabetes, and parents of youth with type 1 diabetes

AIMS

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems are standard of care for youth with type 1 diabetes with the goal of spending >70% time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL, 3.9-10 mmol/L). We aimed to understand paediatric CGM user experiences with TIR metrics considering recent discussion of shifting to time in tight range (TITR; >50% time between 70 and 140 mg/dL, 3.9 and 7.8 mmol/L).

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with adolescents with type 1 diabetes and parents of youth with type 1 diabetes focused on experiences with TIR goals and reactions to TITR. Groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using content analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty participants (N = 19 parents: age 43.6 ± 5.3 years, 79% female, 47% non-Hispanic White, 20 ± 5 months since child's diagnosis; N = 11 adolescents: age 15.3 ± 2 years, 55% female, 55% non-Hispanic White, 16 ± 3 months since diagnosis) attended. Participants had varying levels of understanding of TIR. Some developed personally preferred glucose ranges. Parents often aimed to surpass 70% TIR. Many described feelings of stress and disappointment when they did not meet a TIR goal. Concerns about TITR included increased stress and burden; risk of hypoglycaemia; and family conflict. Some participants said TITR would not change their daily lives; others said it would improve their diabetes management. Families requested care team support and a clear scientific rationale for TITR.

CONCLUSIONS

The wealth of CGM data creates frequent opportunities for assessing diabetes management and carries implications for management burden. Input from people with type 1 diabetes and their families will be critical in considering a shift in glycaemic goals and targets.

Time In Tight Range in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: A cross-sectional observational single centre study evaluating efficacy of new advanced technologies

INTRODUCTION

Early and tight glycaemic control is crucial to prevent long-term complications of Type 1 Diabetes (T1D). The aim of our study was to compare glucose metrics, including Time In Tight Range (TITR), in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We performed a single-centre cross-sectional study in 534 children and adolescents with T1D. Participants were divided into four groups (multiple daily injections + real-time Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), multiple daily injections + intermittently scanned CGM, sensor augmented pump (SAP), and Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL). Demographical and clinical data were collected and analysed.

RESULTS

The group with AHCL showed significantly higher Time In Range (TIR) (71.31% ± 10.88) than SAP (57.82% ± 14.98; p < 0.001), MDI + rtCGM (54.56% ± 17.04; p < 0.001) and MDI + isCGM (52.17% ± 19.36; p < 0.001) groups with a lower Time Above Range (p < 0.001). The group with AHCL also showed lower Time Below Range than MDI + isCGM and SAP groups (p < 0.01). The overall TITR was 37% ± 14 with 19% of participants who reached a TITR ≥50% with a mean TIR of 81%. AHCL had significantly higher TITR (45.46% ± 11.77) than SAP (36.25% ± 13.53; p < 0.001), MDI + rtCGM (34.03% ± 13.89; p < 0.001) and MDI + isCGM (33.37% ± 15.84; p < 0.001) groups with a lower Coefficient of Variation (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that AHCL ensures a better glycaemic control with an improvement in both TIR and TITR, along with a reduction in CV. Implementation of automated insulin delivery systems should be considered in the treatment of children and adolescents with T1D.

Sustained Effectiveness of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System in a Cohort of Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: A 1-Year Real-World Study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate glucose metrics and identify potential predictors of the achievement of glycemic outcomes in children and adolescents during their first 12 months of MiniMed 780G use.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This multicenter, longitudinal, real-world study recruited 368 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) starting SmartGuard technology between June 2020 and June 2022. Ambulatory glucose profile data were collected during a 15-day run-in period (baseline), 2 weeks after automatic mode activation, and every 3 months. The influence of covariates on glycemic outcomes after 1 year of MiniMed 780G use was assessed.

RESULTS

After 15 days of automatic mode use, all glucose metrics improved compared with baseline (P < 0.001), except for time below range (P = 0.113) and coefficient of variation (P = 0.330). After 1 year, time in range (TIR) remained significantly higher than at baseline (75.3% vs. 62.8%, P < 0.001). The mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) over the study duration was lower than the previous year (6.9 ± 0.6% vs. 7.4 ± 0.9%, P < 0.001). Time spent in tight range (70-140 mg/dL) was 51.1%, and the glycemia risk index was 27.6. Higher TIR levels were associated with a reduced number of automatic correction boluses (P < 0.001), fewer SmartGuard exits (P = 0.021), and longer time in automatic mode (P = 0.030). Individuals with baseline HbA1c >8% showed more relevant improvement in TIR levels (from 54.3% to 72.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the sustained effectiveness of MiniMed 780G among youth with T1D. Findings suggest that even children and adolescents with low therapeutic engagement may benefit from SmartGuard technology.

During an 18-month course of automated insulin delivery treatment, children aged 2 to 6 years achieve and maintain a higher time in tight range

AIMS

To investigate whether the positive effects on glycaemic outcomes of 3-month automated insulin delivery (AID) achieved in 2- to 6-year-old children endure over an extended duration and how AID treatment affects time in tight range (TITR), defined as 3.9-7.8 mmol/L.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We analysed 18 months of follow-up data from a non-randomized, prospective, single-arm clinical trial (n = 35) conducted between 2021 and 2023. The main outcome measures were changes in time in range (TIR), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), time above range (TAR), TITR, and mean sensor glucose (SG) value during follow-up visits (at 0, 6, 12 and 18 months). The MiniMed 780G AID system in SmartGuard Mode was used for 18 months. Parental diabetes distress was evaluated at 3 and 18 months with the validated Problem Areas in Diabetes-Parent, revised (PAID-PR) survey.

RESULTS

Between 0 and 6 months, TIR and TITR increased, and HbA1c, mean SG value and TAR decreased significantly (p < 0.001); the favourable effect persisted through 18 months of follow-up. Between 3 and 18 months, PAID-PR score declined significantly (0 months: mean score 37.5; 3 months: mean score 28.6 [p = 0.06]; 18 months: mean score 24.6 [p < 0.001]).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with AID significantly increased TITR and TIR in young children. The positive effect of AID on glycaemic control observed after 6 months persisted throughout the 18 months of follow-up. Similarly, parental diabetes distress remained reduced during 18 months follow-up. These findings are reassuring and suggest that AID treatment improves glycaemic control and reduces parental diabetes distress in young children over an extended 18-month follow-up.

Utility of time in tight range (TITR) in evaluating metabolic control in pediatric and adult patients with type 1 diabetes in treatment with advanced hybrid closed-loop systems

PURPOSE

To analyze the time in tight range (TITR), and its relationship with other glucometric parameters in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) systems.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted on pediatric and adult patients with T1D undergoing treatment with AHCL systems for at least 3 months. Clinical variables and glucometric parameters before and after AHCL initiation were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 117 patients were evaluated. Comparison of metabolic control after AHCL initiation showed significant improvements in HbA1c (6.9 ± 0.9 vs. 6.6 ± 0.5%, p < 0.001), time in range (TIR) (68.2 ± 11.5 vs. 82.5 ± 6.9%, p < 0.001), TITR (43.7 ± 10.8 vs. 57.3 ± 9.7%, p < 0.001), glucose management indicator (GMI) (6.9 ± 0.4 vs. 6.6 ± 0.3%, p < 0.001), time below range (TBR) 70-54 mg/dl (4.3 ± 4.5 vs. 2.0 ± 1.4%, p < 0.001), and time above range (TAR) > 180 mg/dl (36.0 ± 7.6 vs. 15.1 ± 6.4%, p < 0.001). Coefficient of variation (CV) also improved (36.3 ± 5.7 vs. 30.6 ± 3.7, p < 0.001), while time between 140-180 mg/dl remained unchanged. In total, 76.3% achieved TITR > 50% (100% pediatric). Correlation analysis between TITR and TIR and GRI showed a strong positive correlation, modified by glycemic variability.

CONCLUSIONS

AHCL systems achieve significant improvements in metabolic control (TIR > 70% in 93.9% patients). The increase in TIR was not related to an increase in TIR 140-180 mg/dl. Despite being closely related to TIR, TITR allows for a more adequate discrimination of the achieved control level, especially in a population with good initial metabolic control. The correlation between TIR and TITR is directly influenced by the degree of glycemic variability.

The association of chronic complications with time in tight range and time in range in people with type 1 diabetes: a retrospective cross-sectional real-world study

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of chronic complications with time in tight range (TITR: 3.9-7.8 mmol/l) and time in range (TIR: 3.9-10.0 mmol/l) in people with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

The prevalence of microvascular complications (diabetic retinopathy, diabetic nephropathy and diabetic peripheral neuropathy [DPN]) and macrovascular complications according to sensor-measured TITR/TIR was analysed cross-sectionally in 808 adults with type 1 diabetes. Binary logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between TITR/TIR and the presence of complications without adjustment, with adjustment for HbA1c, and with adjustment for HbA1c and other confounding factors (sex, age, diabetes duration, BMI, BP, lipid profile, smoking, and use of statins and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors).

RESULTS

The mean TITR and TIR were 33.9 ± 12.8% and 52.5 ± 15.0%, respectively. Overall, 46.0% had any microvascular complication (34.5% diabetic retinopathy, 23.8% diabetic nephropathy, 16.0% DPN) and 16.3% suffered from any macrovascular complication. The prevalence of any microvascular complication, diabetic retinopathy, diabetic nephropathy and a cerebrovascular accident (CVA) decreased with increasing TITR/TIR quartiles (all ptrend<0.05). Each 10% increase in TITR was associated with a lower incidence of any microvascular complication (OR 0.762; 95% CI 0.679, 0.855; p<0.001), diabetic retinopathy (OR 0.757; 95% CI 0.670, 0.856; p<0.001), background diabetic retinopathy (OR 0.760; 95% CI 0.655, 0.882; p<0.001), severe diabetic retinopathy (OR 0.854; 95% CI 0.731, 0.998; p=0.048), diabetic nephropathy (OR 0.799; 95% CI 0.699, 0.915; p<0.001), DPN (OR 0.837; 95% CI 0.717, 0.977; p=0.026) and CVA (OR 0.651; 95% CI 0.470, 0.902; p=0.010). The independent association of TITR with any microvascular complication (OR 0.867; 95% CI 0.762, 0.988; p=0.032), diabetic retinopathy (OR 0.837; 95% CI 0.731, 0.959; p=0.010), background diabetic retinopathy (OR 0.831; 95% CI 0.705, 0.979; p=0.027) and CVA (OR 0.619; 95% CI 0.426, 0.899; p=0.012) persisted after adjustment for HbA1c. Similar results were obtained when controlling for HbA1c and other confounding factors.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

TITR and TIR are inversely associated with the presence of microvascular complications and CVA in people with type 1 diabetes. Although this study was not designed to establish a causal relationship, this analysis adds validity to the use of TITR and TIR as key measures in glycaemic management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02601729 and NCT02898714.

Ultra rapid lispro improves postprandial glucose control versus lispro in combination with basal insulin: a study based on CGM in type 2 diabetes in China

Aim

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of URLi (ultra rapid lispro insulin) compared to insulin lispro as bolus insulin with basal insulin using CGM in the individuals with type 2 diabetes(T2D) in China.

Methods

This was a double-blind, randomized, parallel, prospective, phase 3 study. Subjects with uncontrolled T2D were recruited and randomized 1:2 into the insulin lispro and URLi groups. Subjects received a consistent basal insulin regimen during the study and self-administered insulin lispro or URLi before each meal throughout the treatment period. Subjects underwent a 3-day continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) at the baseline and endpoint respectively, and then CGM data were analyzed. The primary endpoint was to compare the difference in postprandial glucose (PPG) control using CGM between the two groups.

Results

A total of 57 subjects with T2D completed the study. Our CGM data showed that postprandial glucose excursions after breakfast (BPPGE) in the URLi group was lower than that in the insulin lispro group (1.59 ± 1.57 mmol/L vs 2.51 ± 1.73 mmol/L, p = 0.046). 1-hour PPG was observed to decrease more in the URLi group than that in the insulin lispro group (-1.37 ± 3.28 mmol/L vs 0.24 ± 2.58 mmol/L, p = 0.047). 2-hour PPG was observed to decrease more in the URLi group than that in the insulin lispro group (-1.12 ± 4.00 mmol/L vs 1.22 ± 2.90 mmol/L, p = 0.021). The mean HbA1c level decreased by 1.1% in the URLi group and 0.99% in the insulin lispro group, with no treatment difference (p = 0.642). In the CGM profile, TBR was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.743). The weight gain also did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.303).

Conclusion

URLi can control breakfast PPG better than insulin lispro in adults with T2D in China, while it is non-inferior in improving HbA1c. The incidence of hypoglycemic and weight gain were similar between the two groups.

Use of teplizumab in children and adolescents at risk of type 1 diabetes: perspectives of parents and caregivers from an Italian Pediatric Diabetes Center

AIMS

In view of the imminent introduction of a novel category of disease-modifying treatments for type 1 diabetes (T1D) in European countries, it becomes imperative to understand the existing awareness and viewpoints of parents and caregivers of children and adolescents predisposed to T1D. This study aims to evaluate the perspectives of a cohort of parents and caregivers regarding using teplizumab to delay the onset of T1D in predisposed children and adolescents.

METHODS

This single-center study used a survey-based approach. Parents or caregivers of children and adolescents with T1D having at least one additional child without T1D answered 15 questions assessing their awareness about teplizumab, their potential willingness to provide consent for its administration in case of eligibility, and their expectations regarding potential outcomes.

RESULTS

Approximately half of the participants (52.6%) expressed readiness to consent to teplizumab administration for their child if the prescription criteria were met in the future. Only 6.3% of parents claimed detailed knowledge about this innovative medication. Notably, parents with prior experience of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) demonstrated a higher inclination to consent to teplizumab treatment (p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings underscore the necessity for comprehensive awareness campaigns spreading the current evidence concerning teplizumab in terms of both effectiveness and possible side effects. Additionally, our study reinforces the pivotal role of DKA prevention in successfully integrating disease-modifying treatments into clinical practice.

Time in Range Analysis in Automated Insulin Delivery Era: Should Day and Nighttime Targets be the Same?

INTRODUCTION

Hybrid closed-loop systems (HCLS) use has shown that time in range (TIR) tends to improve more during the nighttime than during the day. This study aims to compare the conventional TIR, currently accepted as 70 to 180 mg/dL, with a proposed recalculated time in range (RTIR) considering a tighter glucose target of 70 to 140 mg/dL for the nighttime fasting period in T1DM patients under HCLS.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study that included adults patients receiving treatment with Tandem t:slim X2 Control-IQ. Daytime TIR was characterized as glucose values between 70 and 180 mg/dL during the 07:01 to 23:59 time frame. Nighttime fasting TIR was specified as glucose values from 70 to 140 mg/dL between 00:00 and 07:00. The combination of the daytime and nighttime fasting glucose targets results in an RTIR, which was compared with the conventional TIR for each patient. The 14 days Dexcom G6 CGM data were downloaded from Tidepool platform and analyzed.

RESULTS

We included 22 patients with a mean age of 49.7 years and diabetes duration of 24.7 years, who had been using automatic insulin delivery (AID) HCLS for a median of 305.3 days. We verified a mean conventional TIR of 68.7% vs a mean RTIR of 60.3%, with a mean percentage difference between these two metrics of -8.4%. A significant decrease in conventional TIR was verified when tighter glucose targets were considered during the nighttime period. No significant correlation was found between the percentage difference values and RTIR, even among the group of patients with the lowest conventional TIR.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, meeting the conventional TIR metrics may fall short of achieving an ideal level of glycemic control. An individualized strategy should be adopted until further data become available for a precise definition of optimal glucose targets.

Future of Time-in-Range Goals in the Era of Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

The concept of maintaining blood glucose levels within the 70-180 mg/dL range, known as time-in-range, has raised questions regarding its representation of true physiological euglycemia. Some have speculated that focusing on the time spent within the 70-140 mg/dL range, introduced as time in tight range (TITR) through the International Consensus statement, could serve as a more precise metric for assessing normoglycemia in individuals with type 1 diabetes. This article delves into the current status of TITR as an emerging marker and explores how advanced hybrid closed-loop systems may offer a promising avenue for achieving this higher level of glycemic control.

Is It Time to Move Beyond TIR to TITR? Real-World Data from Over 20,000 Users of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

The growing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been supported by expert consensus and clinical guidelines on glycemic management in diabetes with time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) representing a key CGM-derived glucose metric. Time in tight range (TITR) has also been proposed for clinical use, spanning largely normal glucose levels of 70-140 mg/dL. However, keeping such narrow glucose ranges can be challenging, and understanding the factors modulating TITR can help achieve these tight glycemic targets. Our real-life study aimed to evaluate the relationship between average glucose (AG) and TIR/TITR in a large cohort (n = 22,006) of CGM users, divided into four groups: self-identified as having type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with insulin using multiple daily injections (MDI) or pumps; type 2 diabetes (T2D) on MDI or insulin pumps; T2D on basal insulin only; and T2D not on insulin treatment. The T2D groups, regardless of treatment type, displayed the highest TIR and TITR values, associated with lowest glycemic variability measured as glucose coefficient of variation (CV; 23-30%). The T1D group showed the lowest TIR and TITR, associated with the highest CVs (36-38%). Overall, higher CV was associated with lower TIR and TITR for AG values below 180 and 140 mg/dL, respectively, with the reverse holding true for AG values above these thresholds. The discordance between AG and TIR/TITR was less pronounced in T2D compared with T1D, attributed to lower CV in the former group. It was also observed that TITR has advantages over TIR for assessing glycemia status and progress toward more stringent A1C, particularly when approaching normal glucose levels. The data detail how CV affects the AG relationship with TIR/TITR, which has implications for CGM interpretation. In many instances TITR, rather than TIR, may be preferable to employ once AG falls below 140 mg/dL and near-normal glucose levels are required clinically.

Discordance between Glucose Management Indicator and Glycated Hemoglobin in a Pediatric Cohort with Type 1 Diabetes: A Real-World Study

The introduction of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems in clinical practice has allowed a more detailed picture of the intra- and interdaily glycemic fluctuations of individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, CGM-measured glucose control indicators may be occasionally inaccurate. This study aims to assess the discrepancy between the glucose management indicator (GMI) and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (ΔGMI-HbA1c) within a cohort of children and adolescents with T1D, exploring its correlation with other CGM metrics and blood count parameters. In this single-center, cross-sectional study, we gathered demographic and clinical data, including blood count parameters, HbA1c values, and CGM metrics, from 128 pediatric subjects with T1D (43% female; mean age, 13.4 ± 3.6 years). Our findings revealed higher levels of the coefficient of variation (CV) (p < 0.001) and time above range > 250 mg/dL (p = 0.033) among subjects with ΔGMI-HbA1c > 0.3%. No association was observed between blood count parameters and ΔGMI-HbA1c. In conclusion, despite the advancements and the widespread adoption of CGM systems, HbA1c remains an essential parameter for the assessment of glycemic control, especially in individuals with suboptimal metabolic control and extreme glycemic variability.