Real world hybrid closed-loop discontinuation: Predictors and perceptions of youth discontinuing the 670G system in the first 6 months

Experiences of adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes and chronically elevated glucose levels following the transition from multiple daily injections to advanced hybrid closed-loop: A qualitative study

AIM

To understand experiences of using second-generation advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) therapy in adolescents and young adults with chronically elevated glucose levels who were previously using multiple daily injections (MDI) therapy.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews with participants aged 13-25 years, on AHCL therapy for 3 months as part of a single-arm prospective study. Key inclusions: HbA1c ≥69 mmol/mol (8.5%); diabetes duration ≥1 year; and using MDI therapy prior to the study. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Interviews were conducted among 14 participants with mean age 19.4 ± 4.3 years and mean baseline HbA1c 90 ± 25 mmol/mol (10.4 ± 4.5%). Three themes were identified: (1) substantially improved glucose levels improved perceptions of overall health; (2) features of AHCL aid in adoption and ongoing self-management; and (3) burden of care was reduced through automation of insulin delivery. Overall, there were positive impacts on physical, mental and social well-being. Participants were willing to overlook minor frustrations with AHCL because of the vast benefits that they had experienced. Four participants reported transient pseudo-hypoglycaemia: symptoms of hypoglycaemia when objectively measured glucose was in the clinically recommended range (3.9-10 mmol/L, 70-180 mg/dL).

CONCLUSION

Transition to AHCL therapy positively impacted diabetes management in adolescents and youth with chronically elevated glucose levels. It appears to create a window of opportunity in which youth may re-engage with diabetes management. Pseudo-hypoglycaemia can occur during the transition to AHCL. This could be a barrier to AHCL uptake and is likely to require individualised support.

Automated Insulin Delivery for Young People with Type 1 Diabetes and Elevated A1c

BACKGROUND

Automated insulin delivery is the treatment of choice in adults with type 1 diabetes. Data are needed on the efficacy and safety of automated insulin delivery for children and youth with diabetes and elevated glycated hemoglobin levels.

METHODS

In this multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial, we assigned patients with type 1 diabetes in a 1:1 ratio either to use an automated insulin delivery system (MiniMed 780G) or to receive usual diabetes care of multiple daily injections or non--automated pump therapy (control). The patients were children and youth (defined as 7 to 25 years of age) with elevated glycemia (glycated hemoglobin ≥8.5% with no upper limit). The primary outcome was the baseline-adjusted between-group difference in glycated hemoglobin at 13 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 80 patients underwent randomization (37 to automated insulin delivery and 43 to control) and all patients completed the trial. At 13 weeks, the mean (±SD) glycated hemoglobin decreased from 10.5±1.9% to 8.1±1.8% in the automated insulin delivery group but remained relatively consistent in the control group, changing from 10.4±1.6% to 10.6±1.8% (baseline-adjusted between-group difference, -2.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.1 to -1.8; P<0.001). Patients in the automated insulin delivery group spent on average 8.4 hours more in the target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dl than those in the control group. One severe hypoglycemia event and two diabetic ketoacidosis events occurred in the control group, with no such events in the automated insulin delivery group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this trial of 80 children and youth with elevated glycated hemoglobin, automated insulin delivery significantly reduced glycated hemoglobin compared with usual diabetes care, without resulting in severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis events. (Funded by Lions Clubs New Zealand District 202F and others; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12622001454763.).

Closed-loop systems: recent advancements and lived experiences

INTRODUCTION

Hybrid closed loop systems are now commercially available for people with type 1 diabetes and are increasingly being adopted into clinical practice. Real-world data reflect both the glycemic and quality of life benefits reported in trials.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we summarize the key clinical efficacy and safety evidence for hybrid closed-loop systems, and the lived experience of users with type 1 diabetes across different age groups and during pregnancy. We comment on recent and emerging advancements addressing performance limitations and user experience, as well as the use of closed-loop systems in other types of diabetes.

EXPERT OPINION

Emerging technological developments in closed-loop systems focus on improving performance and increasing automation to further optimize glycemic outcomes and improve quality of life for users. Workforce developments are now urgently required to ensure widespread equitable access to this life-changing technology. Future applications of closed-loop technology are expected to expand into other types of diabetes including type 2 diabetes.

Navigating the Unique Challenges of Automated Insulin Delivery Systems to Facilitate Effective Uptake, Onboarding, and Continued Use

Advances in diabetes technologies have enabled automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, which have demonstrated benefits to glycemia, psychosocial outcomes, and quality of life for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Despite the many demonstrated benefits, AID systems come with their own unique challenges: continued user attention and effort, barriers to equitable access, personal costs vs benefits, and integration of the system into daily life. The purpose of this narrative review is to identify challenges and opportunities for supporting uptake and onboarding of AID systems to ultimately support sustained AID use. Setting realistic expectations, providing comprehensive training, developing willingness to adopt new treatments and workflows, upskilling of diabetes team members, and increasing flexibility of care to tailor care to individual needs, preferences, lifestyle, and personal goals will be most effective in facilitating effective, widespread, person-centered implementation of AID systems.

Type 1 diabetes-related distress: Current implications in care

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a complex chronic disease associated with major health and economic consequences, also involving important issues in the psychosocial sphere. In this regard, T1D-related distress, defined as the emotional burden of living with T1D, has emerged as a specific entity related to the disease. Diabetes distress (DD) is an overlooked but prevalent condition in people living with T1D, and has significant implications in both glycemic control and mental health in this population. Although overlapping symptoms may be found between DD and mental health disorders, specific approaches should be performed for the diagnosis of this problem. In recent years, different DD-targeted interventions have been postulated, including behavioral and psychosocial strategies. Moreover, new technologies in this field may be helpful to address DD in people living with T1D. In this article, we summarize the current knowledge on T1D-related distress, and we also discuss the current approaches and future perspectives in its management.

Health-Care Utilization and Outcomes in Young Adults With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Young adulthood can be a challenging time for individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM) as they experience increasing independence and life transitions, which can make it difficult to engage in DM self care. Compared to older adults, young adults are more likely to have higher glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). They also often have lower adherence to standards of care in DM, and higher utilization of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations for diabetic ketoacidosis. This review describes health-care utilization and explores factors that may contribute to high HbA1c among young adults with DM. In addition, it discusses the unique health-care needs of young adults with DM, examines the role of technology in their DM care, and analyzes the effects of social determinants of health on their health-care utilization.

"Obviously, Nothing's Gonna Happen in Five Minutes": How Adolescents and Young Adults Infrastructure Resources to Learn Type 1 Diabetes Management

Learning personalized self-management routines is pivotal for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), particularly early in diagnosis. Context-aware technologies, such as hybrid closed-loop (HCL) insulin pumps, are important tools for diabetes self-management. However, clinicians have observed that practices using these technologies involve significant individual differences. We conducted interviews with 20 adolescents and young adults who use HCL insulin pump systems for managing T1D, and we found that these individuals leverage both technological and non-technological means to maintain situational awareness about their condition. We discuss how these practices serve to infrastructure their self-management routines, including medical treatment, diet, and glucose measurement-monitoring routines. Our study provides insights into adolescents' and young adults' lived experiences of using HCL systems and related technology to manage diabetes, and contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how the HCI community can support the contextualized management of diabetes through technology design.

Comparative Effectiveness of Hybrid Closed-Loop Automated Insulin Delivery Systems Among Patients with Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems, yet few studies have compared outcomes in the real-world setting.

METHOD

This retrospective study analyzed patients from an academic endocrinology practice between January 1, 2018, and November 18, 2022. The inclusion criteria were diagnosis code for type I diabetes (T1D), >18 years of age, new to any HCL system [Medtronic 670G/770G (MT), Tandem Control IQ (CIQ), or Omnipod 5 (OP5)], and availability of a pump download within three months. The outcomes included %time in range (TIR) of 70 to 180 mg/dL, %time below range (TBR) <70 mg/dL at 90 days, and HbA1c for 91 to 180 days.

RESULT

Of the 176 participants, 47 were MT, 74 CIQ, and 55 OP5. Median (25%, 75%) change in HbA1c was -0.1 (-0.8, 0.3), -0.6 (-1.1, -0.15), and -0.55 (-0.98, 0)% for MT, CIQ, and OP5, respectively, (P = .04). TIR was 70 (57, 76), 67 (59, 75), and 68 (60, 76)% (P = .95) at 90 days while TBR was 2 (1, 3), 1 (0, 2), and 1 (0, 1)%, respectively, (P = .002). The %time in automated delivery was associated with TIR and change in HbA1c. After controlling other factors including %time in automated delivery, HCL type was not an independent predictor of change in HbA1c nor TIR but remained a significant predictor of TBR.

CONCLUSION

There were significant reductions in HbA1c in CIQ and OP5. TIR was similar across pumps, but TBR was highest with MT. The %time in automated delivery likely explains differences in change in HbA1c but not TBR between HCL systems.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Closed-Loop Automated Insulin Delivery Using the Cambridge Hybrid Algorithm in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: Results from a Multicenter 6-Month Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of the Cambridge hybrid closed-loop automated insulin delivery (AID) algorithm versus usual care for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

This multicenter, binational, parallel-controlled trial randomized 133 insulin pump using participants aged 6 to 18 years to either AID (n = 65) or usual care (n = 68) for 6 months. Both within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness were analyzed. Analysis focused on the treatment subgroup (n = 21) who received the much more reliable CamAPS FX hardware iteration and their contemporaneous control group (n = 24). Lifetime complications and costs were simulated via an updated Sheffield T1D policy model.

RESULTS

Within-trial, both groups had indistinguishable and statistically unchanged health-related quality of life, and statistically similar hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) event rates. Total health care utilization was higher in the treatment group. Both the overall treatment group and CamAPS FX subgroup exhibited improved HbA1C (-0.32%, 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.04; P = .02, and -1.05%, 95% CI: -1.43 to -0.67; P < .001, respectively). Modeling projected increased expected lifespan of 5.36 years and discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 1.16 (U.K. tariffs) and 1.52 (U.S. tariffs) in the CamAPS FX subgroup. Estimated ICERs for the subgroup were £19 324/QALY (United Kingdom) and -$3917/QALY (United States). For subgroup patients already using continuous glucose monitors (CGM), ICERs were £10 096/QALY (United Kingdom) and -$33 616/QALY (United States). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis generated mean ICERs of £19 342/QALY (95% CI: £15 903/QALY to £22 929/QALY) (United Kingdom) and -$28 283/QALY (95% CI: -$59 607/QALY to $1858/QALY) (United States).

CONCLUSIONS

For children and adolescents with T1D on insulin pump therapy, AID using the Cambridge algorithm appears cost-effective below a £20 000/QALY threshold (United Kingdom) and cost saving (United States).

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.

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.

The artificial pancreas: two alternative approaches to achieve a fully closed-loop system with optimal glucose control

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes mellitus type 1 is a chronic disease that implies mandatory external insulin delivery. The patients must monitor their blood glucose levels and administer appropriate insulin boluses to keep their blood glucose within the desired range. It requires a lot of time and endeavour, and many patients struggle with suboptimal glucose control despite all their efforts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This narrative review combines existing knowledge with new discoveries from animal experiments.

DISCUSSION

In the last decade, artificial pancreas (AP) devices have been developed to improve glucose control and relieve patients of the constant burden of managing their disease. However, a feasible and fully automated AP is yet to be developed. The main challenges preventing the development of a true, subcutaneous (SC) AP system are the slow dynamics of SC glucose sensing and particularly the delay in effect on glucose levels after SC insulin infusions. We have previously published studies on using the intraperitoneal space for an AP; however, we further propose a novel and potentially disruptive way to utilize the vasodilative properties of glucagon in SC AP systems.

CONCLUSION

This narrative review presents two lesser-explored viable solutions for AP systems and discusses the potential for improvement toward a fully automated system: A) using the intraperitoneal approach for more rapid insulin absorption, and B) besides using glucagon to treat and prevent hypoglycemia, also administering micro-boluses of glucagon to increase the local SC blood flow, thereby accelerating SC insulin absorption and SC glucose sensor site dynamics.

Study protocol for a randomised open-label clinical trial examining the safety and efficacy of the Android Artificial Pancreas System (AAPS) with advanced bolus-free features in adults with type 1 diabetes: the 'CLOSE IT' (Closed Loop Open SourcE In Type 1 diabetes) trial

INTRODUCTION

Multiple automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have become commercially available following randomised controlled trials demonstrating benefits in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, their real-world utility may be undermined by user-associated burdens, including the need to carbohydrate count and deliver manual insulin boluses. There is an important need for a 'fully automated closed loop' (FCL) AID system, without manual mealtime boluses. The (Closed Loop Open SourcE In Type 1 diabetes) trial is a randomised trial comparing an FCL AID system to the same system used as a hybrid closed loop (HCL) in people with T1D, in an outpatient setting over an extended time frame.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Randomised, open-label, parallel, non-inferiority trial comparing the Android Artificial Pancreas System (AAPS) AID algorithm used as FCL to the same algorithm used as HCL. Seventy-five participants aged 18-70 will be randomised (1:1) to one of two treatment arms for 12 weeks: (a) FCL-participants will be advised not to bolus for meals and (b) HCL-participants will use the AAPS AID algorithm as HCL with announced meals. The primary outcome is the percentage of time in target sensor glucose range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L). Secondary outcomes include other glycaemic metrics, safety, psychosocial factors, platform performance and user dietary factors. Twenty FCL arm participants will participate in a 4-week extension phase comparing glycaemic and dietary outcomes using NovoRapid (insulin aspart) to Fiasp (insulin aspart and niacinamide).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approvals are by the Alfred Health Ethics Committee (615/22) (Australia) and Health and Disability Ethics Committees (2022 FULL 13832) (New Zealand). Each participant will provide written informed consent. Data protection and confidentiality will be ensured. Study results will be disseminated by publications, conferences and patient advocacy groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

ACTRN12622001400752 and ACTRN12622001401741.

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.

Does fully closed-loop automated insulin delivery improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

This meta-analysis investigated the efficacy and safety of fully closed-loop automated insulin delivery (AID) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systemically searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central from inception until April 26, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fully closed-loop AID versus conventional insulin therapy. The outcomes were pooled as the mean difference (MD) and risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) in the random effect model. Our primary outcome was the proportion of time in the target glucose range (5.6-10 mmol/L, 3.9-10 mmol/L, or 3.9-8 mmol/L, depending on the study). Key secondary outcomes included the proportion of time spent in hyperglycaemia or hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

We included seven RCTs (three crossover and four parallel design), compromising 390 patients. Our analysis showed that compared to the control group, fully closed-loop AID increased the proportion of time spent within the target glucose range by additional 337 min per 24 h (MD = 23.39%, 95% CI [16.64%, 30.14%], p < 0.01), additional 108 min overnight (MD = 22.40%, 95% CI [12.88%, 31.91%], p < 0.01), and additional 258 min during the daytime period (MD = 26.85%, 95% CI [21.06%, 32.63%], p < 0.01). Compared to the control group, the overall time in hyperglycaemia was shortened by 326 min per 24 h (MD = -22.67%, 95% CI [-30.87%, -14.46%], p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of overall, overnight, and daytime periods spent in hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that fully closed-loop AID may improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, particularly for those with more challenging diabetes management. Further research is required to establish the feasibility of implementing these systems in clinical practice. [Correction added on 26 August 2023 after first online publication: Under Results, the first sentence "We included seven RCTs (three crossover and one parallel designs)" has been changed to "We included seven RCTs (three crossover and four parallel designs)".].

Automated insulin delivery among adults with type 1 diabetes for up to 2 years: a real-world, multicentre study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Automated insulin delivery (AID) improves glycaemia among people with type 1 diabetes in clinical trials and overseas real-world studies. Whether improvements are sustained beyond 12 months in the real world, and whether they occur in the Australian context, has not yet been established. We aimed to observe, up to 2 years, the effectiveness of initiating first-generation AID for type 1 diabetes management.

METHODS

Retrospective, real-world, observational study using medical records, conducted across five sites in Australia. Adults with type 1 diabetes, who had AID initiated between February 2019 and December 2021, were observed for 6-24 months after initiation (until June 2022). Outcomes examined included glucose metrics assessed by glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c ) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), safety and therapy continuation.

RESULTS

Ninety-four adults were studied (median age 39 years (interquartile range, IQR: 31-51); pre-initiation HbA1c 7.8% (7.2-8.6)). After AID initiation, HbA1c decreased by mean 0.5 percentage points (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.7 to -0.2) at 3 months (P < 0.001); CGM time in range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L increased by 11 percentage points (9-14) at 1 month (P < 0.001); these improvements were maintained up to 24 months (all P < 0.02). Median CGM time below 3.9 mmol/L was <1.5% pre- and post-AID initiation. The subgroup with pre-initiation HbA1c above 8.5% had the greatest HbA1c improvement (-1.4 percentage points (-1.8 to -1.1) at 3 months). Twelve individuals (13%) discontinued AID, predominantly citing difficulties with CGM. During the 150 person-years observed, four diabetes-related emergencies were documented: three severe hypoglycaemic events and one hyperglycaemic event without ketoacidosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Early glucose improvements were observed after real-world AID initiation, sustained up to 2 years, without excess adverse events. The greatest benefits were observed among individuals with highest glycaemia before initiation. Future-generation systems with increased user-friendliness may enhance therapy continuation.

Allo Beta Cell transplantation: specific features, unanswered questions, and immunological challenge

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) presents a persistent medical challenge, demanding innovative strategies for sustained glycemic control and enhanced patient well-being. Beta cells are specialized cells in the pancreas that produce insulin, a hormone that regulates blood sugar levels. When beta cells are damaged or destroyed, insulin production decreases, which leads to T1D. Allo Beta Cell Transplantation has emerged as a promising therapeutic avenue, with the goal of reinstating glucose regulation and insulin production in T1D patients. However, the path to success in this approach is fraught with complex immunological hurdles that demand rigorous exploration and resolution for enduring therapeutic efficacy. This exploration focuses on the distinct immunological characteristics inherent to Allo Beta Cell Transplantation. An understanding of these unique challenges is pivotal for the development of effective therapeutic interventions. The critical role of glucose regulation and insulin in immune activation is emphasized, with an emphasis on the intricate interplay between beta cells and immune cells. The transplantation site, particularly the liver, is examined in depth, highlighting its relevance in the context of complex immunological issues. Scrutiny extends to recipient and donor matching, including the utilization of multiple islet donors, while also considering the potential risk of autoimmune recurrence. Moreover, unanswered questions and persistent gaps in knowledge within the field are identified. These include the absence of robust evidence supporting immunosuppression treatments, the need for reliable methods to assess rejection and treatment protocols, the lack of validated biomarkers for monitoring beta cell loss, and the imperative need for improved beta cell imaging techniques. In addition, attention is drawn to emerging directions and transformative strategies in the field. This encompasses alternative immunosuppressive regimens and calcineurin-free immunoprotocols, as well as a reevaluation of induction therapy and recipient preconditioning methods. Innovative approaches targeting autoimmune recurrence, such as CAR Tregs and TCR Tregs, are explored, along with the potential of stem stealth cells, tissue engineering, and encapsulation to overcome the risk of graft rejection. In summary, this review provides a comprehensive overview of the inherent immunological obstacles associated with Allo Beta Cell Transplantation. It offers valuable insights into emerging strategies and directions that hold great promise for advancing the field and ultimately improving outcomes for individuals living with diabetes.

Glycometabolic outcomes in adult type 1 diabetic patients switching to closed-loop systems

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate glycometabolic outcomes in AID technology-naïve T1D patients after switching to Hybrid Closed Loop (HCL) and Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop (AHCL) systems.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a 12-month, prospective, observational, two-center study on 54 type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients aged 19-65 years managed with multiple daily injections (MDI) or Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) in open-loop to evaluate the superiority in terms of effectiveness and safety of Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) systems.

RESULTS

HbA1c levels significantly improved at the end of the study. Time spent with glucose levels in target range (TIR70-180 mg/dL, 3.9-10 mmol/L) increased from 50.5 ± 15.6% at baseline to 73.6 ± 8.0% at 12 months (p < 0.001); time spent above range (TAR180-250 mg/dL, 10-13.9 mmol/L and TAR≥250 mg/dL, 13.9 mmol/L) decreased from 30.6 ± 9.0% and 14.2 ± 10.2 at baseline to 19.3 ± 5.3% and 4.8 ± 3.3% at 12 months (p < 0.001 for both), respectively; time spent below range (TBR54-69 mg/dL, 3-3.8 mmol/L and TBR<54 mg/dL, 3.0 mmol/L) decreased from 3.5 ± 2.6% and 1.2 ± 1.4% at baseline to 1.9 ± 1.5% and 0.4 ± 0.7% at the end of the study (p < 0.001 for both); coefficient of variation (CV) decreased from 35.9 ± 7.8% at baseline to 33.0 ± 5.3% (p < 0.05). Satisfaction with the new technology was scored as high.

CONCLUSION

AID-naïve T1D patients switching to HCL/AHCL systems have significantly and safely improved their glycometabolic outcomes with their high satisfaction with the new type of treatment.

Experience with burdens of diabetes device use that affect uptake and optimal use in people with type 1 diabetes

Diabetes technology continues to advance, with more individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) adopting insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems that integrate real-time glucose data with an algorithm to assist with insulin dosing decisions. These technologies are linked with benefits to glycemic outcomes (e.g. increased time in target range), diabetes management behaviors, and quality of life. However, current devices and systems are not without barriers and hassles for the user. The intent of this review is to describe the personal challenges and reactions that users experience when interacting with current diabetes technologies, which can affect their acceptance and motivation to engage with their devices. This review will discuss user experiences and strategies to address three main areas: (i) the emotional burden of utilizing a wearable device; (ii) the perceived and experienced negative social consequences of device use; and (iii) the practical challenges of wearing devices.

Safety Event Outcomes and Glycemic Control with a Hybrid Closed-Loop System Used by Chinese Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

Background: While evidence supports glycemic control benefits for individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) using hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems, HCL automated insulin delivery therapy in China has not been assessed. This study evaluated safety events and effectiveness during HCL system use by Chinese adolescents and adults with T1DM. Methods: Sixty-two participants (n = 12 adolescents with a mean ± standard deviation [SD] of 15.5 ± 1.1 years and n = 50 adults [mean ± SD of 37.6 ± 11.1 years]) with T1DM and baseline A1C of 7.1% ± 1.0% underwent a run-in period (∼2 weeks) using open-loop Manual Mode (sensor-augmented pump) insulin delivery with the MiniMed™ 770G system with the Guardian™ Sensor (3) glucose sensor, followed by a study period (4 weeks) with HCL Auto Mode enabled. Analyses compared continuous glucose monitoring data and insulin delivered during the run-in versus study period (Wilcoxon signed-rank test or t-test). Safety events included rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Results: Compared to baseline run-in, overall Auto Mode use increased time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) from 75.3% to 80.9% (P < 0.001) and reduced time below range (TBR, <70 mg/dL) from 4.7% to 2.2% (P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that participants (n = 29) with baseline A1C <7.0% had TBR that reduced from 5.6% to 2.0%, while participants (n = 21) with baseline A1C ≥7.5% had time above range (TAR, >180 mg/dL) that reduced from 31.6% to 20.8%. Auto Mode use also increased the percentage achieving combined recommendations for time at sensor glucose ranges (i.e., TIR of >70%, TBR of <4% and TAR of <25%) from 24.2% at baseline to 77.4% at study end. Total daily insulin dose reduced from 42.8 ± 19.8 to 40.7 ± 18.9 U (P = 0.013). There were no severe hypoglycemic, DKA, or serious adverse events. Conclusions: Chinese adolescents and adults, some of whom met target A1C at baseline, safely achieved significantly improved glycemia with 1 month of MiniMed 770G system use when compared to open-loop insulin delivery. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04663295.

Frequency and Causes of Nocturnal Alarms in Youth and Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Using a First-Generation Hybrid Closed-Loop System

Background

Meeting glycemic recommendations is challenging for youth with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes technology, including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and hybrid closed-loop (HCL) automated insulin delivery systems, significantly increase achievement of glycemic targets; however, many youth struggle to sustain use of early HCL systems. Nocturnal alarm fatigue contributes to disrupted sleep and device discontinuation.

Methods

We examined the frequency and causes of nocturnal (10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) alarms in pediatric patients (N = 76, median age 14.5 years [interquartile range 11.8-17.0 years, range 7-24 years]) starting on a first-generation HCL system in a prospective observational study. Device data were analyzed with linear mixed-effects models to examine change across time at 3-month intervals for 12 months.

Results

At baseline (HCL system in nonautomated mode), participants averaged 3.3 ± 0.6 alarms per night. In the 2 weeks after starting HCL (automated) mode, alarm frequency significantly increased to 5.4 ± 0.5 times per night (P <0.001). Alarm frequency decreased through the remainder of the observational period; however, CGM sensor and HCL system use also declined. The types of alarms were evenly distributed among sensor maintenance, sensor threshold, pump, and HCL-specific alarms.

Conclusion

These data show that HCL system nocturnal alarms are frequent and may be barriers to sleep quality and device use. Further research is needed to assess the impact of diabetes technology on sleep and to determine method to improve sleep quality with technology use.

Association Between Diabetes Technology Use and Glycemic Outcomes in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Over a Decade

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate change in mean clinic HbA1c from 2014 to 2021 with diabetes technology use in adults with type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this single-center study, we analyzed diabetes technology use and mean clinic HbA1c among unique adults (age ≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes (last visit of the year per patient) between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2021 from the electronic medical record. Diabetes technology use was defined as the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) without an automated insulin delivery (AID) system or an AID system. Diabetes technology use and HbA1c over time were analyzed using mixed models adjusted for age, sex, and visit year.

RESULTS

A total of 15,903 clinic visits over 8 years (mean 1,988 patients per year, 4,174 unique patients, 52.7% female, 80.0% Non-Hispanic White) showed significant increases in CGM and AID use (P < 0.001 for both), resulting in an increase of diabetes technology use from 26.9% in 2014 to 82.7% in 2021. These increases were associated with a lower mean clinic HbA1c (7.7-7.5%, P < 0.001) and a higher percentage of adults achieving an HbA1c <7.0% (32.3-41.7%, P < 0.001) from 2014 to 2021. The HbA1c difference between technology users and nonusers increased over time from 0.36% (95% CI 0.26-0.47%, P < 0.001) in 2014 to 0.93% (95% CI 0.80-1.06%, P < 0.001) in 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting diabetes technology in adults with type 1 diabetes decreased HbA1c and increased the number of people achieving an HbA1c <7.0%, supporting the current international recommendation to offer AID systems to most individuals with type 1 diabetes.

The Tandem Control-IQ advanced hybrid system improves glycemic control in children under 18 years of age with type 1 diabetes and night rest in caregivers

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of switching from the predictive low glucose suspend (PLGS) system to the advanced hybrid Tandem Control-IQ system on glucometrics and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at one year. To assess the impact on the quality of life perceived by parents.

METHOD

Prospective study in 71 patients aged 6-18 years with type 1 diabetes (DM1), in treatment with PLGS, who switched to an advanced hybrid system. Glucometric data were collected before the change, at 4 and 8 weeks, and at one year of use; HbA1c before the change and after one year. The Diabetes Impact and Devices Satisfaction (DIDS) questionnaire was used at weeks 4 and 8.

RESULTS

An increase in time in range (TIR) was observed with a median of 76% (P<.001) at 4 weeks, which was maintained after one year (+8% in the total group). Overall, 73.24% of patients achieved a TIR above 70%. The subgroup with an initial TIR of less than 56% increased it by 14.4%. After one year there was a 0.3% reduction in HbA1c. Level 1 hypoglycaemia, level 1 and level 2 hyperglycaemia, mean glucose (GM) and coefficient of variation (CV) decreased. Auto mode stayed on 97% of the time and no dropouts occurred. Caregivers had a perception of better glycaemic control and less need to monitor blood glucose variations during the night. None of them would switch back to the previous system and they feel safe with the new system.

CONCLUSIONS

The Tandem Control-IQ advanced hybrid system was shown to be effective one year after its implementation with improvement in all glucometric parameters and HbA1c, as well as night-time rest in caregivers.

Unannounced Meal Challenges Using an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System

Background: The advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm combines automated basal rates and corrections yet requires meal announcement for optimal outcomes. We aimed to compare the performance of the MiniMed™ 780G AHCL algorithm with and without meal announcement. Methods: In a single-arm study involving 14 adults with type 1 diabetes, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of AHCL when meals were not announced. Participants stayed at a supervised environment for 5 days, during which the outcomes of not announcing meals (≤80 g of carbohydrate) were assessed. Next, participants entered a 90-day at-home "unannounced" phase, during which all meals (≤80 g of carbohydrate) were unannounced, followed by a 90-day at-home phase in which all meals were announced. Results: Time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was lower in the unannounced versus announced periods (67.5% ± 12.5% vs. 77.7% ± 9.5%; P < 0.01, respectively), with more time spent in hyperglycemia range 180-250 mg/dL (22.7% ± 7.7% vs. 15.7% ± 7.2%) and >250 mg/dL (7.9% ± 6.4% vs. 3.6% ± 2.7%), but less time in hypoglycemia range 54-70 mg/dL (1.6% ± 1% vs. 2.8% ± 1.8%) and <54 mg/dL (0.3% ± 0.4% vs. 0.7% ± 0.9%). Not announcing meals containing up to 60 g of carbohydrate did not lead to increase in postprandial extreme dysglycemia >250 mg/dL, and up to 20 g of unannounced carbohydrates did not significantly change the TIR 70-180 mg/dL compared with full announcement. Conclusion: The AHCL system is optimized for use with meal announcement. While not announcing meals of ≤80 g carbohydrates appears to be safe, it results in suboptimal postprandial glycemic control, especially with high-carbohydrate meals. Not announcing small meals (≤20 g carbohydrate) does not deteriorate glycemic control. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04479826.

User experiences during the transition to calibration-free sensors with remote monitoring while using automated insulin delivery - a qualitative study

Introduction

To evaluate the experiences of patients with type 1 diabetes following transition from a calibration-requiring to a calibration-free sensor and remote monitoring in the context of using automated insulin delivery (AID).

Research design and methods

Fifteen participants aged 7-65 years with type 1 diabetes participating in a longitudinal study used a Medtronic® advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) device with initially calibration-requiring then calibration-free sensors. Qualitative interviews were conducted ≥20 weeks following use of the calibration-requiring and ≥4 weeks after use of the calibration-free sensors/remote monitoring. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes and subthemes.

Results

At baseline, mean diabetes duration was 14.5 years ( ± 10.9), mean Hba1c 54.8 mmol/mol ( ± 10.2) (7.2 ± 0.9%) and Time in range 75.4% ( ± 11.6). Participants reported a progressive improvement in digital and lifestyle integration, and device trust following transition to calibration-free sensors with remote monitoring potential. They also reported a reduced need for capillary glucose, increased device satisfaction and trust, and reduced burden of diabetes care. Negative aspects reported included periodic early sensor loss, and for some, impaired integration with mobile devices.

Conclusion

Transitioning to calibration-free sensors with remote monitoring while using AHCL was associated with better user experience, including perceptions of improved quality of life and a reduced burden of diabetes care. Appropriate expectation setting, training, and ongoing support allow for the optimal user experience while using AHCL.

Clinical trial registration

https://www.anzctr.org.au, identifier ACTRN12621000360819.

Prolonged Use of an Automated Insulin Delivery System Improves Sleep in Long-Standing Type 1 Diabetes Complicated by Impaired Awareness of Hypoglycemia

BACKGROUND

This study assessed changes in actigraphy-estimated sleep and glycemic outcomes after initiating automated insulin delivery (AID).

METHODS

Ten adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) participated in an 18-month clinical trial assessing an AID intervention on hypoglycemia and counter-regulatory mechanisms. Data from eight participants (median age = 58 years) with concurrent wrist actigraph and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data were used in the present analyses. Actigraphs and CGM measured sleep and glycemic control at baseline (one week) and months 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 (three weeks) following AID initiation. HypoCount software integrated actigraphy with CGM data to separate wake and sleep-associated glycemic measures. Paired sample t-tests and Cohen's d effect sizes modeled changes and their magnitude in sleep, glycemic control, IAH (Clarke score), hypoglycemia severity (HYPO score), hypoglycemia exposure (CGM), and glycemic variability (lability index [LI]; CGM coefficient-of-variation [CV]) from baseline to 18 months.

RESULTS

Sleep improved from baseline to 18 months (shorter sleep latency [P < .05, d = 1.74], later sleep offset [P < .05, d = 0.90], less wake after sleep onset [P < .01, d = 1.43]). Later sleep onset (d = 0.74) and sleep midpoint (d = 0.77) showed medium effect sizes. Sleep improvements were evident from 12 to 15 months after AID initiation and were preceded by improved hypoglycemia awareness (Clarke score [d = 1.18]), reduced hypoglycemia severity (HYPO score [d = 2.13]), reduced sleep-associated hypoglycemia (percent time glucose was < 54 mg/dL, < 60 mg/dL,< 70 mg/dL; d = 0.66-0.81), and reduced glucose variability (LI, d = 0.86; CV, d = 0.62).

CONCLUSION

AID improved sleep initiation and maintenance. Improved awareness of hypoglycemia, reduced hypoglycemia severity, hypoglycemia exposure, and glucose variability preceded sleep improvements.This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03215914 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03215914.

Outcomes in Pump- and CGM-Baseline Use Subgroups in the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial

BACKGROUND

We investigated the potential benefits of automated insulin delivery (AID) among individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in sub-populations of baseline device use determined by continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use status and insulin delivery via multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a six-month randomized, multicenter trial, 168 individuals were assigned to closed-loop control (CLC, Control-IQ, Tandem Diabetes Care), or sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. The trial included a two- to eight-week run-in phase to train participants on study devices. The participants were stratified into four subgroups: insulin pump and CGM (pump+CGM), pump-only, MDI and CGM (MDI+CGM), and MDI users without CGM (MDI-only) users. We compared glycemic outcomes among four subgroups.

RESULTS

At baseline, 61% were pump+CGM users, 18% pump-only users, 10% MDI+CGM users, and 11% MDI-only users. Mean time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) improved from baseline in the four subgroups using CLC: pump+CGM, 62% to 73%; pump-only, 61% to 70%; MDI+CGM, 54% to 68%; and MDI-only, 61% to 69%. The reduction in time below 70 mg/dL from baseline was comparable among the four subgroups. No interaction effect was detected with baseline device use for TIR (P = .67) or time below (P = .77). On the System Usability Questionnaire, scores were high at 26 weeks for all subgroups: pump+CGM: 87.2 ± 12.1, pump-only: 89.4 ± 8.2, MDI+CGM 87.2 ± 9.3, MDI: 78.1 ± 15.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a consistent benefit in patients with T1D when using CLC, regardless of baseline insulin delivery modality or CGM use. These data suggest that this CLC system can be considered across a wide range of patients.

Differences in positive expectancy of hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems do not explain racial differences in HCL use

Aims

Hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems improve glycemia and quality of life among youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D), however there are inequities in use. We aimed to evaluate whether differences in positive expectancy of HCL systems may explain differences in use.

Methods

Fifteen publicly-insured, non-Hispanic Black (NHB) youth with hemoglobin A1_C (HbA1c) ≥ 10% enrolled in a study exploring changes in glycemia and person reported outcomes (PRO) during 6 months of Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology. At baseline youth and parents completed PROs, including Insulin Delivery Systems: Perceptions, Ideas, Reflections and Expectations (INSPIRE) survey assessing positive expectancy of HCL use, and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) survey assessing diabetes-related distress. Differences between this cohort and the Tandem Control-IQ pediatric pivotal trial (DCLP5) cohort were assessed.

Results

As compared to the DCLP5 cohort (0% NHB, 10% publicly-insured), baseline glycemic indicators were suboptimal (M_HbA1c 11.9 ± 1.4% vs 7.6 ± 0.9%, p < 0.0001; continuous glucose monitor (CGM) time-above-range > 180 mg/dL 82 ± 15% vs 45 ± 18%, p < 0.0001). INSPIRE scores in both cohorts were equally high among youth (80 ± 10 vs 77 ± 13, p = 0.41) and parents (88 ± 14 vs 85 ± 11, p = 0.37). PAID scores were higher among parents (68 ± 19 vs 43 ± 16, p < 0.0001), but not youth (43 ± 16 vs 35 ± 16, p = 0.09) in the historically marginalized cohort as compared to the DCLP5 cohort.

Conclusions

Despite differences in glycemic control and diabetes related burden, positive expectancy of HCL systems is comparable among historically marginalized youth with T1D and the predominantly non-Hispanic White, privately insured DCLP5 cohort. These findings suggest that differences in perceptions of HCL technology may not explain inequities in use.

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.

The Evolution of Diabetes Technology - Options Towards Personalized Care

Advances in diabetes technology, especially in the last few decades, have transformed our ability to deliver care to persons with diabetes (PWD). Developments in glucose monitoring, especially continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGM), have revolutionized diabetes care and empowered our patients to manage their disease. CGM has also played an integral role in advancing automated insulin delivery systems. Currently available and upcoming advanced hybrid-closed loop systems aim to decrease patient involvement and are approaching the functionality of a fully automated artificial pancreas. Other advances, such as smart insulin pens and daily patch pumps, offer more options for patients and require less complicated and costly technology. Evidence to support the role of diabetes technology is growing, and PWD and clinicians must choose the right type of technology with a personalized strategy to manage diabetes effectively. Here, we review currently available diabetes technologies, summarize their individual features and highlight key patient factors to consider when creating a personalized treatment plan. We also address current challenges and barriers to the adoption of diabetes technologies.

Increasing Use of Diabetes Devices: What Do Health Care Professionals Need?

Despite evidence of improved diabetes outcomes with diabetes technology such as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, insulin pumps, and hybrid closed-loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems, these devices are underutilized in clinical practice for the management of insulin-requiring diabetes. This low uptake may be the result of health care providers' (HCPs') lack of confidence or time to prescribe and manage devices for people with diabetes. We administered a survey to HCPs in primary care, pediatric endocrinology, and adult endocrinology practices in the United States. Responding HCPs expressed a need for device-related insurance coverage tools and online data platforms with integration to electronic health record systems to improve diabetes technology uptake in these practice settings across the United States.

First Use of Open-Source Automated Insulin Delivery AndroidAPS in Full Closed-Loop Scenario; Pancreas4ALL Randomized Pilot Study

Objective: We evaluated the safety and feasibility of open-source automated insulin delivery AndroidAPS in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and compared its efficacy in three different scenarios: hybrid closed loop (HCL) with meal boluses, meal announcement only (MA), and full closed loop (FCL). Research Design and Methods: In an open-label, prospective, randomized crossover trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT04835350), 16 adolescents with T1D (10 females) with mean age of 17 years (range 15-20), glycated hemoglobin 56 mmol/mol (range 43-75), and mean duration of diabetes 5.9 years (9-15) underwent three distinct 3-day periods of camp living, comparing the above-mentioned scenarios of AndroidAPS. We used modified and locked version of AndroidAPS 3.1.03, which was called Pancreas4ALL for study purposes. The order of MA and FCL periods was assigned randomly. The primary endpoints were feasibility and safety of the system represented by percentage of time of glucose control by the system and time in hypoglycemia below 3 mmol/L. Results: The glycemia was controlled by the system 95% time of the study and the proportion of time below 3 mmol/L did not exceed 1% over the whole study period (0.72%). The HCL scenario reached significantly higher percentage of time below 3 mmol/L (HCL 1.05% vs. MA 0.0% vs. FCL 0.0%; P = 0.05) compared to other scenarios. No difference was observed among the scenarios in the percentage of time between 3.9 and 10 mmol/L (HCL 83.3% vs. MA 79.85% vs. FCL 81.03%, P = 0.58) corresponding to mean glycemia (HCL 6.65 mmol/L vs. MA 7.34 mmol/L vs. FCL 7.05 mmol/L, P = 0.28). No difference was observed in the mean daily dose of insulin or in the daily carbohydrate intake. No serious adverse event occurred during the study period. Conclusions: Our pilot study showed that FCL might be a realistic mode of treatment for people with T1D.

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.

Insulin Pump-Associated Adverse Events: A Qualitative Descriptive Study of Clinical Consequences and Potential Root Causes

Objective: To explore the clinical consequences and potential root causes of insulin pump-associated adverse events (AEs) reported in the Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database. Research Design and Methods: Qualitative template analysis of narrative data in a 20% stratified random sample (n = 2429) of reported AEs that occurred during the first 6 months of 2020 involving five insulin pump models marketed at that time: (1) MiniMed™ 670G, (2) MiniMed™ 630G, (3) Omnipod^®, (4) Omnipod DASH^®, and (5) t:slim X2™. Results: Of the 2429 AEs, 92% included a clinical consequence in the narrative description, with critical hyperglycemia (i.e., blood glucose [BG] >400 mg/dL; 47%) and critical hypoglycemia (i.e., BG <54 mg/dL; 24%) being the most common consequence cited. Only 50% of the AE narratives included information to support the identification of a root cause. The most cited root cause informing remarks were issues with the pump or pod reservoir/cartridge (9%), the occurrence of an obstruction of flow alarm (8%), and problems with the infusion set or site (8%). Some clinical consequences and root cause informing remarks were cited more frequently in AE narratives involving specific insulin pump models, but manufacturer variability in the amount and type of information reported may have affected these findings. Conclusions: Our findings show general themes found in insulin pump-associated AE that providers can use to raise patient awareness of potential risks associated with insulin pump use and develop strategies to prevent future AEs. Improvements in AE investigation and reporting processes are still necessary.

Automated Insulin Delivery Systems as a Treatment for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Review

OBJECTIVE

Approximately 6.3% of the worldwide population has type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and the number of people requiring insulin is increasing. Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems integrate continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and continuous glucose monitoring with a predictive control algorithm to provide more physiologic glycemic control. Personalized glycemic targets are recommended in T2DM owing to the heterogeneity of the disease. Based on the success of hybrid closed-loop systems in improving glycemic control and safety in type 1 diabetes mellitus, there has been further interest in the use of these systems in people with T2DM.

METHODS

We performed a review of AID systems with a focus on the T2DM population.

RESULTS

In 5 randomized controlled trials, AID systems improve time in range and reduce glycemic variability, without increasing insulin requirements or the risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

AID systems in T2DM are safe and effective in hospitalized and closely monitored settings. Home studies of longer duration are required to assess for long-term benefit and identify target populations of benefit.

Impact of Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop on Youth With High-Risk Type 1 Diabetes Using Multiple Daily Injections

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate glycemic outcomes in youth (aged 13-25 years) with type 1 diabetes and high-risk glycemic control (HbA1c ≥8.5% [69 mmol/mol]) on multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy after transitioning to advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) therapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This prospective, 3-month, single-arm, dual-center study enrolled 20 participants, and all completed the study.

RESULTS

HbA1c decreased from 10.5 ± 2.1% (91.2 ± 22.8 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7.6 ± 1.1% (59.7 ± 11.9 mmol/mol), and time spent in target range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) increased from 27.6 ± 13.2% at baseline to 66.5 ± 9.8% after 3 months of AHCL. Two episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis attributed to infusion set failure occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

AHCL has the potential to improve suboptimal glycemia in youth with type 1 diabetes previously on MDI therapy.

Safety, metabolic and psychological outcomes of Medtronic MiniMed 670G in children, adolescents and young adults: a systematic review

Hybrid closed loop (HCL) systems are the combination of a pump for insulin delivery and a glucose sensor for continuous glucose monitoring. These systems are managed by an algorithm, which delivers insulin on the basis of the interstitial glucose levels. The MiniMed™ 670G system was the first HCL system available for clinical purpose. In this paper, we reviewed the literature about metabolic and psychological outcomes in children, adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes treated with MiniMed™ 670G. Only 30 papers responded to the inclusion criteria and thus were considered. All the papers show that the system is safe and effective in managing glucose control. Metabolic outcomes are available up to 12 months of follow-up; longer study period are lacking. This HCL system may improve HbA1c up to 7.1% and time in range up to 73%. The time spent in hypoglycaemia is almost neglectable. Better improvement in blood glucose control is observed in patients with higher HbA1c at HCL system start and larger daily use of auto-mode functionality.     Conclusion: The Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G is safe and well accepted, without any increase in the burden for patients. Some papers report an improvement in the psychological outcomes, but other papers do not confirm this finding. So far, it significantly improves the management of diabetes mellitus in children, adolescents and young adults. Proper training and support by the diabetes team are mandatory. Studies for a period longer than 1 year would be appreciated to better understand the potentiality of this system. What is Known: • The Medtronic MiniMed^TM 670G is a hybrid closed loop system which combines a continuous glucose monitoring sensor with an insulin pump. • It has been the first hybrid closed loop system available for clinical purpose. Adequate training and patients support play a key role in diabetes management. What is New: • The Medtronic MiniMed^TM 670G may improve HbA1c and CGM metrics up to 1-year of follow-up, but the improvement appears lower than advanced hybrid closed loop systems. This system is effective to prevent hypoglycaemia. • The psychosocial effects remain less understood in terms of improvement of psychosocial outcomes. The system has been considered to provide flexibility and independence by the patients and their caregivers. The workload required to use this system is perceived as a burden by the patients who decrease the use of auto-mode functionality over time.

Quality of life and psychological well-being among children and adolescents with diabetes and their caregivers using open-source automated insulin delivery systems: Findings from a multinational survey

BACKGROUND

Open-source automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have shown to be safe and effective in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in real-world studies. However, there is a lack of evidence on the effect on their caregivers' quality-of-life (QoL) and well-being. The aim of this study was to assess the QoL of caregivers and children and adolescents using open-source AID systems using validated measures.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional online survey we examined the caregiver-reported QoL and well-being of users and non-users. Validated questionnaires assessed general well-being (WHO-5), diabetes-specific QoL (PAID, PedsQL) and sleep quality (PSQI).

RESULTS

168 caregivers from 27 countries completed at least one questionnaire, including 119 caregivers of children using open-source AID and 49 not using them. After inclusion of covariates, all measures but the PAID and one subscale of the PedsQL showed significant between-group differences with AID users reporting higher general (WHO-5: p = 0.003), sleep-related (PSQI: p = 0.001) and diabetes-related QoL (PedsQL: p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results show the potential impact of open-source AID on QoL and psychological well-being of caregivers and children and adolescents with T1D, and can therefore help to inform academia, regulators, and policymakers about the psychosocial health implications of open-source AID.

6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Observed Characteristics Associated with Diabetes Device Use Among Teens with Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Despite advancements in diabetes technologies, disparities remain with respect to diabetes device use in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). We compared sociodemographic, diabetes, and psychosocial characteristics associated with device (pump and continuous glucose monitor [CGM]) use in 13- to 17-year-old teens with T1D.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Data were derived from a multicenter clinical trial to optimize self-care and glycemic control in teens with T1D. We categorized teens as pump users versus non-users and CGM users versus non-users based on their diabetes device usage. Chi-square and t-tests compared characteristics according to device use.

RESULTS

The sample comprised 301 teens (50% female) with baseline mean ± SD age 15.0 ± 1.3 years, T1D duration 6.5 ± 3.7 years, and HbA1c 8.5 ± 1.1% (69 ± 12 mmol/mol). Two-thirds (65%) were pump users, and 27% were CGM users. Pump users and CGM users (vs. non-users) were more likely to have a family annual household income ≥$150,000, private health insurance, and a parent with a college education (all P < .001). Pump users and CGM users (vs. non-users) also performed more frequent daily blood glucose (BG) checks (both P < .001) and reported more diabetes self-care behaviors (both P < .05). Pump users were less likely to have baseline HbA1c ≥9% (75 mmol/mol) (P = .005) and to report fewer depressive symptoms (P = .02) than pump non-users. Parents of both CGM and pump users reported a higher quality of life in their youth (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

There were many sociodemographic, diabetes-specific, and psychosocial factors associated with device use. Modifiable factors can serve as the target for clinical interventions; youth with non-modifiable factors can receive extra support to overcome potential barriers to device use.

Cash-Only INcentives to promote insulin DOSE engagement: A protocol paper for the pilot randomized controlled trial of COIN2DOSE

BACKGROUND

Most adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) do not achieve a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0%, which is the current clinical target. mHealth can offer a scalable and age-appropriate delivery method for behavioral interventions to lower adolescents' HbA1c levels, while applying established behavior change and behavioral economics theories can enhance scientific rigor.

METHODS

We aim to conduct a pilot randomized clinical trial of a novel mHealth intervention called Coin2Dose (Cash-Only INcentives To promote insulin DOSE engagement), in a sample of youth with T1D: 1) to obtain measures of feasibility and acceptability and 2) to examine preliminary efficacy versus a standard care control group based on differences in youth's daily BOLUS scores, HbA1c levels, and Time in Range (TIR) at post-intervention and 3-month post-intervention follow-up. This pilot RCT is already registered in http://ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT#05280184).

RESULTS

Our pilot will recruit youth with T1D 11-17 years-old who use an insulin pump or Bluetooth connected insulin pen and have an average daily BOLUS score ≤2.5. Youth randomized to Coin2Dose will receive the intervention for 12 weeks followed by a 12-week maintenance period. The pilot is scheduled to start July 2022 and to conclude in 2025.

DISCUSSION

At the conclusion of the pilot, we will have information about the feasibility and acceptability of two different behavioral economic incentive structures for improving BOLUS scores. The work is anticipated to progress to final efficacy trial. We will disseminate study results through presentations at local, national, and international conferences and through peer-reviewed diabetes and psychology journals.

Continuous Glucose Monitor, Insulin Pump, and Automated Insulin Delivery Therapies for Type 1 Diabetes: An Update on Potential for Cardiovascular Benefits

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The incidence of type 1 diabetes (T1D) is rising in all age groups. T1D is associated with chronic microvascular and macrovascular complications but improving glycemic trends can delay the onset and slow the progression of these complications. Utilization of technological devices for diabetes management, such as continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and insulin pumps, is increasing, and these devices are associated with improvements in glycemic trends. Thus, device use may be associated with long-term prevention of T1D complications, yet few studies have investigated the direct impacts of devices on chronic complications in T1D. This review will describe common diabetes devices and combination systems, as well as review relationships between device use and cardiovascular outcomes in T1D.

RECENT FINDINGS

Findings from existing cohort and national registry studies suggest that pump use may aid in improving cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension and dyslipidemia. Furthermore, pump users have been shown to have lower arterial stiffness and better measures of myocardial function. In registry and case-control longitudinal data, pump use has been associated with fewer cardiovascular events and reduction of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality. CVD is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in T1D. Consistent use of diabetes devices may protect against the development and progression of macrovascular complications such as CVD through improvement in glycemic trends. Existing literature is limited, but findings suggest that pump use may reduce acute cardiovascular risk factors as well as chronic cardiovascular complications and overall mortality in T1D.

Biobehavioral Changes Following Transition to Automated Insulin Delivery: A Large Real-life Database Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To document glycemic and user-initiated bolus changes following transition from predictive low glucose suspend (PLGS) system to automated insulin delivery (AID) system during real-life use.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted analysis of 2,329,166 days (6,381 patient-years) of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin therapy data for 19,354 individuals with type 1 Diabetes, during 1-month PLGS use (Basal-IQ technology) followed by 3-month AID use (Control-IQ technology). Baseline characteristics are as follows: 55.4% female, age (median/quartiles/range) 39/19-58/1-92 years, mean ± SD glucose management indicator (GMI) 7.5 ± 0.8. Primary outcome was time in target range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes included CGM-based glycemic control metrics and frequency of user-initiated boluses.

RESULTS

Compared with PLGS, AID increased TIR on average from 58.4 to 70.5%. GMI and percent time above and below target range improved as well: from 7.5 to 7.1, 39.9 to 28.1%, and 1.66 to 1.46%, respectively; all P values <0.0001. Stratification of outcomes by age and baseline GMI revealed clinically significant differences. Glycemic improvements were most pronounced in those <18 years old (TIR improvement 14.0 percentage points) and those with baseline GMI >8.0 (TIR improvement 13.2 percentage points). User-initiated correction boluses decreased from 2.7 to 1.8 per day, while user-initiated meal boluses remained stable at 3.6 to 3.8 per day.

CONCLUSIONS

Observed in real life of >19,000 individuals with type 1 diabetes, transitions from PLGS to AID resulted in improvement of all glycemic parameters, equivalent to improvements observed in randomized clinical trials, and reduced user-initiated boluses. However, glycemic and behavioral changes with AID use may differ greatly across different demographic and clinical groups.

Switching to the Minimed™ 780G system achieves clinical targets for CGM in adults with type 1 diabetes regardless of previous insulin strategy and baseline glucose control

AIMS

Advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) systems represent the latest introduction in the treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1DM). Randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence studies showed that AHCL systems are a safe and effective insulin management strategy. Aim of this retrospective, single-center, real-life study was to evaluate the effect on metabolic control, evaluated by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics, of the switch from four available insulin strategies to an AHCL system in adult patients with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

A total of 102 patients with T1DM (mean age 42.1 ± 16.3 years, males/females 47/55, duration of diabetes 21.4 ± 13.3 years, BMI 24.4 ± 4.5 kg/m², HbA_1c 59.9 ± 9.6 mmol/mol or 7.6 ± 0.9%), treated with four different insulin therapies [multiple daily insulin (MDI) therapy, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), sensor-augmented pump (SAP) with predictive low-glucose suspend (PLGS), and hybrid closed loop (HCL) system] were evaluated before hand, two months and six months after switching to an AHCL (Minimed™ 780G system, Medtronic, Northridge, CA) system.

RESULTS

Two months after the switch, mean GCM metrics improved in all four treatment groups. Six months after the switch, the participants of all four groups achieved a mean GMI < 53 mmol/mol, TIR > 70%, TBR < 4%, and CV < 36%, which is recommended by the ADA Standard of Medical Care in Diabetes 2022, including the MDI group with worse baseline glycemic control.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to an AHCL leads to a rapid improvement in glycemic control lasting for up to six months independently of previous insulin treatment and baseline conditions.

Evaluation of real-life clinical outcomes in Australian youth with type 1 diabetes on hybrid closed-loop therapy: A retrospective study

AIM

To determine the clinical outcomes and evaluate the perspectives of children with Type 1 diabetes (T1D) and their parents managing their child on hybrid closed-loop (HCL) therapy.

METHODS

Children with T1D on HCL attending a tertiary diabetes centre between April 2019 and July 2021 were included. A retrospective analysis of glycaemic data was conducted to determine the clinical outcomes. Time spent in closed loop, time in target glucose range (TIR 3.9-10 mmol/L), hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia were collected at baseline, 4 weeks, 3 and 6 months post-HCL. User experience was assessed by questionnaires administered to parents of children with T1D.

RESULTS

Seventy-one children, mean (SD) age of 12.2 (3.2) years were commenced on HCL. Ten (14%) discontinued HCL use, with 60% discontinuing within the first 6 months. Glycaemic outcomes were analysed in 52 children. Time spent in closed loop was 78 (21) % at 4 weeks, declined to 69 (28) % at 3 months (P = 0.037) and 63 (34) % at 6 months (P = 0.001). The mean %TIR increased from 59.8 at baseline to 67.6 at 3 months and 65.6 at 6 months with a mean adjusted difference of 7.8% points [95% CI 3.6, 11.9] and 5.5% points [95% CI 1.4, 9.5], respectively. There was a reduction in time > 10 mmol/L and time < 3.9 mmol/L from baseline to 6 months. Although families faced challenges with technology, better glucose control with reduced glycaemic fluctuations were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

HCL therapy is associated with improved glycaemia; however, adequate support and education are required for best outcomes.

Hybrid closed-loop therapy with a first-generation system increases confidence and independence in diabetes management in youth with type 1 diabetes

AIM

Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) therapy improves glycaemic control in adolescents with type 1 diabetes; however, little is known about their lived experience using these systems. The aim of this study was to explore the lived experiences of youth with type 1 diabetes using HCL therapy, and their parents, to provide insight into their lived experiences.

METHODS

Adolescents and young adults aged 12-25 years, who used Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G HCL system during a 6-month randomised clinical trial, and their parents, were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview at the end of the study. Open-ended questions were used to explore the lived experiences of families using HCL. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis to determine the main themes.

RESULTS

In all, 17 young people with type 1 diabetes mean ± SD age: 17.5 ± 4.2 years, diabetes duration: 11.0 ± 4.9 years and HbA_1c 64 ± 9 mmol/mol (8.0 ± 0.8%) and 10 parents were interviewed. Three themes were identified: (1) 'Developing confidence and trust in the system', (2) 'Reduction in anxiety' and (3) 'Issues with device'. They reported a positive experience using HCL, with improvements in glucose levels and increased independence with diabetes management. However, frustration around the number of alarms and notifications associated with the system were also identified as issues.

CONCLUSION

Both youth and parents acknowledged the benefits of this first-generation HCL system in improving glycaemic outcomes and in providing flexibility and independence. These lived experiences provide valuable information in the introduction and provision of targeted education with HCL therapy.

Practical Guidance on Open Source and Commercial Automated Insulin Delivery Systems: A Guide for Healthcare Professionals Supporting People with Insulin-Requiring Diabetes

As increasing numbers of people with insulin-managed diabetes use automated insulin delivery (AID) systems or seek such technologies, healthcare providers are faced with a steep learning curve. Healthcare providers need to understand how to support these technologies to help inform shared decision making, discussing available options, implementing them in the clinical setting, and guiding users in special situations. At the same time, there is a growing diversity of commercial and open source automated insulin delivery systems that are evolving at a rapid pace. This practical guide seeks to provide a conversational framework for healthcare providers to first understand and then jointly assess AID system options with users and caregivers. Using this framework will help HCPs in learning how to evaluate potential new commercial or open source AID systems, while also providing a guide for conversations to help HCPs to assess the readiness and understanding of users for AID systems. The choice of an AID system is not as simple as whether the system is open source or commercially developed, and indeed there are multiple criteria to assess when choosing an AID system. Most importantly, the choices and preferences of the person living with diabetes should be at the center of any decision around the ideal automated insulin delivery system or any other diabetes technology. This framework highlights issues with AID use that may lead to burnout or perceived failures or may otherwise cause users to abandon the use of AID. It discusses the troubleshooting of basic AID system operation and discusses more advanced topics regarding how to maximize the time spent on AID systems, including how to optimize settings and behaviors for the best possible outcomes with AID technology for people with insulin-requiring diabetes. This practical approach article demonstrates how healthcare providers will benefit from assessing and better understanding all available AID system options to enable them to best support each individual.