Comparison of MiniMed 780G system performance in users aged younger and older than 15 years: Evidence from 12 870 real-world users

The psychosocial outcomes of advanced hybrid closed-loop system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes

The study was carried out to determine the psychosocial outcomes of advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) systems in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Single-center and cohort study with a duration 6 months consisted of 60 children and adolescents with T1D. Standard clinical procedures, including both glycemic indicators, e.g., sensor-measured time within the 70-180 mg/dL range and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, and psychosocial metrics were used for data collection. The psychosocial metrics included the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 3.0 Diabetes Module for both children (8-12 years) and parents; the Quality of Life for Youth scale for adolescents (13-18 years); the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ); the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey for Children (HFS-C); the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale (R-CADS); and AHCLS-specific DTSEQ satisfaction and expectation survey. These metrics were evaluated at the baseline and after 6 months of AHCL use. Of the 60 children and adolescents with T1D for whom the AHCL system was utilized, 41 of them, 23 female and 18 male, completed the surveys. The mean age of the 41 children and adolescents was 12.5 ± 3.2 (min. 6.7, max. 18) years. The time spent within the target glycemic range, i.e., time-in-range (TIR), improved from 76.9 ± 9% at the baseline to 80.4 ± 5% after 6 months of AHCL system use (p = 0.03). Additionally, HbA1c levels reduced from 7.1% ± 0.7% at the baseline to 6.8% ± 0.8% after 6 months of AHCL system use (p = 0.03). The most notable decline in HbA1c was observed in participants with higher baseline HbA1c levels. All patients' HFS-C and AHCL system-specific DTSEQ satisfaction and expectation survey scores were within the normal range at the baseline and remained unchanged during the follow-up period. No significant difference was found in the R-CADS scores of children and adolescents between baseline and after 6 months of AHCL system use. However, there was a significant decrease in the R-CADS scores of the parents. Patients' PedsQL scores were high both at the baseline and after 6 months. The SDQ scores were high at baseline, and there was no significant improvement at the end of 6 months.  Conclusion: This is the first study to investigate in detail the psychosocial outcomes of AHCL system use in T1D patients and their parents. Although state-of-the-art technologies such as AHCL provide patients with more flexibility in their daily lives and information about glucose fluctuations, the AHCL resulted in a TIR above the recommended target range without a change in QOL, HFS-C, SDQ, and R-CADS scores. The scores obtained from the R-CADS conducted by the parents of the children indicated that the use of pumps caused a psychological improvement in the long term, with a significant decrease in the R-CADS scores of the children and adolescents with T1D. What is Known: • Previous studies focused on clinical outcomes of AHCL systems in pediatric T1D patients, showing glycemic control improvements. • Limited attention given to psychosocial outcomes of AHCL systems in children and adolescents with T1D. • Crucial psychosocial factors like quality of life, emotional well-being, and fear of hypoglycemia underexplored in AHCL system context. What is New: • First study to comprehensively examine psychosocial outcomes of AHCL systems in pediatric T1D patients. • Study's robust methodology sets new standard for diabetes technology research and its impact on qualiy of life.

Impact of Missed and Late Meal Boluses on Glycemic Outcomes in Automated Insulin Delivery-Treated Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: A Two-Center, Population-Based Cohort Study

Objective: To evaluate the impact of missed or late meal boluses (MLBs) on glycemic outcomes in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. Research Design and Methods: AID-treated (Tandem Control-IQ or Medtronic MiniMed 780G) children and adolescents (aged 6-21 years) from Stanford Medical Center and Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen with ≥10 days of data were included in this two-center, binational, population-based, retrospective, 1-month cohort study. The primary outcome was the association between the number of algorithm-detected MLBs and time in target glucose range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL). Results: The study included 189 children and adolescents (48% females with a mean ± standard deviation age of 13 ± 4 years). Overall, the mean number of MLBs per day in the cohort was 2.2 ± 0.9. For each additional MLB per day, TIR decreased by 9.7% points (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.3; 8.1), and compared with the quartile with fewest MLBs (Q1), the quartile with most (Q4) had 22.9% less TIR (95% CI: 27.2; 18.6). The age-, sex-, and treatment modality-adjusted probability of achieving a TIR of >70% in Q4 was 1.4% compared with 74.8% in Q1 (P < 0.001). Conclusions: MLBs significantly impacted glycemic outcomes in AID-treated children and adolescents. The results emphasize the importance of maintaining a focus on bolus behavior to achieve a higher TIR and support the need for further research in technological or behavioral support tools to handle MLBs.

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.

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.

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.

Satisfaction with continuous glucose monitoring is associated with quality of life in young people with type 1 diabetes regardless of metabolic control and treatment type

AIMS

While continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and associated technologies have positive effects on metabolic control in young people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), less is known about their impact on quality of life (QoL). Here, we quantified CGM satisfaction and QoL in young people with T1D and their parents/caregivers to establish (i) the relationship between QoL and CGM satisfaction and (ii) the impact of the treatment regimen on QoL.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of children and adolescents with T1D on different treatment regimens (multiple daily injections, sensor-augmented pumps and automated insulin delivery). QoL was assessed with the KINDL instrument, and CGM satisfaction with the CGM-SAT questionnaire was evaluated in both youths with T1D and their parents.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ten consecutively enrolled youths with T1D completed the KINDL and CGM-SAT questionnaires. The mean total KINDL score was greater than neutral in both subjects with T1D (3.99 ± 0.47) and parents (4.06 ± 0.40), and lower overall CGM-SAT scores (i.e., higher satisfaction) were significantly associated with higher QoL in all six KINDL subscales (p < 0.05). There were no differences in KINDL scores according to delivery technology or when participants were grouped according to optimal and sub-optimal glucose control.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher satisfaction with recent CGMs was associated with better QoL in all dimensions. QoL was independent of both the insulin delivery technology and glycaemic control. CGM must be further disseminated. Attention on perceived satisfaction with CGM should be incorporated with the clinical practice to improve the well-being of children and adolescents with T1D and their families.

Protocol for a prospective, multicenter, parallel-group, open-label randomized controlled trial comparing standard care with Closed lOoP In chiLdren and yOuth with Type 1 diabetes and high-risk glycemic control: the CO-PILOT trial

Purpose

Advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) systems have the potential to improve glycemia and reduce burden for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Children and youth, who are at particular risk for out-of-target glycemia, may have the most to gain from AHCL. However, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) specifically targeting this age group with very high HbA1c has previously been attempted. Therefore, the CO-PILOT trial (Closed lOoP In chiLdren and yOuth with Type 1 diabetes and high-risk glycemic control) aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AHCL in this group.

Methods

A prospective, multicenter, parallel-group, open-label RCT, comparing MiniMed™ 780G AHCL to standard care (multiple daily injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion). Eighty participants aged 7-25 years with T1D, a current HbA1c ≥ 8.5% (69 mmol/mol), and naïve to automated insulin delivery will be randomly allocated to AHCL or control (standard care) for 13 weeks. The primary outcome is change in HbA1c between baseline and 13 weeks. Secondary outcomes include standard continuous glucose monitor glycemic metrics, psychosocial factors, sleep, platform performance, safety, and user experience. This RCT will be followed by a continuation phase where the control arm crosses over to AHCL and all participants use AHCL for a further 39 weeks to assess longer term outcomes.

Conclusion

This study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of AHCL in this population and has the potential to demonstrate that AHCL is the gold standard for children and youth with T1D experiencing out-of-target glucose control and considerable diabetes burden.

Trial registration

This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on 14 November 2022 (ACTRN12622001454763) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (Universal Trial Number U1111-1284-8452).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-024-01397-4.

A comparison of the usage of an open-source automated insulin delivery system and the MiniMed™ 780 G system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in real-world settings: the AWeSoMe study group

PURPOSE

In recent years there has been a noticeable increase in the use of advanced hybrid closed-loop systems (AHCLs) for managing type 1 diabetes (T1D) among youth. However, there is a lack of comparison between the open-source automated insulin delivery (AID) system and the MiniMed™ 780 G system (780 G).

METHODS

In this multi-center study, we retrospectively compared selected glycemic ranges of 26 individuals who used open-source AID and 20 individuals who used 780 G (age 11.3 years [IQR 9.3, 12.9] and 13.4 years [IQR 10.9, 16.5], respectively, p = 0.069) from system initiation to the most recent visit.

RESULTS

At baseline, the median HbA1c was significantly lower and the time below range (TBR)<54mg/dL was significantly higher in the open-source AID group compared to the 780 G group (6.8% [IQR 6.4, 7.1] vs. 7.4% [IQR 6.9, 8.6], p = 0.006 and (1.0% [IQR 0.5, 2.8] vs. 0.0% [0.0, 1.0], p = 0.014), respectively; the median time in range (TIR70-180mg/dL) was similar (p = 0.068). After a median duration of 10.9 months on AHCLs the reduction of HbA1c was similar ( ~ 0.3%). The time spent in the hypoglycemic ranges was longer among users of the open-source AID compared to 780 G (TBR54-70mg/dL 4.2% [IQR 2.6, 7.3] vs. 2.0% [1.0, 4.0], p = 0.005) and TBR<54mg/dL 1.1% [IQR 0.4, 2.3] vs. 0.0 [0.0, 1.0], p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both AHCLs similarly improved HbA1c and TIR70-180mg/dL. The open-source AID youth had better glycemic control but spent longer time in the hypoglycemic range. These findings must be considered when choosing the use of AHCL technologies.

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.

Real-Life Achievements of MiniMed 780G Advanced Closed-Loop System in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes: AWeSoMe Study Group Multicenter Prospective Trial

Background: We assessed real-life glycemic outcomes and predictors of composite measures of optimal glycemic control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) during their initial 12 months of the MiniMed™ 780G use. Methods: This prospective observational multicenter study collected demographic, clinical, and 2-week 780G system data at five time points. Optimal glycemic control was defined as a composite glycemic control (CGC) score requiring the attainment of four recommended continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) targets, as well as the glycemia risk index (GRI) of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia and composite CGM index (COGI). Outcome measures included longitudinal changes in multiple glycemic parameters and CGC, GRI, and COGI scores, as well as predictors of these optimal measures. Results: The cohort included 93 children, 43% girls, with a median age of 15.1 years (interquartile range [IQR] 12.9,17.0). A longitudinal analysis adjusted for age and socioeconomic index yielded a significant improvement in glycemic control for the entire cohort (ptime < 0.001) after the transition to 780G. The mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (SE) was 8.65% (0.12) at baseline and dropped by >1% after 1 year to 7.54% (0.14) (ptime < 0.001). Optimal glycemic control measures improved at 12 months post 780G; CGC improved by 5.6-fold (P < 0.001) and was attained by 24% of the participants, the GRI score improved by 10-fold (P = 0.009) and was achieved by 10% of them, and the COGI improved by 7.6-fold (P < 0.001) and was attained by 20% of them. Lower baseline HbA1c levels and increased adherence to Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) usage were predictors of achieving optimal glycemic control. Conclusions: The AHCL 780G system enhances glycemic control in children and adolescents with T1D, demonstrating improvements in HbA1c and CGM metrics, albeit most participants did not achieve optimal glycemic control. This highlights yet ongoing challenges in diabetes management, emphasizing the need for continued proactive efforts on the part of health care professionals, youth, and caregivers.

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 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.

Time in Tight Glucose Range in Type 1 Diabetes: Predictive Factors and Achievable Targets in Real-World Users of the MiniMed 780G System

OBJECTIVE

We studied time in tight range (TITR) (70-140 mg/dL) in real-world users of the MiniMed 780G system (MM780G).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

CareLink Personal data were extracted (August 2020 to December 2022) to examine TITR and its relationship with time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL), factors predicting higher TITR, and which TITR target is a reasonable treatment goal.

RESULTS

The 13,461 users (3,762 age ≤15 years and 9,699 age >15 years) showed an average TITR of 48.9% in those age ≤15 years and 48.8% in the older group (vs. TIR 71.2% and 73.9%, respectively). Consistent use of a glucose target (GT) of 100 mg/dL and active insulin time (AIT) of 2 h were the most relevant factors predicting higher TITR (P < 0.0001). In users consistently applying these optimal settings, TITR was 56.7% in those age ≤15 years and 57.0% in the older group, and the relative impact of these settings on TITR was 60% and 86% greater than that on TIR, respectively. TITRs of ∼45% (age ≤15 years 46.3% and older group 45.4%), ∼50% (50.7% and 50.7%) and ∼55% (56.4% and 58.0%) were best associated with glucose management indicators <7.0%, <6.8%, and <6.5%, respectively. TITRs of >45%, >50%, and >55% were achieved in 91%, 74%, and 55% of those age ≤15 years and 93%, 81%, and 57% of older group users, respectively, at optimal settings.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that 1) mean TIR is high with a high mean TITR in MM780G users (>48%), 2) consistent use of optimal GT/AIT improves TITR (>56%), 3) the impact of these settings on TITR is larger than on TIR, and 4) a TITR target >50% is our suggested treatment goal.

The Cost-Effectiveness of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Compared to Standard Management of Type 1 Diabetes in a Singapore Setting

Background: Despite advances in technology, glycemic outcomes in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) remain suboptimal. The MiniMed 780G (MM780G) advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system is the latest technology for T1D management with established safety and efficacy. This study explores the cost-effectiveness of MM780G AHCL compared against multiple daily injections (MDI) plus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitor (isCGM). Methods: A cost-utility analysis was conducted, simulating lifetime outcomes for 1000 T1D individuals, with baseline hemoglobin A1c of 8.4%, using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (CDM) v9.5. A Singapore health care payer perspective was taken with 2023 costs applied. Treatment effects were taken from the ADAPT study and treatment-related events from a combination of sources. T1D complication costs were derived from local literature, and health state utilities and disutilities from published literature. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) explored uncertainty. Cost-effectiveness was assessed based on willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds set to Singapore Dollars (SGD) 45,000 (United States Dollars [USD] 33,087) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of SGD 114,165 (USD 83,941) per QALY. Results: A switch from MDI plus isCGM to MM780G resulted in expected gains in life-years (+0.78) and QALYs (+1.45). Cost savings through reduction in T1D complications (SGD 25,465; USD 18,723) partially offset the higher treatment costs in the AHCL arm (+SGD 74,538; +USD 54,805), resulting in an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SGD 33,797 (USD 24,850) per QALY gained. Findings were robust, with PSA outputs indicating 81% and 99% probabilities of cost-effectiveness at the stated WTP thresholds. Conclusion: MM780G is a cost-effective option for people with T1D managed in a Singapore setting.

Assessing the feasibility of time in tight range (TITR) targets with advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) use in children and adolescents: A single-centre real-world study

AIMS

Time in Tight Range (TITR) is a novel glycaemic metric in monitoring type 1 diabetes (T1D) management. The aim of this study was to assess the attainability of the TITR target in children and adolescents using the advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL).

METHODS

The 2128-day CGM data from 56 children and adolescents with T1D using AHCL (Minimed-780G) were analysed. Time in Range (TIR) (3.9-10 mmol/L), TITR (3.9-7.7 mmol/L), and other glycaemic parameters were separately analysed in terms of whole day, daytime (06.00-23:59), and nighttime (00.00-05.59) results. The participants were divided into two groups by autocorrection rate where Group 1 had a rate of <30% and Group 2 had a rate of ≥30.

RESULTS

All glycaemic parameters indicated a better glycaemic outcome in the nighttime with higher TIR and TITR values compared with daytime (for TIR 87.5 ± 9.5% vs. 78.8 ± 8%, p < 0.001, and TITR 68.2 ± 13.5% vs. 57.5 ± 8.8%, p < 0.001). The rates of TITR >50% and >60% were 87% and 52%, respectively. When those with TITR >60% (n: 29) and those without (n: 27) were evaluated in terms of hypoglycaemia, no statistically significant difference was found in time below range (TBR) 3-3.9 mmol/L (0.3% vs. 2.1%, p: 0.084) and TBR < 3 mmol/L (0.47% vs. 0.3%, p: 0.298). Group 1 had a significantly higher TIR and TITR compared to Group 2 (82.6 ± 6.1% vs. 75.6 ± 8.6%, p: 0.008 and 62.1 ± 7.5% vs. 53.8 ± 7.5%, p: 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Most children and adolescents on AHCL achieved the 50% target for TITR whereas more than half achieved the >60% target. A target of >50% for TITR seems realistic in children with T1D using AHCL.

Effects, Safety, and Treatment Experience of Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems in Clinical Practice Among Adults Living With Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

There are few studies providing a more comprehensive picture of advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) systems in clinical practice. The aim was to evaluate the effects of the AHCL systems, Tandem® t: slim X2™ with Control IQ™, and MiniMed™ 780G, on glucose control, safety, treatment satisfaction, and practical barriers for individuals with type 1 diabetes.

METHOD

One hundred forty-two randomly selected adults with type 1 diabetes at six diabetes outpatient clinics in Sweden at any time treated with either the Tandem Control IQ (TCIQ) or the MiniMed 780G system were included. Glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and glucose metrics were evaluated. Treatment satisfaction and practical barriers were examined via questionnaires.

RESULTS

Mean age was 42 years, median follow-up was 1.7 years, 58 (40.8%) were females, 65% used the TCIQ system. Glycated hemoglobin A1c was reduced by 0.6% (6.8 mmol/mol; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.5-0.8% [5.3-8.2 mmol/mol]; P < .001), from 7.3% to 6.7% (57-50 mmol/mol). Time in range (TIR) increased with 14.5% from 57.0% to 71.5% (95% CI = 12.2%-16.9%; P < .001). Time below range (TBR) (<70 mg/dL, <3.9 mmol/L) decreased from 3.8% to 1.6% (P < .001). The standard deviation of glucose values was reduced from 61 to 51 mg/dL (3.4-2.9 mmol/L, P < .001) and the coefficient of variation from 35% to 33% (P < .001). Treatment satisfaction increased, score 14.8 on the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) (change version ranging from -18 to 18, P < .001). Four severe hypoglycemia events were detected and no cases of ketoacidosis. Skin problems were experienced by 32.4% of the study population.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced hybrid closed-loop systems improve glucose control with a reasonable safety profile and high treatment satisfaction. Skin problems are common adverse events.

Advances in Automated Insulin Delivery with the Medtronic 780G: The Australian Experience

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.

The MiniMed 780G automated insulin delivery system adapts to substantial changes in daily routine: Lessons from real world users during Ramadan

AIM

To report on the effectiveness and safety of the MiniMed 780G automated insulin delivery system in real-world users during the month of Ramadan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CareLink Personal data were extracted from MiniMed 780G system users from the Gulf region. Users were included if they had ≥10 days of sensor glucose data during the month of Ramadan 2022 as well as in the month before and after. For the main analysis, continuous glucose monitoring endpoints were aggregated per month and were reported by time of day (daytime: 05.31-18.00 h, and night-time). Additional analyses were performed to study the pace at which the algorithm adapts.

RESULTS

Glycaemic control was well kept in the 449 included users (mean sensor glucose = 152.6 ± 18.7 mg/dl, glucose management indicator = 7.0 ± 0.4%, time in range = 70.7 ± 11.0%, time below 70 mg/dl = 2.3 ± 2.3%). Albeit some metrics differed from the month before (p < .0001 for all), absolute differences were very small and considered clinically irrelevant. During Ramadan, there was no increased risk of hypoglycaemia during daytime (time below 70 mg/dl = 2.3 ± 2.4%), time in range was highest during daytime (80.0 ± 10.7%, night: 60.4 ± 15.3%), while time above 180 mg/dl was highest during night-time (37.3 ± 16.3%, day: 17.7 ± 10.7%). The algorithm adapted immediately upon lifestyle change.

CONCLUSION

The MiniMed 780G automated insulin delivery system is effective, safe and fast in adapting to the substantial changes that occur in the lifestyle of people with type 1 diabetes during Ramadan.

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.

Celebrating the Data from 100,000 Real-World Users of the MiniMed™ 780G System in Europe, Middle East, and Africa Collected Over 3 Years: From Data to Clinical Evidence

Introduction: The present report celebrates the benchmarking of 100,000 MiniMed™ 780G system users in Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) and summarizes the major insights into the usability and outcomes of this system. Methods: Carelink Personal data (August 2020-August 2023) of users living in EMEA were analyzed. Continuous glucose monitoring-based endpoints were aggregated for (1) the full cohort and (2) a 12-month longitudinal cohort. Subanalyses were done for users on optimal settings (those spending ≥95% of time with glucose target of 100 mg/dL, and ≥95% of time with active insulin time of 2 h), for self-reported age groups (≤15 and ≥56 years) and for various countries/regions. Results: Data from 101,629 users (34 countries) were analyzed. Mean time in range (TIR) was 72.3%, glucose management indicator (GMI) was 7%, time below 70 mg/dL (TBR70) was 2.0% and time below 54 mg/dL (TBR54) was 0.4%. In terms of international targets, 59.6% of users achieved a GMI <7%, 62.5% a TIR >70%, 88.4% a TBR70 < 4%, and 90.0% a TBR54 < 1%. Data improved impressively in optimal setting users (TIR = 78.8%, and users reaching TIR >70% = 86.3%) while safety remained (TBR70 = 2.2% and TBR54 = 0.4%). Data showed consistency across self-reported age groups and geographies. In the longitudinal cohort, TIR reached 75.5% in the first month and remained 73.3% or higher over the 12-month period. Conclusion: Over 100,000 users of the MiniMed™ 780G system have demonstrated consistency in achieving target control of glycemia.

Reducing Diabetes Burden in Medtronic's Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

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.

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

Introduction: To evaluate time in tight range (TITR) 70-140 mg/dL (3.9-7.8 mmol/L), its correlation with standard continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics and the clinical variables that possibly have a substantial impact on its value, in a large cohort of pediatric subjects using different treatment strategies. Materials and Methods: A total of 854 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes were consecutively recruited in this real world, dual center, cross-sectional study. Participants were categorized into four treatment groups (multiple daily injections [MDI] + real-time CGM, MDI + intermittently scanned CGM, sensor augmented pump, and hybrid closed loop [HCL]). Demographical and clinical data, including CGM data, were collected and analyzed. Results: The overall study population exhibited an average TITR of 36.4% ± 12.8%. HCL users showed higher TITR levels compared to the other treatment groups (P < 0.001). A time in range (TIR) cut-off value of 71.9% identified subjects achieving a TITR ≥50% (area under curve [AUC] 0.98; 95% confidence interval 0.97-0.99, P < 0.001), and a strong positive correlation between these two metrics was observed (r = 0.95, P < 0.001). An increase in TIR of 1% was associated with 1.84 (R2 Nagelkerke = 0.35, P < 0.001) increased likelihood of achieving TITR ≥50%. Use of HCL systems (B = 7.78; P < 0.001), disease duration (B = -0.26, P = 0.006), coefficient of variation (B = -0.30, P = 0.004), and glycated hemoglobin (B = -8.82; P < 0.001) emerged as significant predictors of TITR levels. Conclusions: Our study highlights that most children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes present TITR levels below 50%, except those using HCL. Tailored interventions and strategies should be implemented to increase TITR.

Early Real-World Performance of the MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System and Recommended Settings Use in the United States

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.

Real-World Evidence of Automated Insulin Delivery System Use

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.

Exercising Safely with the MiniMed™ 780G Automated Insulin Delivery System

The physical and psychological benefits of exercise are particularly pertinent to people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). The variability in subcutaneous insulin absorption and the delay in offset and onset in glucose lowering action impose limitations, given the rapidly varying insulin requirements with exercise. Simultaneously, there are challenges to glucose monitoring. Consequently, those with T1D are less likely to exercise because of concerns regarding glucose instability. While glucose control with exercise can be enhanced using automated insulin delivery (AID), all commercially available AID systems remain limited by the pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous insulin delivery. Although glycemic responses may vary with exercises of differing intensities and durations, the principles providing the foundation for guidelines include minimization of insulin on board before exercise commencement, judicious and timely carbohydrate supplementation, and when possible, a reduction in insulin delivered in anticipation of planned exercise. There is an increasing body of evidence in support of superior glucose control with AID over manual insulin dosing in people in T1D who wish to exercise. The MiniMed™ 780G AID system varies basal insulin delivery with superimposed automated correction boluses. It incorporates a temporary (elevated glucose) target of 8.3 mmol/L (150 mg/dL) and when it is functioning, the autocorrection boluses are stopped. As the device has recently become commercially available, there are limited data assessing glucose control with the MiniMed™ 780G under exercise conditions. Importantly, when exercise was planned and implemented within consensus guidelines, %time in range and %time below range targets were met. A practical approach to exercising with the device is provided with illustrative case studies. While there are limitations to spontaneity imposed on any AID device due to the pharmacokinetics associated with the subcutaneous delivery of current insulin formulations, the MiniMed™ 780G system provides people with T1D an excellent option for exercising safely if the appropriate strategies are implemented.

A Peek Under the Hood: Explaining the MiniMed™ 780G Algorithm with Meal Detection Technology

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Beneficial effects of automated insulin delivery over one-year follow-up in real life for youths and adults with type 1 diabetes irrespective of patient characteristics

AIM

To investigate glycaemic outcomes in youths and adults with type 1 diabetes with either MiniMed™ 780G or Tandem t:slim X2™ control-IQ automated insulin delivery (AID) systems and to evaluate clinical factors that migrate, mitigate the achievement of therapeutic goals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective, real-world, observational study was conducted in a specialized university type 1 diabetes centre with patients observed for 3-12 months post-initiation of an AID system. Primary outcomes were the percentage time in the target glucose range [TIR70-180 mg/dl (3.9-10 mmol/L)] as measured by continuous glucose monitoring, mean glucose management indicator (GMI) and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels.

RESULTS

Our study cohort consisted of 48 adolescents and 183 adults (55% females) aged 10-77 years. The mean (95% confidence interval) TIR70-180 mg/dl after 30 days was higher than baseline and by 14% points after 360 days with 71.33% (69.4-73.2) (n = 123, p < .001). HbA1c levels decreased by 0.7% and GMI by 0.6% after 360 days. The proportion of time spent <70 mg/dl (3.9 mmol/L) was not significantly different from baseline. During follow-up, 780G users had better continuous glucose monitoring results than control-IQ users but similar HbA1c levels, and an increased risk of weight gain. Age at onset influenced TIR70-180 mg/dl in univariate analysis but there was no significant relationship after adjusting on explanatory variables. Baseline body mass index did not influence the performance of AID systems.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis showed the beneficial effects of two AID systems for people with type 1 diabetes across a broad spectrum of participant characteristics. Only half of the participants achieved international recommendations for glucose control with TIR70-180 mg/dl >70%, HbA1c levels or GMI <7%, which outlines the need to maintain strong educational and individual strategies.

MiniMed 780GTM in children with type 1 diabetes under seven years of age: Prospective open-label, single-arm, double-center, follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Given the steadily rising incidence of type 1 diabetes (T1D), particularly among the youngest preschool children, coupled with well-documented challenges of achieving and maintaining optimal metabolic control in this age group, there is a growing need for advanced technological devices.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate glycaemic control in children below the age of seven with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and assess the safety of the advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system in comparison to the previous treatment method, a sensor-augmented pump with predictive low-glucose suspend (SAP-PLGS).

METHOD

Data from 10 children (aged 2.60-6.98 years) with T1D who transitioned to the AHCL system from SAP-PLGS were analysed. SAP-PLGS records from two weeks prior to the initiation of AHCL were compared with records from the initial four weeks post-switch (excluding the training period). These data were examined at two 2-week intervals and compared with records from two weeks post six-month usage of the AHCL.

RESULTS

A significant decrease in the average nighttime glucose concentration was observed compared to pre-AHCL values (p= 0.001, concordance W = 0.53). The Glucose Management Indicator (GMI) value significantly decreased from 6.88 ± 0.37% to 6.52 ± 0.32% (p= 0.018, rbc = 0.93) immediately following the device switch and stabilized at 6.50 ± 0.28% (p= 0.001, W = 0.53) and 6.55 ± 0.41% (p= 0.001, W = 0.53) at subsequent stages of the study. An improvement was also observed in mean glucose values for time spent < 54 mg/dl, while the proportion of time within this range was maintained, both during the day (p< 0.001, W = 0.58) and at night (p= 0.002, W = 0.83).

CONCLUSION

The AHCL MiniMed 780GTM system improved glycaemic control in the studied group of children under seven years of age with T1D compared to previous SAP-PLGS therapy. It proved to be safe for delivering insulin in this age group.

Comparison of the Sensor-Augmented Pump System with the Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Delivery System: Quality of Life, Diabetes Distress, and Glycaemic Outcomes in a Real-Life Context

BACKGROUND

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) is a chronic disease that requires exogenous insulin administration and intensive management to prevent any complications. Recent innovations in T1D management technologies include the Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop delivery system (AHCL). The pioneer AHCL system provides automated basal and automated bolus corrections when needed.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) system and the Sensor-Augmented Pump (SAP) with Predictive Low Glucose Management (PLGM) system, in relation to glycaemic outcomes, general and diabetes-related Quality of Life (QoL), and diabetes distress.

METHODS

General and diabetes-related QoL were assessed with the Diabetes Quality of Life Brief Clinical Inventory (DQOL-BCI) and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF), respectively. Diabetes distress was assessed with the Diabetes Distress Scale for Type 1 diabetes (T1-DDS).

RESULTS

Eighty-nine T1D adults participated in the study, mostly females (65.2%), with a mean age of 39.8 (± 11.5 years). They had on average 23 years of diabetes (± 10.7) and they were on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy. Significant differences favoring the AHCL over the SAP + PLGM system were demonstrated by lower mean glucose levels, less time above range, lower scores on DQOL-BCI, T1-DDS, and higher scores on WHOQOL-BREF. Finally, the linear regression models revealed the association of time in range in most of the above aspects.

CONCLUSION

This study highlighted the advantages of the AHCL system over the SAP + PLGM system in the real-world setting in relation to general and diabetes-related QoL, diabetes distress, and glycaemic outcomes.

Daytime hypoglycemic episodes during the use of an advanced hybrid closed loop system

AIMS

The use of advanced hybrid closed loop systems is spreading due to the beneficial effects on glycometabolic control obtained in patients with type 1 diabetes. However, hypoglycemic episodes can be sometimes a matter of concern. We aim to compare the hypoglycemic risk of an advanced hybrid closed loop system and a predictive low glucose suspend sensor augmented pump.

METHODS

In this retrospective three months observational study, we included 30 patients using Medtronic Minimed™ 780G advanced hybrid closed loop system and 30 patients using a Medtronic Minimed™ predictive low glucose suspend sensor augmented pump.

RESULTS

The advanced hybrid closed loop system reduced the time spent above 180 mg/dL threshold and increased the time in range as compared to the predictive low glucose suspend. No severe hypoglycemia occurred in both groups and no differences were observed in the percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dl and 54 mg/dl glucose threshold. Nevertheless, more hypoglycemic episodes were recorded during daytime, but not in nighttime, with the use of the advanced hybrid closed loop system.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirmed the general improvement of glycemic outcomes obtained with the advanced hybrid closed loop system; however more hypoglycemic episodes during daytime were evident.

Glycemic Control, Basal/Bolus Distribution, BMI and Meal Management in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes and Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop

Evidence about the impact of advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) on body mass index (BMI) and eating habits in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is lacking. This real-world study aimed at evaluating glycemic control, BMI, meals and basal/bolus distribution in young subjects with T1D treated by AHCL. Glycemic metrics, HbA1c, basal/bolus distribution, meals/day, BMI, total daily dose (TDD), and carbohydrates/kg (CHO/kg) have been evaluated in 83 subjects, aged 13 ± 4.5 years, in manual mode, 3 and 6 months after auto-mode. Time in range (TIR) increased after 3 months, exceeding the target of 70% and was maintained at 6 months. While coefficient of variation (CV) did not change, the glucose management indicator (GMI) decreased in auto-mode (6.7 ± 0.3 vs. 7.1 ± 0.5%; p < 0.001), as well as HbA1c. Basal proportion decreased in favor of boluses (38.3 ± 7.3 vs. 43.6 ± 10.9%; p < 0.001). Meals increased at 3 and 6 months (4.4 ± 1.2 vs. 5.0 ± 1.5, p 0.002 and 5.1 ± 1.7, p < 0.001), as well as TDD/kg, without changes in BMI and CHO consumed. No differences in meal composition have arisen from food diaries. In conclusion, AHCL ensured the achievement and maintenance of target TIR in young T1D subjects. The number of meals, TDD, and insulin bolus proportion increased over time, but BMI remained stable.

Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes: Is Age at Onset a Determining Factor in Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Therapy?

BACKGROUND

The integration of continuous glucose monitoring systems with insulin infusion pumps has shown improved glycemic control, with improvements in hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, Hb1Ac, and greater autonomy in daily life. These have been most studied in adults and there are currently not many articles published in the pediatric population that establish their correlation with age of debut.

METHODS

Prospective, single-study. A total of 28 patients (mean age 12 ± 2.43 years, 57% male, duration of diabetes 7.84 ± 2.46 years) were included and divided into two groups according to age at T1D onset (≤4 years and >4 years). Follow-up for 3 months, with glucometric variables extracted at different cut-off points after the start of the closed-loop (baseline, 1 month, 3 months).

RESULTS

Significant improvement was evidenced at 1 month and 3 months after closed-loop system implantation, with better glycemic control in the older age group at baseline at TIR (74.06% ± 6.37% vs. 80.33% ± 7.49% at 1 month, p < 0.003; 71.87% ± 6.58% vs. 78.75% ± 5.94% at 3 months, p < 0.009), TAR1 (18.25% ± 4.54% vs. 14.33% ± 5.74% at 1 month, p < 0.006; 19.87% ± 5.15% vs. 14.67% ± 4. 36% at 3 months, p < 0.009) and TAR2 (4.75% ± 2.67% vs. 2.75% ± 1.96% at 1 month, p = 0.0307; 5.40% ± 2.85% vs. 3% ± 2.45% at 3 months, p < 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

the use of automated systems such as the MiniMedTM780G system brings glucometric results closer to those recommended by consensus, especially in age at T1D onset >4 years. However, the management in pediatrics continues to be a challenge even after the implementation of these systems, especially in terms of hyperglycemia and glycemic variability.

Glucose Monitoring Metrics in Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes Using Different Treatment Modalities: A Real-World Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the association between continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived glycemic metrics and different insulin treatment modalities using real-world data.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study at Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Denmark, included individuals with type 1 diabetes using CGM. Data from September 2021 to August 2022 were analyzed if CGM was used for at least 20% of a 4-week period. Individuals were divided into four groups: multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy, insulin pumps with unintegrated CGM (SUP), sensor-augmented pumps with low glucose management (SAP), and automated insulin delivery (AID). The MDI and SUP groups were further subdivided based on CGM alarm features. The primary outcome was percentage of time in range (TIR: 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) for each treatment group. Secondary outcomes included other glucose metrics and HbA1c.

RESULTS

Out of 6,314 attendees, 3,184 CGM users were included in the analysis. Among them, 1,622 used MDI, 504 used SUP, 354 used SAP, and 561 used AID. Median TIR was 54.0% for MDI, 54.9% for SUP, 62,9% for SAP, and 72,1% for AID users. The proportion of individuals achieving all recommended glycemic targets (TIR >70%, time above range <25%, and time below range <4%) was significantly higher in SAP (odds ratio [OR] 2.4 [95% CI 1.6-3.5]) and AID (OR 9.4 [95% CI 6.7-13.0]) compared with MDI without alarm features.

CONCLUSIONS

AID appears superior to other insulin treatment modalities with CGM. Although bias may be present because of indications, AID should be considered the preferred choice for insulin pump therapy.

Safety and Glycemic Outcomes During the MiniMedTM Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Pivotal Trial in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes

Background: During MiniMed™ advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) use by adolescents and adults in the pivotal trial, glycated hemoglobin (A1C) was significantly reduced, time spent in range (TIR) was significantly increased, and there were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). The present study investigated the same primary safety and effectiveness endpoints during AHCL use by a younger cohort with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: An intention-to-treat population (N = 160, aged 7-17 years) with T1D was enrolled in a single-arm study at 13 investigational centers. There was a run-in period (∼25 days) using HCL or sensor-augmented pump with/without predictive low-glucose management, followed by a 3-month study period with AHCL activated at two glucose targets (GTs; 100 and 120 mg/dL) for ∼45 days each. The mean ± standard deviation values of A1C, TIR, mean sensor glucose (SG), coefficient of variation (CV) of SG, time at SG ranges, and insulin delivered between run-in and study were analyzed (Wilcoxon signed-rank test or t-test). Results: Compared with baseline, AHCL use was associated with reduced A1C from 7.9 ± 0.9% (N = 160) to 7.4 ± 0.7% (N = 136) (P < 0.001) and overall TIR increased from the run-in 59.4 ± 11.8% to 70.3 ± 6.5% by end of study (P < 0.001), without change in CV, time spent below range (TBR) <70 mg/dL, or TBR <54 mg/dL. Relative to longer active insulin time (AIT) settings (N = 52), an AIT of 2 h (N = 19) with the 100 mg/dL GT increased mean TIR to 73.4%, reduced TBR <70 mg/dL from 3.5% to 2.2%, and reduced time spent above range (TAR) >180 mg/dL from 28.7% to 24.4%. During AHCL use, there was no severe hypoglycemia or DKA. Conclusions: In children and adolescents with T1D, MiniMed AHCL system use was safe, A1C was lower, and TIR was increased. The lowest GT and shortest AIT were associated with the highest TIR and lowest TBR and TAR, all of which met consensus-recommended glycemic targets. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03959423.

Safety and efficacy of the structured onboarding steps and initiation protocol for MiniMed™ 780G system among an Egyptian cohort of young people living with type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of initiation protocol for MiniMed ™ 780G system among an Egyptian cohort of young people living with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

A prospective single-arm study including 72 participants with T1D. Five days of structured education and training were provided to all users and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was initiated on the first day of the training. Users initiated the pump initially in manual mode, with suspend before low feature, for 3 days before shifting to Auto Mode.

RESULTS

The mean HbA1c decreased from 8.72 ± 2.01 % to 6.7 ± 0.4 % (p<0.01). Time in range (70-180 mg/dL) substantially improved from 55.24 % ± 10.35 to 81.7 % ± 5.12 % after spending 84 days in auto mode (p<0.001) with 2.03 % of the time spent below 70 mg/dL. Regarding AHCL compatibility, users spent at least 90 % of time in auto mode.

CONCLUSIONS

Young people with T1D successfully initiated the AHCL system, using a tailored structured on-boarding protocol. Structured stepwise initiation protocol and onboarding steps are important prerequisite for participants' adherence and engagement with the system. Patient education together with optimized pump settings are important predictors of glycemic outcomes.

MiniMed 780G™ advanced hybrid closed-loop system performance in Egyptian patients with type 1 diabetes across different age groups: evidence from real-world users

BACKGROUND

Advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system provides both automated basal rate and correction boluses to keep glycemic values in a target range.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the real-world performance of the MiniMed™ 780G system among different age groups of Egyptian patients with type 1diabetes.

METHODS

One-hundred seven AHCL system users aged from 3 to 71 years were enrolled. Data uploaded by patients were aggregated and analyzed. The mean glucose management indicator (GMI), percentage of time spent within glycemic ranges (TIR), time below range (TBR) and time above range (TAR) were determined.

RESULTS

Six months after initiating Auto Mode, patients spent a mean of 85.31 ± 22.04% of the time in Auto Mode (SmartGuard) and achieved a mean GMI of 6.95 ± 0.58% compared with 7.9 ± 2.1% before AHCL initiation (p < 0.001). TIR 70-180 mg/dL was increased post-AHCL initiation from 63.48 ± 10.14% to 81.54 ± 8.43% (p < 0.001) while TAR 180-250 mg/dL, TAR > 250 mg/dL, TBR < 70 mg/dL and TBR < 54 mg/dL were significantly decreased (p < 0.001). After initiating AHCL, TIR was greater in children and adults compared with adolescents (82.29 ± 7.22% and 83.86 ± 9.24% versus 78.4 ± 7.34%, respectively; p < 0.05). The total daily dose of insulin was increased in all age groups primarily due to increased system-initiated insulin delivery including auto correction boluses and basal insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

MiniMed™ 780G system users across different age groups achieved international consensus-recommended glycemic control with no serious adverse effects even in challenging age group as children and adolescents.

Are all HCL systems the same? long term outcomes of three HCL systems in children with type 1 diabetes: real-life registry-based study

Objective

To compare parameters of glycemic control among three types of hybrid closed loop (HCL) systems in children with T1D (CwD) using population-wide data from the national pediatric diabetes registry ČENDA.

Methods

CwD aged <19 years treated with Medtronic MiniMed 780G (780G), Tandem t:slim X2 (Control-IQ) or do-it-yourself AndroidAPS (AAPS) systems for >12 months and monitored by CGM >70% of the time were included. HbA1c, times in glycemic ranges, and Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) were used for cross-sectional comparison between the HCL systems.

Results

Data from 512 CwD were analyzed. 780G, Control-IQ and AAPS were used by 217 (42.4%), 211 (41.2%), and 84 (16.4%) CwD, respectively. The lowest HbA1c value was observed in the AAPS group (44 mmol/mol; IQR 8.0, p<0.0001 vs any other group), followed by Control-IQ and 780G groups (48 (IQR 11) and 52 (IQR 10) mmol/mol, respectively). All of the systems met the recommended criteria for time in range (78% in AAPS, 76% in 780G, and 75% in Control-IQ users). CwD using AAPS spent significantly more time in hypoglycemia (5% vs 2% in 780G and 3% in Control-IQ) and scored the highest GRI (32, IQR 17). The lowest GRI (27, IQR 15) was seen in 780G users.

Conclusion

Although all HCL systems proved effective in maintaining recommended long-term glycemic control, we observed differences that illustrate strengths and weaknesses of particular systems. Our findings could help in individualizing the choice of HCL systems.

The Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop Improves Glycemia Risk Index, Continuous Glucose Monitoring Index, and Time in Range in Children with Type 1 Diabetes: Real-World Data from a Single Center Study

Introduction: The Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Index (COGI) are newly defined composite metric parameters derived from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data. GRI is divided into five separate risk zones (from lowest to highest: A-E). In this study, the effect of the advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system on GRI and COGI in children with type 1 diabetes was evaluated. Materials and Methods: Forty-five children who had started using the AHCL and whose baseline and sixth-month CGM data were available were analyzed in terms of achievement of CGM consensus goals and changes in GRI scores and zones. The paired t-test was used for the analyses. Results: The mean age and duration of diabetes of the participants were 10.95 ± 3.41 and 3.85 ± 2.67 years, respectively. The mean GRI score significantly decreased from 35.66 ± 17.46 at baseline to 22.83 ± 9.08 at 6 months (P < 0.001). Although the proportion of those in the A zone was 20% at baseline, it increased to 42% at 6 months. AHCL also improved COGI from 72.59 ± 12.44 to 82.90 ± 7.72 (P < 0.001). Time in range (TIR) increased significantly from 70.54% to 80.51% (P < 0.001) at 6 months. Conclusion: AHCL provides not only an improvement in TIR but also a significant improvement in both GRI and COGI at 6 months. The incorporation of GRI and COGI alongside TIR may enhance the assessment of the glycemic profile by providing a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis.

New therapies towards a better glycemic control in youths with type 1 diabetes

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is the most frequent form of diabetes in pediatric age, affecting more than 1.5 million people younger than age 20 years worldwide. Early and intensive control of diabetes provides continued protection against both microvascular and macrovascular complications, enhances growth, and ensures normal pubertal development. In the absence of definitive reversal therapy for this disease, achieving and maintaining the recommended glycemic targets is crucial. In the last 30 years, enormous progress has been made using technology to better treat T1D. In spite of this progress, the majority of children, adolescents and young adults do not reach the recommended targets for glycemic control and assume a considerable burden each day. The development of promising new therapeutic advances, such as more physiologic insulin analogues, pioneering diabetes technology including continuous glucose monitoring and closed loop systems as well as new adjuvant drugs, anticipate a new paradigm in T1D management over the next few years. This review presents insights into current management of T1D in youths.