Randomised controlled trial of Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop in an Adult Population with Type 1 Diabetes (ADAPT): study protocol and rationale

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

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

A European Cost-Utility Analysis of the MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Versus Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring with Multiple Daily Insulin Injections in People Living with Type 1 Diabetes

Background: Advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) automated insulin delivery systems are the most effective therapy in terms of assisting people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to achieve glycemic targets; however, the cost can represent a barrier to uptake. In this study, a cost-utility analysis of the MiniMed™ 780G AHCL system (MM780G) versus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (is-CGM) plus multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) in people with T1D not achieving glycemic goals was performed across six European countries. Methods: Clinical input data were sourced from the ADAPT trial. Assuming a baseline HbA1c of 9.04%, HbA1c reductions of 1.54% for AHCL and 0.2% for is-CGM+MDI were modeled. The analyses were performed from a payer perspective over a time horizon of 40 years and an annual discount rate of 3% was applied. Results: Across all countries, the use of AHCL was projected to result in an incremental gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy of >2 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus is-CGM+MDI. Lifetime direct costs were higher with AHCL resulting in incremental cost-utility ratios for AHCL versus is-CGM+MDI ranging from EUR 11,765 per QALY gained in Austria to EUR 43,963 per QALY gained in Italy. Conclusions: For people with T1D managed with is-CGM+MDI not achieving glycemic targets, initiation of the MM780G system was projected to improve long-term clinical outcomes; however, due to differences in health care costs between countries, the health economic outcomes differed. In all included countries, AHCL is likely to be cost-effective relative to is-CGM+MDI for people not achieving glycemic goals with is-CGM+MDI. The ADAPT trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04235504.

Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop in Adult Population With Type 1 Diabetes: A Substudy From the ADAPT Randomized Controlled Trial in Users of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring

BACKGROUND

This analysis reports the findings from a predefined exploratory cohort (cohort B) from the ADAPT (ADvanced Hybrid Closed Loop Study in Adult Population with Type 1 Diabetes) study. Adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) with suboptimal glucose control were randomly allocated to an advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system or multiple daily injections of insulin (MDI) plus real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM).

METHODS

In this prospective, multicenter, exploratory, open-label, randomized controlled trial, 13 participants using MDI + RT-CGM and with HbA1c ≥8.0% were randomized to switch to AHCL (n = 8) or continue with MDI + RT-CGM (n = 5) for six months. Prespecified endpoints included the between-group difference in mean change from baseline in HbA1c, CGM-derived measures of glycemic control, and safety.

RESULTS

The mean HbA1c level decreased by 1.70 percentage points in the AHCL group versus a 0.60 percentage point decrease in the MDI + RT-CGM group, with a model-based treatment effect of -1.08 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.17 to 0.00 percentage points; P = .0508) in favor of AHCL. The percentage of time spent with sensor glucose levels between 70 and 180 mg/dL in the study phase was 73.6% in the AHCL group and 46.4% in the MDI + RT-CGM group; model-based between-group difference of 28.8 percentage points (95% CI = 12.3 to 45.3 percentage points; P = .0035). No diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

In people with T1D with HbA1c ≥8.0%, the use of AHCL resulted in improved glycemic control relative to MDI + RT-CGM. The scale of improvement suggests that AHCL should be considered as an option for people not achieving good glycemic control on MDI + RT-CGM.

Advances in Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Integrated Devices for Management of Diabetes with Insulin-Based Therapy: Improvement in Glycemic Control

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology has evolved over the past decade with the integration of various devices including insulin pumps, connected insulin pens (CIPs), automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, and virtual platforms. CGM has shown consistent benefits in glycemic outcomes in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with insulin. Moreover, the combined effect of CGM and education have been shown to improve glycemic outcomes more than CGM alone. Now a CIP is the expected future technology that does not need to be worn all day like insulin pumps and helps to calculate insulin doses with a built-in bolus calculator. Although only a few clinical trials have assessed the effectiveness of CIPs, they consistently show benefits in glycemic outcomes by reducing missed doses of insulin and improving problematic adherence. AID systems and virtual platforms made it possible to achieve target glycosylated hemoglobin in diabetes while minimizing hypoglycemia, which has always been challenging in T1DM. Now fully automatic AID systems and tools for diabetes decisions based on artificial intelligence are in development. These advances in technology could reduce the burden associated with insulin treatment for diabetes.

Advanced hybrid closed loop therapy versus conventional treatment in adults with type 1 diabetes (ADAPT): a randomised controlled study

BACKGROUND

Adults with type 1 diabetes who are treated with multiple daily injections of insulin plus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) can have suboptimal glucose control. We aimed to assess the efficacy of an advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system compared with such therapy in this population.

METHODS

The Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop Study in Adult Population with Type 1 Diabetes (ADAPT) trial is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial that involved 14 centres in three European countries (France, Germany, and the UK). We enrolled patients who were at least 18 years of age, had a type 1 diabetes duration of at least 2 years, HbA_1c of at least 8% (64 mmol/mol), and were using multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM (cohort A) or real time continuous glucose monitoring (cohort B) for at least 3 months. Here, only results for cohort A are reported. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to AHCL therapy or continuation of multiple daily injections of insulin plus continuous glucose monitoring for 6 months with an investigator-blinded block randomisation procedure. Participants and treating clinicians could not be masked to the arm assignment. The primary endpoint was the between-group difference in mean HbA_1c change from baseline to 6 months in the intention-to-treat population using AHCL therapy and those using multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM. The primary endpoint was analysed using a repeated measures random-effects model with the study arm and period as factors. Safety endpoints included the number of device deficiencies, severe hypoglycaemic events, diabetic ketoacidosis, and serious adverse events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04235504.

FINDINGS

Between July 13, 2020, and March 12, 2021, 105 people were screened and 82 randomly assigned to treatment (41 in each arm). At 6 months, mean HbA_1c had decreased by 1·54% (SD 0·73), from 9·00% to 7·32% in the AHCL group and 0·20% (0·80) in the multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM from 9·07% to 8·91% (model-based difference -1·42%, 95% CI -1·74 to -1·10; p<0·0001). No diabetic ketoacidosis, severe hypoglycaemia, or serious adverse events related to study devices occurred in either group; two severe hypoglycaemic events occurred in the run-in phase. 15 device-related non-serious adverse events occurred in the AHCL group, compared with three in the multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM group. Two serious adverse events occurred (one in each group), these were breast cancer (in one patient in the AHCL group) and intravitreous haemorrhage (in one patient in the multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM group).

INTERPRETATION

In people with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM and with HbA_1c of at least 8%, the use of AHCL confers benefits in terms of glycaemic control beyond those that can be achieved with multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM. These data support wider access to AHCL in people with type 1 diabetes not at target glucose levels.

FUNDING

Medtronic International Trading Sàrl.