Closed loop control in adolescents and children during winter sports: Use of the Tandem Control-IQ AP system

Safety and Psychological Outcomes of Tandem t:Slim X2 Insulin Pump with Control-IQ Technology in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review

The Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump is a second-generation automated insulin delivery system with Control-IQ technology. It consists of an X2 insulin pump, an integrated Dexcom sensor, and an embedded 'Control-IQ' algorithm, which predicts glucose levels 30 min in the future, adapting the programmed basal insulin rates to get glucose levels between 112.5 and 160 mg/dl (8.9 mmol/l). The system delivers automatic correction boluses of insulin when glucose levels are predicted to rise > 180 mg/dl (10 mmol/l). It has been commercially available since 2016. We reviewed the current evidence about the psychological, safety, and exercise-related outcomes of this device in children, adolescents, and young adults living with type 1 diabetes. We screened 552 papers, but only 21 manuscripts were included in this review. Fear of hypoglycemia is significantly reduced in young people with diabetes and their parents. Interestingly, diabetes-related distress is decreased; thus, the system is well accepted by the users. The sleeping quality of subjects living with diabetes and their caregivers is improved to a lesser extent as well. Despite the small number of data, this system is associated with a low rate of exercise-related hypoglycemia. Finally, evidence from the literature shows that this system is safe and effective in improving psychological personal outcomes. Even if further steps toward the fully closed loop are still mandatory, this second-generation automated insulin delivery system reduces the burden of diabetes. It properly addresses most psychological issues in children, adolescents, and young adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus; thus, it appears to be well accepted.

Cost-effectiveness of the tandem t: Slim X2 with control-IQ technology automated insulin delivery system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in Sweden

AIMS

The present analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of treatment with the Tandem t: slim X2 insulin pump with Control IQ technology (CIQ) in children with type 1 diabetes in Sweden.

METHODS

A four-state Markov model and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of CIQ use compared with treatment with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in conjunction with CGM. Data sources included clinical input data from a recent retrospective, observational study, cost data from local diabetes supply companies and government agencies, and published literature. Outcomes measures were quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at 10, 20 and 30-year time horizons based on cost per QALY and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

A total of 84 type 1 diabetes children were included (CIQ, n = 37; MDI, n = 19; CSII, n = 28). For all time horizons, the use of CIQ was a dominant strategy (e.g. more effective and less costly) compared with MDI or CSII use: 10-year ICER, SEK -88,010.37 and SEK -91,723.92; 20-year ICER, SEK -72,095.33 and SEK -87,707.79; and 30-year ICER, SEK -65,573.01 and SEK -85,495.68, respectively. PSA confirmed that CIQ use was less costly compared with MDI and CSII.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of CIQ use in children with type 1 diabetes is cost-saving, besides previously shown improved glycaemic control, and increased quality of life. Further investigations are needed to more fully elucidate the cost-effectiveness of these technologies in different countries with existing differences in payment models.

Automated insulin delivery in children with type 1 diabetes during physical activity: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the automated insulin delivery (AID) in adolescents, and children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) during physical activity.

METHODS

Relevant studies were searched electronically in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase utilizing the key words "Child", "Insulin Infusion Systems", and "Diabetes Mellitus" from inception to 17th March 2024 to evaluate the performance of the AID in adolescents, and children with T1D during physical activity.

RESULTS

Twelve studies involving 514 patients were identified. AID did not show a beneficial effect on duration of hypoglycemia<70 mg/dL during study period (p>0.05; I2=96 %) and during the physical activity (p>0.99). Percentage of sensor glucose values in TIR was higher in AID than the non-AID pumps during study period (p<0.001; I2=94 %). The duration of hyperglycemic time was significantly decreased in AID group compared to the non-AID pumps group during study period (p<0.05; I2>50 %).

CONCLUSIONS

AID improved TIR and decreased the duration of hyperglycemic time, but did not appear to have a significant beneficial effect on the already low post-exercise duration of hypoglycemia achievable by open loop or sensor-augmented pumps in adolescents and children with T1D during physical activity; further research is needed to confirm the beneficial effect of AID on duration of hypoglycemia.

Hypoglycemia Unawareness-A Review on Pathophysiology and Clinical Implications

Hypoglycemia is a particular problem in people with diabetes while it can also occur in other clinical circumstances. Hypoglycemia unawareness describes a condition in which autonomic and neuroglycopenic symptoms of hypoglycemia decrease and hence are hardly perceivable. A failure to recognize hypoglycemia in time can lead to unconsciousness, seizure, and even death. The risk factors include intensive glycemic control, prior episodes of severe hypoglycemia, long duration of diabetes, alcohol consumption, exercise, renal failure, and sepsis. The pathophysiological mechanisms are manifold, but mainly concern altered brain glucose sensing, cerebral adaptations, and an impaired hormonal counterregulation with an attenuated release of glucagon, epinephrine, growth hormone, and other hormones, as well as impaired autonomous and neuroglycopenic symptoms. Physiologically, this counterregulatory response causes blood glucose levels to rise. The impaired hormonal counterregulatory response to recurrent hypoglycemia can lead to a vicious cycle of frequent and poorly recognized hypoglycemic episodes. There is a shift in glycemic threshold to trigger hormonal counterregulation, resulting in hypoglycemia-associated autonomic failure and leading to the clinical syndrome of hypoglycemia unawareness. This clinical syndrome represents a particularly great challenge in diabetes treatment and, thus, prevention of hypoglycemia is crucial in diabetes management. This mini-review provides an overview of hypoglycemia and the associated severe complication of impaired hypoglycemia awareness and its symptoms, pathophysiology, risk factors, consequences, as well as therapeutic strategies.

Evidence from clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Meeting increased regulatory requirements for clinical evaluation of medical devices marketed in Europe in accordance with the Medical Device Regulation (EU 2017/745) is challenging, particularly for high-risk devices used in children.

METHODS

Within the CORE-MD project, we performed a scoping review on evidence from clinical trials investigating high-risk paediatric medical devices used in paediatric cardiology, diabetology, orthopaedics and surgery, in patients aged 0-21 years. We searched Medline and Embase from 1st January 2017 to 9th November 2022.

RESULTS

From 1692 records screened, 99 trials were included. Most were multicentre studies performed in North America and Europe that mainly had evaluated medical devices from the specialty of diabetology. Most had enrolled adolescents and 39% of trials included both children and adults. Randomized controlled trials accounted for 38% of the sample. Other frequently used designs were before-after studies (21%) and crossover trials (20%). Included trials were mainly small, with a sample size <100 participants in 64% of the studies. Most frequently assessed outcomes were efficacy and effectiveness as well as safety.

CONCLUSION

Within the assessed sample, clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children were of various designs, often lacked a concurrent control group, and recruited few infants and young children.

IMPACT

In the assessed sample, clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children were mainly small, with variable study designs (often without concurrent control), and they mostly enrolled adolescents. We provide a systematic summary of methodologies applied in clinical trials of medical devices in the paediatric population, reflecting obstacles in this research area that make it challenging to conduct adequately powered randomized controlled trials. In view of changing European regulations and related concerns about shortages of high-risk medical devices for children, our findings may assist competent authorities in setting realistic requirements for the evidence level to support device conformity certification.

Impact of a 4-week intensive track and field training intervention on glycaemia in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: The ChilDFiT1 study

AIM

To investigate the safety and efficacy of track and field training compared with intensification of insulin treatment only in adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighteen adolescents (seven females) with T1D were included (age 15.1 ± 1.1 years, HbA1c 7.3% ± 1.0% [56.3 ± 10.9 mmol/mol]). After a 4-week observational control phase, participants were randomized to either stand-alone intensive glycaemic management (IT; telemedicine or on-site visits, three times/week) or additionally performed track and field exercise (EX; three 60-minute sessions/week) for 4 weeks. Glycaemia was assessed via continuous glucose monitoring during observational control and intervention phases.

RESULTS

Time in range (70-180 mg/dL; 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) significantly improved from the observational control phase to the exercise intervention phase in EX (69% ± 13% vs. 72% ± 11%, P = .049), but not in IT (59% ± 22% vs. 62% ± 16%, P = .399). Time below range 1 (54-69 mg/dL; < 3.9 mmol/L) improved in IT (3.1% ± 1.9% vs. 2.0% ± 0.8%, P = .017) and remained stable in EX (2.0% ± 1.7 vs. 1.9% ± 1.1%, P = .999). The EX group's HbA1c ameliorated preintervention to postintervention (mean difference: ΔHbA1c -0.19% ± 0.17%, P = .042), which was not seen within the IT group (ΔHbA1c -0.16% ± 0.37%, P = .40). Glucose standard deviation was reduced significantly in EX (55 ± 11 vs. 51 ± 10 mg/dL [3.1 ± 0.6 vs. 2.8 ± 0.6 mmol/L], P = .011), but not in IT (70 ± 24 vs. 63 ± 18 mg/dL [3.9 ± 1.3 vs. 3.5 ± 1.0 mmol/L], P = .186).

CONCLUSION

Track and field training combined with intensive glycaemic management improved glycaemia in adolescents with T1D, which was not observed in the non-exercise group.

A Comparison of Faster Insulin Aspart with Standard Insulin Aspart Using Hybrid Automated Insulin Delivery System in Active Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Double-Blind Crossover Trial

Objective: To evaluate the use of faster acting (FIA) and standard insulin aspart (SIA) with hybrid automated insulin delivery (AID) in active youth with type 1 diabetes. Research Design and Methods: In this double-blind multinational randomized crossover trial, 30 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (16 females; aged 15.0 ± 1.7 years; baseline HbA1c 7.5% ± 0.9% [58 ± 9.8 mmol/mol]) underwent two unrestricted 4-week periods using hybrid AID with either FIA or SIA in random order. During both interventions, participants were using the hybrid AID (investigational version of MiniMed™ 780G; Medtronic). Participants were encouraged to exercise as frequently as possible, capturing physical activity with an activity monitor. The primary outcome was the percentage of sensor glucose time above range (180 mg/dL [10.0 mmol/L]) measured by continuous glucose monitoring. Results: In an intention-to-treat analysis, mean time above range was 31% ± 15% at baseline, 19% ± 6% during FIA use, and 20% ± 6% during SIA use with no difference between treatments: mean difference = -0.9%; 95% CI: -2.4% to 0.6%; P = 0.23. Similarly, there was no difference in mean time in range (TIR) (78% and 77%) or median time below range (2.5% and 2.8%). Glycemic outcomes during exercise or postprandial periods were comparable for the two treatment arms. No severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis events occurred. Conclusions: FIA was not superior to SIA with hybrid AID system use in physically active children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Nonetheless, both insulin formulations enabled high overall TIR and low time above and below ranges, even during and after documented exercise. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04853030.

Efficacy and safety of closed-loop control system for type one diabetes in adolescents a meta analysis

This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of Closed-Loop Control (CLC) to Sensor-Augmented Insulin Pump (SAP) for adolescent patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM). Eleven randomized-controlled trials were included with a total of 570 patients, from a total of 869 articles found adhering to PRISMA guidelines. The efficacy of the therapies were evaluated from the day, night and during physical activities monitoring of the of the mean blood glucose (BG), Time In Range (TIR), and Standard Deviation (SD) of the glucose variability. The safety measure of the therapies, was assessed from the day and night recording of the hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events occurred. Pooled results of comparison of mean BG values for day, night and physical activities, - 4.33 [- 6.70, - 1.96] (P = 0.0003), - 16.61 [- 31.68, - 1.54] (P = 0.03) and - 8.27 [- 19.52, 2.99] (P = 0.15). The monitoring for day, night and physical activities for TIR - 13.18 [- 19.18, - 7.17] (P < 0.0001), - 15.36 [- 26.81, - 3.92] (P = 0.009) and - 7.39 [- 17.65, 2.87] (P = 0.16). The day and night results of SD of glucose variability was - 0.40 [- 0.79, - 0.00] (P = 0.05) and - 0.86 [- 2.67, 0.95] (P = 0.35). These values shows the superiority of CLC system in terms of efficacy. The safety evaluation, of the day, night and physical activities observations of average blood glucose goal hypoglycemic events - 0.54 [- 1.86, 0.79] (P = 0.43), 0.04 [- 0.20, 0.27] (P = 0.77) and 0.00 [- 0.25, 0.25] (P = 1.00) and hyperglycemic events - 0.04 [- 0.20, 0.27] (P = 0.77), - 7.11 [- 12.77, - 1.45] (P = 0.01) and - 0.00 [- 0.10, 0.10] (P = 0.97), highlights the commendable safety factor of CLC. The CLC systems can be considered as an ideal preference in the management of adolescents with type 1 diabetes to be used during a 24 h basis.

Real-World User and Clinician Perspective and Experience with MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop System

INTRODUCTION

The advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) MiniMed™ 780G system changes basal insulin delivery every 5 min and auto bolus in response to sensor glucose values. We assessed the performance of the AHCL system in real-world settings for individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) as well as user and clinician perspectives and satisfaction.

METHODS

We held two peer group discussions: one having adults with T1DM/parents of children and adolescents with T1DM to understand their experiences with the AHCL system and another with healthcare providers (HCPs). Responses from the discussions were analyzed and categorized into themes by two independent researchers, with any inconsistencies resolved by consensus. We also analyzed data from the system uploaded to CareLink personal software. Glycemic outcomes, including time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR), time above range (TAR), mean sensor glucose (SG) levels, glucose management indicator (GMI), sensor use, and percentage of time spent in AHCL, were determined.

RESULTS

The peer group discussions revealed numerous key themes and issues for each group, such as the significance of setting reasonable expectations, carbohydrate counting and bolus dosing, technical difficulties, and overall user experience. The users (n = 25; T1DM; 17 female; age 13.8 ± 7.49 years; A1C 6.54 ± 0.45%; duration of diabetes 6 ± 6.78 years) were very satisfied with the system. Most users experienced consistent blood glucose values with very few hypoglycemic episodes. However, there were a few limitations reported, such as hyperglycemic episodes caused by inaccuracies in carb counting, issues with sensor connectivity, and cannula blockages or kinking for those using insulin Fiasp. Users achieved a mean GMI of 6.4 ± 0.26%, TIR of 83.0 ± 8.12%, TBR (54-70 mg/dL) of 2.0 ± 0.81%, TBR* (< 54 mg/dL) of 0%. All of the users achieved a TIR of > 70%.

CONCLUSION

The use of the AHCL system in T1DM resulted in robust glycemic control, minimizing hypoglycemia. Providing training to both users and HCPs can help them use the system effectively.

Meal and Physical Activity Detection from Free-Living Data for Discovering Disturbance Patterns of Glucose Levels in People with Diabetes

Objective: The interpretation of time series data collected in free-living has gained importance in chronic disease management. Some data are collected objectively from sensors and some are estimated and entered by the individual. In type 1 diabetes (T1D), blood glucose concentration (BGC) data measured by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems and insulin doses administered can be used to detect the occurrences of meals and physical activities and generate the personal daily living patterns for use in automated insulin delivery (AID). Methods: Two challenges in time-series data collected in daily living are addressed: data quality improvement and the detection of unannounced disturbances of BGC. CGM data have missing values for varying periods of time and outliers. People may neglect reporting their meal and physical activity information. In this work, novel methods for preprocessing real-world data collected from people with T1D and the detection of meal and exercise events are presented. Four recurrent neural network (RNN) models are investigated to detect the occurrences of meals and physical activities disjointly or concurrently. Results: RNNs with long short-term memory (LSTM) with 1D convolution layers and bidirectional LSTM with 1D convolution layers have average accuracy scores of 92.32% and 92.29%, and outperform other RNN models. The F1 scores for each individual range from 96.06% to 91.41% for these two RNNs. Conclusions: RNNs with LSTM and 1D convolution layers and bidirectional LSTM with 1D convolution layers provide accurate personalized information about the daily routines of individuals. Significance: Capturing daily behavior patterns enables more accurate future BGC predictions in AID systems and improves BGC regulation.

Overcoming Barriers to Diabetes Technology in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes and Public Insurance: Cases and Call to Action

Advancements in diabetes technology such as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), insulin pumps, and automated insulin delivery provide opportunities to improve glycemic control for youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, diabetes technology use is lower in youth on public insurance, and this technology use gap is widening in the US. There is a significant need to develop effective interventions and policies to promote equitable care. The dual purpose of this case series is as follows: (1) describe success stories of the CGM Time in Range Program (CGM TIPs), which removed barriers for initiating CGM and provided asynchronous remote glucose monitoring for youth on public insurance, and (2) advocate for improving CGM coverage by public insurance. We describe a series of six youths with T1D and public insurance who obtained and sustained use of CGM with assistance from the program. Three youths had improved engagement with the care team while on CGM and the remote monitoring protocol, and three youths were able to leverage sustained CGM wear to obtain insurance coverage for automated insulin delivery systems. CGM TIPs helped these youths achieve lower hemoglobin A1c and improved time in range (TIR). Despite the successes, expansion of CGM TIPs is limited by stringent barriers for CGM approval and difficult postapproval patient workflows to receive shipments. These cases highlight the potential for combining diabetes technology and asynchronous remote monitoring to support continued use and provide education to improve glycemic control for youth with T1D on public insurance and the need to reduce barriers for obtaining CGM coverage by public insurance.

The automated pancreas: A review of technologies and clinical practice

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

Barriers to Uptake of Insulin Technologies and Novel Solutions

Diabetes-related technology has undergone great advancement in recent years. These technological devices are more commonly utilized in the type 1 diabetes population, which requires insulin as the primary treatment modality. Available devices include insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, and hybrid systems referred to as automated insulin delivery systems or hybrid closed-loop systems, which combine those two devices along with software algorithms to achieve advanced therapeutic capabilities, including automatic modulation of insulin delivery based on sensor-derived glucose levels to minimize abnormal glucose trends. Use of diabetes technology is associated with significant positive health and psychosocial outcomes, yet utilization rates are generally lacking across both adult and pediatric type 1 diabetes populations in the United States and other countries. There are consistent themes in existing barriers to technology uptake reported by individuals with type 1 diabetes or parents of children with type 1 diabetes, including physical burdens associated with wearing the devices, concerns in navigating the technology and the devices’ abilities to meet user expectations, high cost, inadequate resources within the healthcare team to support device use, disparities in technology access, and psychosocial barriers. It is important to understand the common barriers to uptake of not only the automated insulin delivery systems but also their component devices (insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors) to fully support individuals in utilizing these devices and optimizing health benefits. The purpose of this article is to summarize the current automated insulin delivery devices that are available for use in management of type 1 diabetes, review common barriers to uptake of those systems and their component devices, and provide expert opinion on existing and future solutions to identified barriers.

Physical Activity, Dietary Patterns, and Glycemic Management in Active Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes: An Online Survey

Individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) are able to balance their blood glucose levels while engaging in a wide variety of physical activities and sports. However, insulin use forces them to contend with many daily training and performance challenges involved with fine-tuning medication dosing, physical activity levels, and dietary patterns to optimize their participation and performance. The aim of this study was to ascertain which variables related to the diabetes management of physically active individuals with T1D have the greatest impact on overall blood glucose levels (reported as A1C) in a real-world setting. A total of 220 individuals with T1D completed an online survey to self-report information about their glycemic management, physical activity patterns, carbohydrate and dietary intake, use of diabetes technologies, and other variables that impact diabetes management and health. In analyzing many variables affecting glycemic management, the primary significant finding was that A1C values in lower, recommended ranges (<7%) were significantly predicted by a very-low carbohydrate intake dietary pattern, whereas the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices had the greatest predictive ability when A1C was above recommended (≥7%). Various aspects of physical activity participation (including type, weekly time, frequency, and intensity) were not significantly associated with A1C for participants in this survey. In conclusion, when individuals with T1D are already physically active, dietary changes and more frequent monitoring of glucose may be most capable of further enhancing glycemic management.

Newest Diabetes-Related Technologies for Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes and Its Impact on Routine Care: a Narrative Synthesis of the Literature

Purpose of Review

This review aims to address the actual state of the most advanced diabetes devices, as follows: continuous subcutaneous insulin infusions (CSII), continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGM), hybrid-closed loop (HCL) systems, and “Do-it-yourself” Artificial Pancreas Systems (DIYAPS) in children, adolescents, and young adults. This review has also the objective to assess the use of telemedicine for diabetes care across three different areas: education, social media, and daily care.

Recent Findings

Recent advances in diabetes technology after integration of CSII with CGM have increased the popularity of this treatment modality in pediatric age and shifted the standard diabetes management in many countries. We found an impressive transition from the use of CSII and/or CGM only to integrative devices with automated delivery systems. Although much has changed over the past 5 years, including a pandemic period that precipitated a broader use of telemedicine in diabetes care, some advances in technology may still be an additional burden of care for providers, patients, and caregivers. The extent of a higher rate of “auto-mode” use in diabetes devices while using the HCL/DIYAPS is essential to reduce the burden of diabetes treatment.

Summary

More studies including higher-risk populations are needed, and efforts should be taken to ensure proper access to cost-effective advanced technology on diabetes care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40124-021-00248-7.

Determining the Perception and Willingness of Primary Care Providers to Prescribe Advanced Diabetes Technologies

Advanced diabetes technologies have produced increasingly favorable outcomes compared to older treatments. Disparities in practice resources have led to a treatment disparity by clinical setting, where endocrinologists typically prescribe far more such technologies than primary care providers (PCPs). Fully automated artificial pancreas systems (APS), which combine technologies to deliver and adjust insulin dosing continuously in response to automatic and continuous glucose monitoring, may be more straightforward for PCPs to prescribe and manage, therefore extending their benefit to more patients. We aimed to assess willingness of PCPs to prescribe advanced diabetes technologies through a cross-sectional survey of PCPs from 4 geographically diverse centers. While respondents were uncomfortable initiating (63 of 72, 88%) or adjusting (64 of 72, 89%) traditional insulin pumps, their views on APS were quite different: 71 of 76 (93%) saw advantages to prescribing APS by PCPs rather than only endocrinologists. Most would consider prescribing APS for type 1 diabetes (58 of 76, 76%) and type 2 diabetes (52 of 76, 68%). No differences were seen among attendings, residents, or nurse practitioners. APS were much more acceptable than traditional insulin pumps among this primary care sample. If successful, primary care management of closed-loop APS would greatly increase access to such therapies and reduce disparities among those patients who face more difficulty accessing subspecialty care than they do primary care.

Current treatment options and challenges in patients with Type 1 diabetes: Pharmacological, technical advances and future perspectives

Type 1 diabetes mellitus imposes a significant burden of complications and mortality, despite important advances in treatment: subjects affected by this disease have also a worse quality of life-related to disease management. To overcome these challenges, different new approaches have been proposed, such as new insulin formulations or innovative devices. The introduction of insulin pumps allows a more physiological insulin administration with a reduction of HbA1c level and hypoglycemic risk. New continuous glucose monitoring systems with better accuracy have allowed, not only better glucose control, but also the improvement of the quality of life. Integration of these devices with control algorithms brought to the creation of the first artificial pancreas, able to independently gain metabolic control without the risk of hypo- and hyperglycemic crisis. This approach has revolutionized the management of diabetes both in terms of quality of life and glucose control. However, complete independence from exogenous insulin will be obtained only by biological approaches that foresee the replacement of functional beta cells obtained from stem cells: this will be a major challenge but the biggest hope for the subjects with type 1 diabetes. In this review, we will outline the current scenario of innovative diabetes management both from a technological and biological point of view, and we will also forecast some cutting-edge approaches to reduce the challenges that hamper the definitive cure of diabetes.

Time in Range for Closed-Loop Systems versus Standard of Care during Physical Exercise in People with Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare time in range (TIR) (70–180 mg/dL (3.9–10.0 mmol/L)) between fully closed-loop systems (CLS) and standard of care (including hybrid systems) during physical exercise in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). A systematic literature search was conducted in EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ISI Web of Science from January 1950 until January 2020. Randomized controlled trials including studies with different CLS were compared against standard of care in people with T1D. The meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model and restricted maximum likelihood estimation method. Six randomized controlled trials involving 153 participants with T1D of all age groups were included. Due to crossover test designs, studies were included repeatedly (a–d) if CLS or physical exercise interventions were different. Applying this methodology increased the comparisons to a total number of 266 participants. TIR was higher with an absolute mean difference (AMD) of 6.18%, 95% CI: 1.99 to 10.38% in favor of CLS. In a subgroup analysis, the AMD was 9.46%, 95% CI: 2.48% to 16.45% in children and adolescents while the AMD for adults was 1.07% 95% CI: −0.81% to 2.96% in favor of CLS. In this systematic review and meta-analysis CLS moderately improved TIR in comparison to standard of care during physical exercise in people with T1D. This effect was particularly pronounced for children and adolescents showing that the use of CLS improved TIR significantly compared to standard of care.

Safety and glycemic outcomes of do-it-yourself AndroidAPS hybrid closed-loop system in adults with type 1 diabetes

Background

The aim of the study was to assess the safety and glycemic outcomes with the use of a Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Hybrid Closed-Loop (HCL) system based on the AndroidAPS application in type 1 diabetes (T1D).

Methods

Single-center clinical trial, with 3-week run-in and 12-week study period. DIY HCL system consisted of the Dana Diabecare RS insulin pump, Dexcom G5 continuous glucose monitoring system and AndroidAPS application. Primary outcome was safety: incidences of severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, time spent in glycemia <54 mg/dl. Secondary endpoints included percentage of time in range (TIR) 70–180 mg/dl, time below 70 mg/dl, HbA1c, insulin requirements, and body weight.

Results

In total 12 subjects (5 men, 7 women) were enrolled, mean age 31.3±6.7, 95%CI(27.7–34.9) years, mean diabetes duration 16.1±5.7, 95%CI(13.0–19.2) years. No episodes of severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis were observed. Percentage of time spent in glycemia below 54mg/dl was not increased. Average sensor glycemia was lower in the study period than baseline (141.1 ± 8.4, 95%CI(136.3–145.9) vs. 153.3 ± 17.9, 95%CI(143.2–163.4), mg/dl p<0.001). TIR 70–180 mg/dl was improved by 11.3%, 95%CI(2.8%-19.8%) (from 68.0 ± 12.7 to 79.3 ± 6.4%, p<0.001), without increasing hypoglycemia time. The HbA1c level decreased by -0.5%, 95%CI(-0.9%–-0.1%) (from 6.8 ± 0.5 to 6.3 ± 0.4%, p<0.001). Additionally, in the last 4 weeks of the study period participants significantly improved and showed TIR 70–180 mg/dl 82.1 ± 5.6%, 95%CI(78.9–85.3), time <54 mg/dl 0.30 (0.20–0.55)%, median 95%CI(0.1–0.7) and <70 mg/dl 1.90 (1.10–3.05)%, median 95%CI(0.7–3.2). The insulin requirement and body weight did not change in the study.

Conclusions

The study revealed safety of the Do-It-Yourself HCL system AndroidAPS in adults with T1D, limited to well-controlled, highly selected and closely monitored patients. The use of AndroidAPS significantly improved HbA1c, time in range and average sensor glycemia without increasing hypoglycemia. As both patients and their medical team are gaining experience using the system over time, they improve glycemic control.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register: no. DRKS00015439; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00015439.

Time in range centered diabetes care

Optimal glycemic control remains challenging and elusive for many people with diabetes. With the comprehensive clinical evidence on safety and efficiency in large populations, and with broader reimbursement, the adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is rapidly increasing. Standardized visual reporting and interpretation of CGM data and clear and understandable clinical targets will help professionals and individuals with diabetes use diabetes technology more efficiently, and finally improve long-term outcomes with less everyday disease burden. For the majority of people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, time in range (between 70 and 180 mg/dL, or 3.9 and 10 mmol/L) target of more than 70% is recommended, with each incremental increase of 5% towards this target being clinically meaningful. At the same time, the goal is to minimize glycemic excursions: a recommended target for a time below range (< 70 mg/dL or < 3.9 mmol/L) is less than 4%, and time above range (> 180 mg/dL or 10 mmol/L) less than 25%, with less stringent goals for older individuals or those at increased risk. These targets should be individualized: the personal use of CGM with the standardized data presentation provides all necessary means to accurately tailor diabetes management to the needs of each individual with diabetes.

Weight Management in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes and Obesity: Challenges and Possible Solutions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review highlights challenges associated with weight management in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Our purpose is to propose potential solutions to improve weight outcomes in youth with T1D.

RECENT FINDINGS

A common barrier to weight management in T1D is reluctance to engage in exercise for fear of hypoglycemia. Healthcare practitioners generally provide limited guidance for insulin dosing and carbohydrate modifications to maintain stable glycemia during exercise. Adherence to dietary guidelines is associated with improved glycemia; however, youth struggle to meet recommendations. When psychosocial factors are addressed in combination with glucose trends, this often leads to successful T1D management. Newer medications also hold promise to potentially aid in glycemia and weight management, but further research is necessary. Properly addressing physical activity, nutrition, pharmacotherapy, and psychosocial factors while emphasizing weight management may reduce the likelihood of obesity development and its perpetuation in this population.

Closed-loop control in insulin pumps for type-1 diabetes mellitus: safety and efficacy

INTRODUCTION

Type 1 diabetes is a lifelong disease with high management burden. The majority of people with type 1 diabetes fail to achieve glycemic targets. Algorithm-driven automated insulin delivery (closed-loop) systems aim to address these challenges. This review provides an overview of commercial and emerging closed-loop systems.

AREAS COVERED

We review safety and efficacy of commercial and emerging hybrid closed-loop systems. A literature search was conducted and clinical trials using day-and-night closed-loop systems during free-living conditions were used to report on safety data. We comment on efficacy where robust randomized controlled trial data for a particular system are available. We highlight similarities and differences between commercial systems.

EXPERT OPINION

Study data shows that hybrid closed-loop systems are safe and effective, consistently improving glycemic control when compared to standard therapy. While a fully closed-loop system with minimal burden remains the end-goal, these hybrid closed-loop systems have transformative potential in diabetes care.

New technical approach to the diabetes therapy

Optimal glycemic control remains challenging in individuals with type 1 diabetes. With the comprehensive clinical evidence on safety and efficiency, the adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), insulin pumps, and control algorithms merging the two into closed-loop systems is rapidly increasing. Particularly the CGM and intermittently scanned CGM improved diabetes management outcomes in large populations. A meaningful translation from clinical trials in highly controlled settings to numerous evaluations of closed-loop technology in the unrestricted home environment ended with its commercialization and use in routine clinical practice. Although it is still not a cure, the closed-loop currently seems to be the most promising advancement in the treatment of diabetes, with promising results also reported from routine clinical practice in children and adults with type 1 diabetes. We summarize different aspects of a technological approach to diabetes care, list currently available devices and systems in the pipeline, and the key supporting clinical evidence for their use. We consider human factors associated with technology use and the importance of health economics to support implementation and reimbursement.

Efficacy of the Diabeloop closed-loop system to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes exposed to gastronomic dinners or to sustained physical exercise

AIMS

To compare closed-loop (CL) and open-loop (OL) systems for glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) exposed to real-life challenging situations (gastronomic dinners or sustained physical exercise).

METHODS

Thirty-eight adult patients with T1D were included in a three-armed randomized pilot trial (Diabeloop WP6.2 trial) comparing glucose control using a CL system with use of an OL device during two crossover 72-hour periods in one of the three following situations: large (gastronomic) dinners; sustained and repeated bouts of physical exercise (with uncontrolled food intake); or control (rest conditions). Outcomes included time in spent in the glucose ranges of 4.4-7.8 mmol/L and 3.9-10.0 mmol/L, and time in hypo- and hyperglycaemia.

RESULTS

Time spent overnight in the tight range of 4.4 to 7.8 mmol/L was longer with CL (mean values: 63.2% vs 40.9% with OL; P ≤ .0001). Time spent during the day in the range of 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L was also longer with CL (79.4% vs 64.1% with OL; P ≤ .0001). Participants using the CL system spent less time during the day with hyperglycaemic excursions (glucose >10.0 mmol/L) compared to those using an OL system (17.9% vs 31.9%; P ≤ .0001), and the proportions of time spent during the day with hyperglycaemic excursions of those using the CL system in the gastronomic dinner and physical exercise subgroups were of similar magnitude to those in the control subgroup (18.1 ± 6.3%, 17.2 ± 8.1% and 18.4 ± 12.5%, respectively). Finally, times spent in hypoglycaemia were short and not significantly different among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The Diabeloop CL system is superior to OL devices in reducing hyperglycaemic excursions in patients with T1D exposed to gastronomic dinners, or exposed to physical exercise followed by uncontrolled food and carbohydrate intake.

Evolution of Diabetes Technology

Technological innovations have fundamentally changed diabetes care. Insulin pump use and continuous glucose monitoring are associated with improved glycemic control along with a better quality of life; automated insulin-dosing advisors facilitate and improve decision making. Glucose-responsive automated insulin delivery enables the highest targets for time in range, lowest rate and duration of hypoglycemia, and favorable quality of life. Clear targets for time in ranges and a standard visualization of the data will help the diabetes technology to be used more efficiently. Decision support systems within and integrated cloud environment will further simplify, unify, and improve modern routine diabetes care.

MiniMed 670G hybrid closed loop artificial pancreas system for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus: overview of its safety and efficacy

Introduction: Automated insulin delivery for people with type 1 diabetes has been a major goal in the diabetes technology field for many years. While a fully automated system has not yet been accomplished, the MiniMed™ 670G artificial pancreas (AP) system is the first commercially available insulin pump that automates basal insulin delivery, while still requiring user input for insulin boluses. Determining the safety and efficacy of this system is essential to the development of future devices striving for more automation. Areas Covered: This review will provide an overview of how the MiniMed 670G system works including its safety and efficacy, how it compares to similar devices, and anticipated future advances in diabetes technology currently under development. Expert Opinion: The ultimate goal of advanced diabetes technologies is to reduce the burden and amount of management required of patients with diabetes. In addition to reducing patient workload, achieving better glucose control and improving hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values are essential for reducing the threat of diabetes-related complications further down the road. Current devices come close to reaching these goals, but understanding the unmet needs of patients with diabetes will allow future technologies to achieve these goals more quickly.