Lived experience of CamAPS FX closed loop system in youth with type 1 diabetes and their parents

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.

Real-world lived experience of older adults with type 1 diabetes after an automated insulin delivery trial

AIMS

First-generation closed-loop automated insulin delivery improves glycaemia and psychosocial outcomes among older adults with type 1 diabetes in clinical trials. However, no study has previously assessed real-world lived experience of older adults using closed-loop therapy outside a trial environment.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with older adults who were pre-existing insulin pump users and previously completed the OldeR Adult Closed-Loop (ORACL) randomised trial. Interviews focused on perceptions of diabetes technology use, and factors influencing decisions regarding continuation.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight participants, mean age 70 years (SD 5), were interviewed at median 650 days (IQR 608-694) after their final ORACL trial visit. At interview, 23 participants (82%) were still using a commercial closed-loop system (requiring manual input for prandial insulin bolus doses). Themes discussed in interviews relating to closed-loop system use included sustained psychosocial benefits, cost and retirement considerations and usability frustrations relating to sensor accuracy and system alarms. Of the five participants who had discontinued, reasons included cost, continuous glucose monitoring-associated difficulties and usability frustrations. Cost was the largest consideration regarding continued use; most participants considered the increased ease of diabetes management to be worth the associated costs, though cost was prohibitive for some.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost 2 years after completing a closed-loop clinical trial, closed-loop automated insulin delivery remains the preferred type 1 diabetes therapy for the majority of older adult participants. Chronological age is not a barrier to real-world successful use of diabetes technology. Identifying age-related barriers, and solutions, to diabetes technology use among older adults is warranted.

A pilot randomised controlled parallel arm trial evaluating treatment satisfaction with the Omnipod DASH® Insulin Management System compared with usual care in adults with type 1 diabetes in Australia: rationale, study design and methodologies

BACKGROUND

Insulin pump therapy (IPT) improves glucose control in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) compared with multiple daily injections (MDI). However, their size, the tethered insulin infusion set, intrusiveness when operating the device and the need to disconnect during showering limit their acceptance to many who may benefit. The Omnipod DASH® Insulin Management System is a small waterproof tubeless device which is wirelessly controlled by a handheld device which may be an acceptable alternative. However, there are no randomised controlled trials focusing on the impact on user perceptions of tubeless insulin pump therapy. This pilot study aims to assess study feasibility and acceptability of patch pump therapy compared with usual care in adults with T1D in Australia to inform power calculations and progression to a large-scale multi-site randomised controlled study.

METHODS

A pilot multi-site parallel randomised controlled study will be conducted in sixty-four adults with T1D who are managed on MDI or IPT and self-monitoring with finger-stick blood glucose from four specialist diabetes centres in Victoria, Australia. Following carbohydrate counting education, participants will be randomised to use Omnipod DASH® System (Omnipod group) or continue usual care (usual care group) for 12 weeks, followed by a 12-week extension phase where all participants will use Omnipod DASH® System. The primary outcome measure is feasibility determined by study completion rates with a threshold of 0.80. Acceptability of the intervention (Omnipod DASH® System) will be assessed by the difference in Diabetes Technology Questionnaire 'current' (DTQ-current) score at 12 weeks post-randomisation compared to baseline. Secondary outcomes will include other measures of user acceptance, process outcomes, resource outcomes, participant-centred outcomes, healthcare professional perceptions and glycaemic outcomes.

DISCUSSION

This pilot study will provide insights regarding the feasibility of the study design and the first data regarding user acceptance of insulin patch pump technology in Australian T1D adults. We anticipate that this study will provide information informing the design of a larger study evaluating the impact of patch pumps on subjective outcomes that are of significance to the person living with T1D.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( https://anzctr.org.au/ ) ACTRN12621001195842 (8th September 2021). Please refer to Additional file 1: Appendix 1 for full details.

Glucose control and psychosocial outcomes with use of automated insulin delivery for 12 to 96 weeks in type 1 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Glycaemic control of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) remains a challenge due to hypoglycaemic episodes and the burden of insulin self-management. Advancements have been made with the development of automated insulin delivery (AID) devices, yet, previous reviews have only assessed the use of AID over days or weeks, and potential benefits with longer time of AID use in this population remain unclear.

METHODS

 We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing AID (hybrid and fully closed-loop systems) to usual care (sensor augmented pumps, multiple daily insulin injections, continuous glucose monitoring and predictive low-glucose suspend) for adults and children with T1DM with a minimum duration of 3 months. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Clinicaltrials.gov for studies published up until April 4, 2023. Main outcomes included time in range 70-180 mg/dL as the primary outcome, and change in HbA1c (%, mmol/mol), glucose variability, and psychosocial impact (diabetes distress, treatment satisfaction and fear of hypoglycaemia) as secondary outcomes. Adverse events included diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and severe hypoglycaemia. Statistical analyses were conducted using mean differences and odds ratios. Sensitivity analyses were performed according to age, study duration and type of AID device. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42022366710.

RESULTS

We identified 25 comparisons from 22 studies (six crossover and 16 parallel designs) including a total of 2376 participants (721 in adult studies, 621 in paediatric studies, and 1034 in combined studies) which were eligible for analysis. Use of AID devices ranged from 12 to 96 weeks. Patients using AID had 10.87% higher time in range [95% CI 9.38 to 12.37; p < 0.0001, I2 = 87%) and 0.37% (4.77 mmol/mol) lower HbA1c (95% CI - 0.49% (- 6.39 mmol/mol) to - 0.26 (- 3.14 mmol/mol); p < 0·0001, I2 = 77%]. AID systems decreased night hypoglycaemia, time in hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia and improved patient distress, with no increase in the risk of DKA or severe hypoglycaemia. No difference was found regarding treatment satisfaction or fear of hypoglycaemia. Among children, there was no difference in glucose variability or time spent in hypoglycaemia between the use of AID systems or usual care. In sensitivity analyses, results remained consistent with the overall analysis favouring AID.

CONCLUSION

The use of AID systems over 12 weeks, regardless of technical or clinical differences, improved glycaemic outcomes and diabetes distress without increasing the risk of adverse events in adults and children with T1DM.

UK's Association of British Clinical Diabetologist's Diabetes Technology Network (ABCD-DTN): Best practice guide for hybrid closed-loop therapy

This best practice guide is written with the aim of providing an overview of current hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems in use within the United Kingdom's (UK) National Health Service (NHS) and to provide education and advice for their management on both an individual and clinical service level. The environment of diabetes technology, and particularly HCL systems, is rapidly evolving. The past decade has seen unprecedented advances in the development of HCL systems. These systems improve glycaemic outcomes and reduce the burden of treatment for people with type 1 diabetes (pwT1D). It is anticipated that access to these systems will increase in England as a result of updates in National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance providing broader support for the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for pwT1D. NICE is currently undertaking multiple-technology appraisal into HCL systems. Based on experience from centres involved in supporting advanced technologies as well as from the recent NHS England HCL pilot, this guide is intended to provide healthcare professionals with UK expert consensus on the best practice for initiation, optimisation and ongoing management of HCL therapy.

Measures of Patient-Reported Expectations, Acceptance, and Satisfaction Using Automated Insulin Delivery Systems: A Review

In people with type 1 diabetes, Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) systems adjust insulin delivery in response to sensor glucose data and consist of three components: an insulin pump, a continuous glucose sensor, and an algorithm that determines insulin delivery. To date, all the available AID systems require users to announce carbohydrate intake and deliver meal boluses, as well as respond to system alarms. The use of AID devices both initially and over time may be influenced by a variety of psychological factors. Analysis of patient-related outcomes should be taken into account, while recruiting applicants for the systems who are motivated and have realistic expectations in order to prevent AID dropout. We report an up-to-date summary of the available measures and semi-structured interview content to assess AID expectations, acceptance, and satisfaction using the AID systems. In conclusion, we suggest, before and after starting using AID systems, performing a specific evaluation of the related psychological implications, using validated measures and semi-structured interviews, that allows diabetes care providers to tailor their education approach to the factors that concern the patient at that time; they can teach problem-solving skills and other behavioral strategies to support sustained use of the AID system.

A Systematic Review of Commercial Hybrid Closed-Loop Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

INTRODUCTION

Several different forms of automated insulin delivery systems (AID systems) have recently been developed and are now licensed for type 1 diabetes (T1D). We undertook a systematic review of reported trials and real-world studies for commercial hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems.

METHODS

Pivotal, phase III and real-world studies using commercial HCL systems that are currently approved for use in type 1 diabetes were reviewed with a devised protocol using the Medline database.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies were included in the systematic review (19 for 670G; 8 for 780G; 11 for Control-IQ; 14 for CamAPS FX; 4 for Diabeloop; and 3 for Omnipod 5). Twenty were real-world studies, and 39 were trials or sub-analyses. Twenty-three studies, including 17 additional studies, related to psychosocial outcomes and were analysed separately.

CONCLUSIONS

These studies highlighted that HCL systems improve time In range (TIR) and arouse minimal concerns around severe hypoglycaemia. HCL systems are an effective and safe option for improving diabetes care. Real-world comparisons between systems and their effects on psychological outcomes require further study.

Lived experience of older adults with type 1 diabetes using closed-loop automated insulin delivery in a randomised trial

AIM

To explore the lived experience of older adults with type 1 diabetes using closed-loop automated insulin delivery, an area previously receiving minimal attention.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults aged 60 years or older with long-duration type 1 diabetes who participated in a randomised, open-label, two-stage crossover trial comparing first-generation closed-loop therapy (MiniMed 670G) versus sensor-augmented pump therapy. Interview recordings were transcribed, thematically analysed and assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one older adults participated in interviews after using closed-loop therapy. Twenty were functionally independent, without frailty or major cognitive impairment; one was dependent on caregiver assistance, including for diabetes management. Quality of life benefits were identified, including improved sleep and reduced diabetes-related psychological burden, in the context of experiencing improved glucose levels. Gaps between expectations and reality of closed-loop therapy were also experienced, encountering disappointment amongst some participants. The cost was perceived as a barrier to continued closed-loop access post-trial. Usability issues were identified, such as disruptive overnight alarms and sensor inaccuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

The lived experience of older adults without frailty or major cognitive impairment using first-generation closed-loop therapy was mainly positive and concordant with glycaemic benefits found in the trial. Older adults' lived experience using automated insulin delivery beyond trial environments requires exploration; moreover, the usability needs of older adults should be considered during future device development.

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.

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.