Reducing the need for carbohydrate counting in type 1 diabetes using closed-loop automated insulin delivery (artificial pancreas) and empagliflozin: A randomized, controlled, non-inferiority, crossover pilot trial

The role of automated insulin delivery technology in diabetes

The role of automated insulin delivery systems in diabetes is expanding. Hybrid closed-loop systems are being used in routine clinical practice for treating people with type 1 diabetes. Encouragingly, real-world data reflects the performance and usability observed in clinical trials. We review the commercially available hybrid closed-loop systems, their distinctive features and the associated real-world data. We also consider emerging indications for closed-loop systems, including the treatment of type 2 diabetes where variability of day-to-day insulin requirements is high, and other challenging applications for this technology. We discuss issues around access and implementation of closed-loop technology, and consider the limitations of present closed-loop systems, as well as innovative approaches that are being evaluated to improve their performance.

Risks and Benefits of SGLT-2 Inhibitors for Type 1 Diabetes Patients Using Automated Insulin Delivery Systems-A Literature Review

The primary treatment for autoimmune Diabetes Mellitus (Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus-T1DM) is insulin therapy. Unfortunately, a multitude of clinical cases has demonstrated that the use of insulin as a sole therapeutic intervention fails to address all issues comprehensively. Therefore, non-insulin adjunct treatment has been investigated and shown successful results in clinical trials. Various hypoglycemia-inducing drugs such as Metformin, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, amylin analogs, and Sodium-Glucose Cotransporters 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, developed good outcomes in patients with T1DM. Currently, SGLT-2 inhibitors have remarkably improved the treatment of patients with diabetes by preventing cardiovascular events, heart failure hospitalization, and progression of renal disease. However, their pharmacological potential has not been explored enough. Thus, the substantial interest in SGLT-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) underlines the present review. It begins with an overview of carrier-mediated cellular glucose uptake, evidencing the insulin-independent transport system contribution to glucose homeostasis and the essential roles of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporters 1 and 2. Then, the pharmacological properties of SGLT-2is are detailed, leading to potential applications in treating T1DM patients with automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. Results from several studies demonstrated improvements in glycemic control, an increase in Time in Range (TIR), a decrease in glycemic variability, reduced daily insulin requirements without increasing hyperglycemic events, and benefits in weight management. However, these advantages are counterbalanced by increased risks, particularly concerning Diabetic Ketoacidosis (DKA). Several clinical trials reported a higher incidence of DKA when patients with T1DM received SGLT-2 inhibitors such as Sotagliflozin and Empagliflozin. On the other hand, patients with T1DM and a body mass index (BMI) of ≥27 kg/m2 treated with Dapagliflozin showed similar reduction in hyperglycemia and body weight and insignificantly increased DKA incidence compared to the overall trial population. Additional multicenter and randomized studies are required to establish safer and more effective long-term strategies based on patient selection, education, and continuous ketone body monitoring for optimal integration of SGLT-2 inhibitors into T1DM therapeutic protocol.

SGLT2 Inhibitors in the Management of Type 1 Diabetes (T1D): An Update on Current Evidence and Recommendations

SGLT2i (sodium glucose transporter type 2 inhibitors) are pharmacological agents that act by inhibiting the SGLT2, by reducing the renal plasma glucose threshold and inducing glycosuria, resulting in a blood glucose lowering effect. In recent years, studies demonstrating some additional positive effects of SGLT2i also in the treatment of T1D have increased progressively. The SGLT2i dapagliflozin and sotagliflozin have been temporarily licensed for use by the European Medical Agency (EMA) as an adjunct to insulin therapy in adults with T1D with a body mass index of 27 kg/m2 or higher. However, in the meantime, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee was divided, citing concerns about the main side effects of SGLT2i, especially diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). The aim of this manuscript was to conduct an update on current evidence and recommendations of the reported use of SGLT2i in the treatment of T1D in humans. Preclinical studies, clinical trial and real world data suggest benefits in glycaemia control and nefro-cardiovascular protection, even though several studies have documented an important increase in the risk of DKA, a serious and life-threatening adverse event of these agents. SGLT2i potentially addresses some of the unmet needs associated with T1D by improving glycaemic control with weight loss and without increasing hypoglycemia, by reducing glycaemic variability. However, due to side effects, EMA recommendation for SGLT2 use on T1D was withdrawn. Further studies will be needed to determine the safety of this therapy in T1D and to define the type of patient who can benefit most from these medications.

Fully Closed-Loop Glucose Control Compared With Insulin Pump Therapy With Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes and Suboptimal Glycemic Control: A Single-Center, Randomized, Crossover Study

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control compared with insulin pump therapy with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This single-center, randomized, crossover study enrolled 26 adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin pump therapy with suboptimal glycemic control (mean ± SD, age 41 ± 12 years, HbA1c 9.2 ± 1.1% [77 ± 12 mmol/mol]). Participants underwent two 8-week periods of unrestricted living to compare fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro (CamAPS HX system) with insulin pump therapy with CGM in random order.

RESULTS

In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time glucose was in range (primary end point 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was higher during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD 50.0 ± 9.6% vs. 36.2 ± 12.2%, mean difference 13.2 percentage points [95% CI 9.5, 16.9], P < 0.001). Time with glucose >10.0 mmol/L and mean glucose were lower during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD time >10.0 mmol/L: 49.0 ± 9.9 vs. 62.9 ± 12.6%, mean difference -13.3 percentage points [95% CI -17.2, -9.5], P < 0.001; mean ± SD glucose 10.7 ± 1.1 vs. 12.0 ± 1.6 mmol/L, mean difference -1.2 mmol/L [95% CI -1.8, -0.7], P < 0.001). The proportion of time with glucose <3.9 mmol/L was similar between periods (median [interquartile range (IQR)] closed-loop 0.88% [0.51-1.55] vs. pump with CGM 0.64% [0.28-1.10], P = 0.102). Total daily insulin requirements did not differ (median [IQR] closed-loop 51.9 units/day [35.7-91.2] vs. pump with CGM 50.7 units/day [34.0-70.0], P = 0.704). No severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Fully closed-loop insulin delivery with CamAPS HX improved glucose control compared with insulin pump therapy with CGM in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control.

Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery Technologies in Clinical Practice

The significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers, and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past 6 years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage.

[It's a new world: Improvement of diabetes therapy through digital and technical innovations]

Medical progress is increasingly characterized by digital and technical solutions that improve and facilitate treatment of our patients. Especially diabetes therapy is an ideal field for digital and technical solutions. The complexity of insulin therapy with the need to take multiple variables into account is a brilliant example for the use of digital support processes. This article gives an overview of the current state of telemedicine during corona pandemic and diabetes Apps to improve mental health and self support in people with diabetes as well as to simplify documentation. In the field of technical solutions at first continuous glucose monitoring and smart pen technology will be presented with their potential to increase time in range, reduce the frequency of hypoglycemia and improve glycemic management. As next topic automated insulin delivery as current gold standard and possibilities to further improve glycemic control in future. Last wearables in the diabetes field to improve diabetes therapy as well as the management of diabetes complications. All these aspects show the importance of technical and digital supported therapies for treatment and glycemic management in people with diabetes in Germany.

Low-Dose Empagliflozin as Adjunct to Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Therapy in Adults With Suboptimally Controlled Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether low doses of empagliflozin as adjunct to hybrid closed-loop therapy improve glycemia compared with placebo in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) who are not able to achieve targets with the system alone.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A double-blind crossover randomized controlled trial was performed in adults with suboptimally controlled T1D (HbA1c 7.0-10.5%) who were not able to achieve a target time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) ≥70% after 14 days of hybrid closed-loop therapy. Three 14-day interventions were performed with placebo, 2.5 mg empagliflozin, or 5 mg empagliflozin as adjunct to the McGill artificial pancreas. Participants were assigned at a 1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio with blocked randomization. The primary outcome was time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L). Analysis was by intention to treat, and a P value <0.05 was regarded as significant.

RESULTS

A total of 24 participants completed the study (50% male; age 33 ± 14 years; HbA1c 8.1 ± 0.5%). The time in range was 59.0 ± 9.0% for placebo, 71.6 ± 9.7% for 2.5 mg empagliflozin, and 70.2 ± 8.0% for 5 mg empagliflozin (P < 0.0001 between 2.5 mg empagliflozin and placebo and between 5 mg empagliflozin and placebo). Mean daily capillary ketone levels were not different between arms. There were no serious adverse events or cases of diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia in any intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Empagliflozin at 2.5 and 5 mg increased time in range during hybrid closed-loop therapy by 11-13 percentage points compared with placebo in those who otherwise were unable to attain glycemic targets. Future studies are required to assess long-term efficacy and safety.

Closed-loop insulin delivery: update on the state of the field and emerging technologies

INTRODUCTION

Over the last five years, closed-loop insulin delivery systems have transitioned from research-only to real-life use. A number of systems have been commercialized and are increasingly used in clinical practice. Given the rapidity of new developments in the field, understanding the capabilities and key similarities and differences of current systems can be challenging. This review aims to provide an update on the state of the field of closed-loop insulin delivery systems, including emerging technologies.

AREAS COVERED

We summarize key clinical safety and efficacy evidence of commercial and emerging insulin-only hybrid closed-loop systems for type 1 diabetes. A literature search was conducted and clinical trials using closed-loop systems during free-living conditions were identified to report on safety and efficacy data. We comment on emerging technologies and adjuncts for closed-loop systems, as well as non-technological priorities in closed-loop insulin delivery.

EXPERT OPINION

Commercial hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems are efficacious, consistently improving glycemic control when compared to standard therapy. Challenges remain in widespread adoption due to clinical inertia and the lack of resources to embrace technological developments by health care professionals.

Automated Insulin Delivery with SGLT2i Combination Therapy in Type 1 Diabetes

Background: Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) as adjunct therapy to insulin in type 1 diabetes (T1D) has been previously studied. In this study, we present data from the first free-living trial combining low-dose SGLT2i with commercial automated insulin delivery (AID) or predictive low glucose suspend (PLGS) systems. Methods: In an 8-week, randomized, controlled crossover trial, adults with T1D received 5 mg/day empagliflozin (EMPA) or no drug (NOEMPA) as adjunct to insulin therapy. Participants were also randomized to sequential orders of AID (Control-IQ) and PLGS (Basal-IQ) systems for 4 and 2 weeks, respectively. The primary endpoint was percent time-in-range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL during daytime (7:00-23:00 h) while on AID (NCT04201496). Findings: A total of 39 subjects were enrolled, 35 were randomized, 34 (EMPA; n = 18 and NOEMPA n = 16) were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle, and 32 (EMPA; n = 16 and NOEMPA n = 16) completed the trial. On AID, EMPA versus NOEMPA had higher daytime TIR 81% versus 71% with a mean estimated difference of +9.9% (confidence interval [95% CI] 0.6-19.1); p = 0.04. On PLGS, the EMPA versus NOEMPA daytime TIR was 80% versus 63%, mean estimated difference of +16.5% (95% CI 7.3-25.7); p < 0.001. One subject on SGLT2i and AID had one episode of diabetic ketoacidosis with nonfunctioning insulin pump infusion site occlusion contributory. Interpretation: In an 8-week outpatient study, addition of 5 mg daily empagliflozin to commercially available AID or PLGS systems significantly improved daytime glucose control in individuals with T1D, without increased hypoglycemia risk. However, the risk of ketosis and ketoacidosis remains. Therefore, future studies with SGLT2i will need modifications to closed-loop control algorithms to enhance safety.

Super-twisting-based meal detector for type 1 diabetes management: Improvement and assessment in a real-life scenario

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Hybrid automated insulin delivery systems rely on carbohydrate counting to improve postprandial control in type 1 diabetes. However, this is an extra burden on subjects, and it introduces a source of potential errors that could impact control performances. In fact, carbohydrates estimation is challenging, prone to errors, and it is known that subjects sometimes struggle to adhere to this requirement, forgetting to perform this task. A possible solution is the use of automated meal detection algorithms. In this work, we extended a super-twisting-based meal detector suggested in the literature and assessed it on real-life data.

METHODS

To reduce the false detections in the original meal detector, we implemented an implicit discretization of the super-twisting and replaced the Euler approximation of the glucose derivative with a Kalman filter. The modified meal detector is retrospectively evaluated in a challenging real-life dataset corresponding to a 2-week trial with 30 subjects using sensor-augmented pump control. The assessment includes an analysis of the nature and riskiness of false detections.

RESULTS

The proposed algorithm achieved a recall of 70 [13] % (median [interquartile range]), a precision of 73 [26] %, and had 1.4 [1.4] false positives-per-day. False positives were related to rising glucose conditions, whereas false negatives occurred after calibrations, missing samples, or hypoglycemia treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed algorithm achieves encouraging performance. Although false positives and false negatives were not avoided, they are related to situations with a low risk of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, respectively.

Empagliflozin add-on therapy to closed-loop insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes: a 2 × 2 factorial randomized crossover trial

There is a need to optimize closed-loop automated insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes. We assessed the glycemic efficacy and safety of empagliflozin 25 mg d^-1 as add-on therapy to insulin delivery with a closed-loop system. We performed a 2 × 2 factorial randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover two-center trial in adults, assessing 4 weeks of closed-loop delivery versus sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy and empagliflozin versus placebo. The primary outcome was time spent in the glucose target range (3.9-10.0 mmol l^-1). Primary comparisons were empagliflozin versus placebo in each of closed-loop or SAP therapy; the remaining comparisons were conditional on its significance. Twenty-four of 27 randomized participants were included in the final analysis. Compared to placebo, empagliflozin improved time in target range with closed-loop therapy by 7.2% and in SAP therapy by 11.4%. Closed-loop therapy plus empagliflozin improved time in target range compared to SAP therapy plus empagliflozin by 6.1% but by 17.5% for the combination of closed-loop therapy and empagliflozin compared to SAP therapy plus placebo. While no diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred during any intervention, uncomplicated ketosis events were more common on empagliflozin. Empagliflozin 25 mg d^-1 added to automated insulin delivery improves glycemic control but increases ketone concentration and ketosis compared to placebo.

Using an Online Disturbance Rejection and Anticipation System to Reduce Hyperglycemia in a Fully Closed-Loop Artificial Pancreas System

INTRODUCTION

Hyperglycemia following meals is a recurring challenge for people with type 1 diabetes, and even the most advanced available automated systems currently require manual input of carbohydrate amounts. To progress toward fully automated systems, we present a novel control system that can automatically deliver priming boluses and/or anticipate eating behaviors to improve postprandial full closed-loop control.

METHODS

A model predictive control (MPC) system was enhanced by an automated bolus system reacting to early glucose rise and/or a multistage MPC (MS-MPC) framework to anticipate historical patterns. Priming was achieved by detecting large glycemic disturbances, such as meals, and delivering a fraction of the patient's total daily insulin (TDI) modulated by the disturbance's likelihood (bolus priming system [BPS]). In the anticipatory module, glycemic disturbance profiles were generated from historical data using clustering to group days with similar behaviors; the probability of each cluster is then evaluated at every controller step and informs the MS-MPC framework to anticipate each profile. We tested four configurations: MPC, MPC + BPS, MS-MPC, and MS-MPC + BPS in simulation to contrast the effect of each controller module.

RESULTS

Postprandial time in range was highest for MS-MPC + BPS: 60.73 ± 25.39%, but improved with each module: MPC + BPS: 56.95±25.83 and MS-MPC: 54.83 ± 26.00%, compared with MPC: 51.79 ± 26.12%. Exposure to hypoglycemia was maintained for all controllers (time below 70 mg/dL <0.5%), and improvement came primarily from a reduction in postprandial time above range (MS-MPC + BPS: 39.10 ± 25.32%, MPC + BPS: 42.99 ± 25.81%, MS-MPC: 45.09 ± 25.96%, MPC: 48.18 ± 26.09%).

CONCLUSIONS

The BPS and anticipatory disturbance profiles improved blood glucose control and were most efficient when combined.

The automated pancreas: A review of technologies and clinical practice

Insulin pumps and glucose sensors are effective in improving diabetes therapy and reducing acute complications. The combination of both devices using an algorithm-driven interoperable controller makes automated insulin delivery (AID) systems possible. Many AID systems have been tested in clinical trials and have proven safety and effectiveness. However, currently, none of these systems are available for routine use in children younger than 6 years in Europe. For continued use, both users and prescribers must have sound knowledge of the features of the individual AID systems. Presently, all systems require various user interactions (e.g. meal announcements) because fully automated systems are not yet developed. Open-source systems are non-regulated variants to circumvent existing regulatory conditions. There are risks here for both users and prescribers. To evaluate AID therapy, the metric data of the glucose sensors, 'time in target range' and 'glucose management index', are novel recognized and suitable parameters allowing a consultation based on real glucose and insulin pump download data from the daily life of people with diabetes. Read out via cloud-based software or automatic download of such individual treatment data provides the ideal technical basis for shared decision-making through telemedicine, which must be further evaluated for general use.

Empfehlungen zur Diabetes-Behandlung mit automatischen Insulin-Dosierungssystemen

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

Adjunctive Therapies to Optimize Closed-loop Glucose Control

Closed-loop insulin delivery systems are fast becoming the standard of care in the management of type 1 diabetes and have led to significant improvements in diabetes management. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement for the closed-loop systems to optimize treatment and meet target glycemic control. Adjunct treatments have been introduced as an alternative method to insulin-only treatment methods to overcome diabetes treatment challenges and improve clinical and patient reported outcomes during closed-loop treatment. The adjunct treatment agents mostly consist of medications that are already approved for type 2 diabetes treatment and aim to complete the missing physiologic factors, such as the entero-endocrine system, that regulate glycemia in addition to insulin. This paper will review many of these adjunct therapies, including the basic mechanisms of action, potential benefits, side effects, and the evidence supporting their use during closed-loop treatment.

Strategically Playing with Fire: SGLT Inhibitors as Possible Adjunct to Closed-Loop Insulin Therapy

As closed-loop insulin therapies emerge into clinical practice and evolve in medical research for type 1 diabetes (T1D) treatment, the limitations in these therapies become more evident. These gaps include unachieved target levels of glycated hemoglobin in some patients, postprandial hyperglycemia, the ongoing need for carbohydrate counting, and the lack of non-glycemic benefits (such as prevention of metabolic syndrome and complications). Multiple adjunct therapies have been examined to improve closed-loop systems, yet none have become a staple. Sodium-glucose-linked cotransporter inhibitors (SGLTi's) have been extensively researched in T1D, with average reductions in placebo-adjusted HbA1c by 0.39%, and total daily dose by approximately 10%. Unfortunately, many trials revealed an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis, as high as 5 times the relative risk compared to placebo. This narrative review discusses the proven benefits and risks of SGLTi in patients with T1D with routine therapy, what has been studied thus far in closed-loop therapy in combination with SGLTi, the potential benefits of SGLTi use to closed-loop systems, and what is required going forward to improve the benefit to risk ratio in these insulin systems.

Hybrid Closed-loop to Manage Gastroparesis in People With Type 1 Diabetes: a Case Series

BACKGROUND

Gastroparesis is associated with unpredictable gastric emptying and can lead to erratic glucose profiles and negative impacts on quality-of-life. Many people with gastroparesis are unable to meet glycemic targets and there is a need for new approaches for this population. Hybrid closed-loop systems improve glucose control and quality-of-life but evidence for their use in people with diabetic gastroparesis is limited.

METHODS

We present a narrative review of the challenges associated with type 1 diabetes management for people with gastroparesis and present a case series of 7 people with type 1 diabetes and gastroparesis. We compare glycemic control before and during the first 12 months of hybrid closed-loop therapy. Data were analyzed using electronic patient records and glucose management platforms. We also discuss future advancements for closed-loop systems that may benefit this population.

RESULTS

Five of 7 patients had data available for time in range before and during hybrid closed-loop therapy, and all had an improvement in percentage time in target glucose range, with the overall mean time in range increasing from 26.0% ± 15.7% to 58.4% ± 8.6% during HCL use, (P = .004). There were significant reductions in HbA1c (83 ± 9 mmol/mol to 71 ± 14 mmol/mol) and mean glucose from 13.0 ± 1.7 mmol/L (234 ± 31 mg/dL) to 10.0 ± 0.7 mmol/L (180 ± 13 mg/dL) with use of a hybrid closed-loop system. Importantly, this was achieved without an increase in time in hypoglycemia (P = .50).

CONCLUSION

Hybrid closed-loop systems may represent a valuable approach to improve glycemic control for people with type 1 diabetes and gastroparesis. Prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.