Adolescents' and their parents' experiences of using a closed-loop system to manage type 1 diabetes in everyday life: qualitative study

Improving equity in diabetes technology use: Voices of youth and their parents

AIMS

There are marked inequities in clinical outcomes and rates of diabetes technology use among youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). The quantitative data from our mixed methods cohort study identified significant improvements in glycaemia and quality of life in participants. We aimed to use qualitative methods to provide further insight into our quantitative findings in the setting of underlying health disparities.

METHODS

Fifteen publicly insured, insulin pump-naïve non-Hispanic Black youth aged 6-21 years with T1D and baseline haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥86 mmol/mol (10%) and their parents participated in a mixed methods cohort study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted separately with parents and youth after completion of 6 months of HCL use. Three topic areas were explored: (1) Experience using HCL, (2) barriers to HCL and (3) facilitators to accessing HCL. Semantic content analysis and consensus coding involving two team members were used to generate themes. Thematic saturation was achieved.

RESULTS

Youth (Medianage 14.9 years, 67% female) and parents (92% female) were interviewed. Youth and their parents reported that access to HCL provides a new outlook on living with T1D, although managing T1D is still hard. They felt that diabetes technology is most helpful for those struggling with management. Participants experienced barriers to access including misconceptions of HCL systems, clinician bias and systemic racism. They suggested these barriers can be overcome by offering diabetes technology education for all people with T1D, increasing awareness of HCL in the community and providing resources to overcome barriers created by social determinants of health.

CONCLUSIONS

The voices of historically minoritised youth with suboptimal T1D control and their parents provide important, previously unreported experiences and perspectives on barriers and facilitators to using HCL that will shape interventions to improve equity in access to diabetes technology.

The role of automated insulin delivery technology in diabetes

The role of automated insulin delivery systems in diabetes is expanding. Hybrid closed-loop systems are being used in routine clinical practice for treating people with type 1 diabetes. Encouragingly, real-world data reflects the performance and usability observed in clinical trials. We review the commercially available hybrid closed-loop systems, their distinctive features and the associated real-world data. We also consider emerging indications for closed-loop systems, including the treatment of type 2 diabetes where variability of day-to-day insulin requirements is high, and other challenging applications for this technology. We discuss issues around access and implementation of closed-loop technology, and consider the limitations of present closed-loop systems, as well as innovative approaches that are being evaluated to improve their performance.

Use of diabetes technology in children

Children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers face numerous challenges navigating the unpredictability of this complex disease. Although the burden of managing diabetes remains significant, new technology has eased some of the load and allowed children with type 1 diabetes to achieve tighter glycaemic management without fear of excess hypoglycaemia. Continuous glucose monitor use alone improves outcomes and is considered standard of care for paediatric type 1 diabetes management. Similarly, automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have proven to be safe and effective for children as young as 2 years of age. AID use improves not only blood glucose levels but also quality of life for children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers and should be strongly considered for all youth with type 1 diabetes if available and affordable. Here, we review key data on the use of diabetes technology in the paediatric population and discuss management issues unique to children and adolescents.

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.

Effect of 48 Months of Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery on Residual C-Peptide Secretion and Glycemic Control in Newly Diagnosed Youth With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the effect of long-term intensive metabolic control with hybrid closed-loop (CL) on residual C-peptide secretion and glucose control compared with standard insulin therapy in youth with type 1 diabetes over 48 months.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Following the 24-month primary phase of a multicenter, randomized, parallel trial of 96 newly diagnosed youth aged 10 to 16.9 years, participants were invited to an extension phase using treatment allocated at randomization. They continued with hybrid CL using the Cambridge algorithm or standard insulin therapy (control) until 48 months after diagnosis. Analysis was by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

At 24 months after diagnosis, 81 participants (mean ± SD age 14 ± 2 years) continued in the extension phase (47 CL, 34 control). There was no difference in fasting C-peptide corrected for fasting glucose at 48 months between groups (CL: 5 ± 9 vs. control: 6 ± 14 pmol/L per mmol/L; mean adjusted difference -2 [95% CI -7, 4; P = 0.54]). Central laboratory HbA1c remained lower in the CL group by 0.9% (10 mmol/mol [95% CI 0.2, 1.5; 3, 17 mmol/mol); P = 0.009). Time in target range of 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L was 12 percentage points (95% CI 3, 20; P = 0.008) higher in the CL group compared with control. There were 11 severe hypoglycemic events (6 CL, 5 control) and 7 diabetic ketoacidosis events (3 CL, 4 control) during the extension phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved glycemic control was sustained over 48 months after diagnosis with CL insulin delivery compared with standard therapy in youth with type 1 diabetes. This did not appear to confer a protective effect on residual C-peptide secretion.

Lived Experience of Fully Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Introduction: The Closing the Loop in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes (CLEAR) randomized crossover study compared a novel fully closed-loop insulin delivery system with no carbohydrate entry or mealtime bolusing (CamAPS HX), with standard insulin pump therapy and glucose sensor in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic outcomes. This qualitative substudy aimed to understand the psychosocial impact of using the fully automated system. Materials and Methods: Adults participating in the CLEAR study were invited to take part in a virtual semistructured interview after they had completed 8 weeks using the fully closed-loop system. Recruitment continued until there was adequate representation and data saturation occurred. Interviews were anonymized and transcribed for in-depth thematic analysis using an inductive-deductive approach. Study participants were also asked to complete questionnaires assessing diabetes distress, hypoglycemia confidence, and closed-loop treatment satisfaction. Results: Eleven participants (eight male and three female; age range 26-66 years) were interviewed. After an initial adjustment period, interviewees reported enjoying a reduction in diabetes burden, freed-up mental capacity, and improved mood. All were happy with overnight glycemic outcomes, with the majority reporting benefits on sleep. Although experiences of postprandial glucose outcomes varied, all found mealtimes easier and less stressful, particularly when eating out. Negatives raised by participants predominantly related to the insulin pump hardware, but some also reported increased snacking and challenges around resuming carbohydrate counting at trial closeout. Conclusions: In adults with type 1 diabetes, use of a fully closed-loop insulin delivery system had significant quality-of-life benefits and provided a welcome break from the day-to-day demands of living with diabetes. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04977908.

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.

Does Insulin Delivery Technology Change Our Relationship with Foods? A Scoping Review

Introduction: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems reduce burden and improve glycemic management for people with type 1 diabetes (PwT1D) by automatically adjusting insulin as a response to measured glucose levels. There is a lack of evidence on AID and nutrition variables such as dietary intake, eating behaviors, and disordered eating. Objectives: This scoping review aims to provide a summary of the literature regarding AID and nutrition variables and to identify gaps that require further investigation. Methods: Two researchers conducted a blinded search of Medline (OVID) and PubMed for studies, including AID use (compared to non-AID use) and nutrition variables. Studies from January 2000 to July 2023 were included, as were PwT1D of all ages. Results: A total of 3132 articles were screened for appropriateness. After exclusions, 7 studies were included (2017-2023): 4 qualitative, 1 crossover, 1 randomized controlled, and 1 observational. Studies included adolescents (n = 1), adults (n = 3) or both (n = 2), and all ages (n = 1). In quantitative studies, AID was associated with lower eating distress (-0.43 ± 0.12, P = 0.004) and higher quality of life (3.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.8-5.4, P = 0.01), but not grams of carbohydrates at meals (1.0; 95% CI: -0.7 to 3.0; P = 0.24) and snacks (0.004; 95% CI: -0.8 to 0.8; P = 0.99) compared to non-AID use. In qualitative studies, AID increased the frequency and portions of food intake and led to less dietary control from parents. AID users reported eating foods higher in energy density. PwT1D were less worried about achieving accurate carbohydrate counting (CC) when using AID. Conclusions: AID use appears to influence eating behaviors, dietary patterns, and CC, although evidence was limited. AID may reduce food management burden due to the perception that AID can correct for CC inaccuracy. Significance: Further research needs to determine if AID allows for simplification of CC and improves eating behaviors while maintaining glycemic stability.

Listening to Women: Experiences of Using Closed-Loop in Type 1 Diabetes Pregnancy

Introduction: Recent high-profile calls have emphasized that women's experiences should be considered in maternity care provisioning. We explored women's experiences of using closed-loop during type 1 diabetes (T1D) pregnancy to inform decision-making about antenatal rollout and guidance and support given to future users. Methods: We interviewed 23 closed-loop participants in the Automated insulin Delivery Among Pregnant women with T1D (AiDAPT) trial after randomization to closed-loop and ∼20 weeks later. Data were analyzed thematically. Results: Women described how closed-loop lessened the physical and mental demands of diabetes management, enabling them to feel more normal and sleep better. By virtue of spending increased time-in-range, women also worried less about risks to their baby and being judged negatively by health care professionals. Most noted that intensive input and support during early pregnancy had been crucial to adjusting to, and developing confidence in, the technology. Women emphasized that attaining pregnancy glucose targets still required ongoing effort from themselves and the health care team. Women described needing education to help them determine when, and how, to intervene and when to allow the closed-loop to operate without interference. All women reported more enjoyable pregnancy experiences as a result of using closed-loop; some also noted being able to remain longer in paid employment. Conclusions: Study findings endorse closed-loop use in T1D pregnancy by highlighting how the technology can facilitate positive pregnancy experiences. To realize fully the benefits of closed-loop, pregnant women would benefit from initial intensive oversight and support together with closed-loop specific education and training. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04938557.

Fully Closed-Loop Glucose Control Compared With Insulin Pump Therapy With Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes and Suboptimal Glycemic Control: A Single-Center, Randomized, Crossover Study

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control compared with insulin pump therapy with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This single-center, randomized, crossover study enrolled 26 adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin pump therapy with suboptimal glycemic control (mean ± SD, age 41 ± 12 years, HbA1c 9.2 ± 1.1% [77 ± 12 mmol/mol]). Participants underwent two 8-week periods of unrestricted living to compare fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro (CamAPS HX system) with insulin pump therapy with CGM in random order.

RESULTS

In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time glucose was in range (primary end point 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was higher during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD 50.0 ± 9.6% vs. 36.2 ± 12.2%, mean difference 13.2 percentage points [95% CI 9.5, 16.9], P < 0.001). Time with glucose >10.0 mmol/L and mean glucose were lower during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD time >10.0 mmol/L: 49.0 ± 9.9 vs. 62.9 ± 12.6%, mean difference -13.3 percentage points [95% CI -17.2, -9.5], P < 0.001; mean ± SD glucose 10.7 ± 1.1 vs. 12.0 ± 1.6 mmol/L, mean difference -1.2 mmol/L [95% CI -1.8, -0.7], P < 0.001). The proportion of time with glucose <3.9 mmol/L was similar between periods (median [interquartile range (IQR)] closed-loop 0.88% [0.51-1.55] vs. pump with CGM 0.64% [0.28-1.10], P = 0.102). Total daily insulin requirements did not differ (median [IQR] closed-loop 51.9 units/day [35.7-91.2] vs. pump with CGM 50.7 units/day [34.0-70.0], P = 0.704). No severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Fully closed-loop insulin delivery with CamAPS HX improved glucose control compared with insulin pump therapy with CGM in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control.

A Skin Care Program to Prevent Skin Problems due to Diabetes Devices in Children and Adolescents: A Cluster-Controlled Intervention Study

OBJECTIVE

Diabetes devices that deliver insulin and measure blood glucose levels are cornerstones in modern treatment of type 1 diabetes. However, their use is frequently associated with the development of skin problems, particularly eczema and wounds. Proper skin care may prevent skin problems, yet evidence-based information from interventional studies is missing. Providing this information is the aim of this study.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This cluster-controlled intervention study tested the efficacy of a basic skin care program (including use of lipid cream, removal, and avoidance of disinfection). A total of 170 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes were included and assigned either to the intervention group (n = 112) or the control group (n = 58). Participants were seen quarterly the first year after device initiation, with clinical assessment and interview in an unblinded setting.

RESULTS

Eczema or wounds were observed in 33.6% of the intervention group compared with 46.6% of control participants (absolute difference, 12.9% [95% CI -28.7%, 2.9%]; P = 0.10). The adjusted odds of wound development were decreased by 71% in the intervention compared with control group (for wounds, odds ratio 0.29 [95% CI 0.12, 0.68]; P = 0.005). In total, only eight infections were seen, without a higher frequency in the intervention group, despite advice to omit disinfection.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate our basic skin care program partially prevented diabetes device-induced skin reactions. However, more preventive strategies with other adhesives, patches, and/or types of lotions are needed for optimized prevention.

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.

Healthcare professionals' views about how pregnant women can benefit from using a closed-loop system: Qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Interest is growing in how closed-loop systems can support attainment of within-target glucose levels amongst pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. We explored healthcare professionals' views about how, and why, pregnant women benefitted from using the CamAPS FX system during the AiDAPT trial.

METHODS

We interviewed 19 healthcare professionals who supported women using closed-loop during the trial. Our analysis focused on identifying descriptive and analytical themes relevant to clinical practice.

RESULTS

Healthcare professionals highlighted clinical and quality-of-life benefits to using closed-loop in pregnancy; albeit, they attributed some of these to the continuous glucose monitoring component. They emphasised that the closed-loop was not a panacea and that, to gain maximum benefit, an effective collaboration between themselves, the woman and the closed-loop was needed. Optimal performance of the technology, as they further noted, also required women to interact with the system sufficiently, but not excessively; a requirement that they felt some women had found challenging. Even where healthcare professionals felt that this balance was not achieved, they suggested that women had still benefitted from using the system. Healthcare professionals reported difficulties predicting how specific women would engage with the technology. In light of their trial experiences, healthcare professionals favoured an inclusive approach to closed-loop rollout in routine clinical care.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare professionals recommended that closed-loop systems be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes in the future. Presenting closed-loop systems to pregnant women and healthcare teams as one pillar of a three-party collaboration may help promote optimal use.

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

AIM

To examine changes in the lived experience of type 1 diabetes after use of hybrid closed loop (CL), including the CamAPS FX CL system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The primary study was conducted as an open-label, single-period, randomized, parallel design contrasting CL versus insulin pump (with or without continuous glucose monitoring). Participants were asked to complete patient-reported outcomes before starting CL and 3 and 6 months later. Surveys assessed diabetes distress, hypoglycaemia concerns and quality of life. Qualitative focus group data were collected at the completion of the study.

RESULTS

In this sample of 98 youth (age range 6-18, mean age 12.7 ± 2.8 years) and their parents, CL use was not associated with psychosocial benefits overall. However, the subgroup (n = 12) using the CamAPS FX system showed modest improvements in quality of life and parent distress, reinforced by both survey (p < .05) and focus group responses. There were no negative effects of CL use reported by study participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Closed loop use via the CamAPS FX system was associated with modest improvements in aspects of the lived experience of managing type 1 diabetes in youth and their families. Further refinements of the system may optimize the user experience.

Closed-loop insulin delivery: update on the state of the field and emerging technologies

INTRODUCTION

Over the last five years, closed-loop insulin delivery systems have transitioned from research-only to real-life use. A number of systems have been commercialized and are increasingly used in clinical practice. Given the rapidity of new developments in the field, understanding the capabilities and key similarities and differences of current systems can be challenging. This review aims to provide an update on the state of the field of closed-loop insulin delivery systems, including emerging technologies.

AREAS COVERED

We summarize key clinical safety and efficacy evidence of commercial and emerging insulin-only hybrid closed-loop systems for type 1 diabetes. A literature search was conducted and clinical trials using closed-loop systems during free-living conditions were identified to report on safety and efficacy data. We comment on emerging technologies and adjuncts for closed-loop systems, as well as non-technological priorities in closed-loop insulin delivery.

EXPERT OPINION

Commercial hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems are efficacious, consistently improving glycemic control when compared to standard therapy. Challenges remain in widespread adoption due to clinical inertia and the lack of resources to embrace technological developments by health care professionals.

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.

Qualitative Study of User Experiences with Loop, an Open-Source Automated Insulin Delivery System

Background: Loop is an open-source automated insulin delivery (AID) system, used by more than 9,000 people with type 1 diabetes. Understanding the pros and cons of Loop use may help improve disease management and support population level innovation. Methods: Focus groups revealed 72 new and existing users' perspectives on Loop uptake, use, and persistence. A subsample of participants from a mixed-methods, observational cohort study shared first-hand accounts of their experiences using Loop. Participants were predominately white (95%), male (50%), privately insured (94%), and reported annual household income ≥$100K (73%) and education exceeding a bachelor's degree (87%) with a mean HbA1c of 6.6% ± 0.8%. Data were analyzed and synthesized by a multidisciplinary team. Results: Participants detailed their experiences with (1) Loop technical support and troubleshooting, (2) decreased mental/behavioral burden, (3) technical issues with parts of the system, (4) glycemic control, (5) personalizing settings, and (6) providers while using Loop. Decreased burden was the most endorsed benefit defined by less worry, stress, and cognitive effort and less time spent on diabetes management tasks. Participants highlighted the benefits of Loop overnight and their introduction to "Loop communities" during use. The most discussed challenges involved technical issues. A range of provider attitudes and knowledge about Loop complicated users' clinical experiences and disclosure. Conclusions: This sample of new and experienced Loop users reported benefits to quality of life and glycemic control that outweighed challenges of setting up system components, customizing the system to suit one's lifestyle and habits, and adjusting system settings. Challenges related to system setup and calibrating settings are remediable and, if addressed, may better serve Loop users. Users reported feeling empowered by the customizability of and the educational effects facilitated by the open-source AID system. Loop helped users learn more about their chronic illness and physiology in an acceptable format. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03838900.

The Psychological Implications of Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in Type 1 Diabetes Care

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have brought important glycemic benefits to type 1 diabetes management. The present paper provides an overview of their psychological implications. Trials and real-world observational studies report improvements in diabetes-specific quality of life, with qualitative work describing reduced management burden, increased flexibility and improved relationships. Not all experiences are positive, however, evidenced by dropping algorithm use soon after device initiation. Apart from finance and logistics, reasons for discontinuation include technology frustrations, wear-related issues and unmet glycemic and work load expectations. New challenges include distrust in proper AID functioning, overreliance and deskilling, compensatory behaviors to override or trick the system and optimize time in range, and concerns related to wearing multiple devices on the body. Research efforts may focus on incorporating a diversity perspective, updating existing person-reported outcome measures according to new technology developments, addressing implicit or explicit health professional bias in technology access, examining the merits of incorporating stress reactivity in the AID algorithm, and developing concrete approaches for psychological counseling and support related to technology use. An open dialogue with health professionals and peers about expectations, preferences and needs may foster the collaboration between the person with diabetes and the AID system.

Parents' experiences of using a hybrid closed-loop system (CamAPS FX) to care for a very young child with type 1 diabetes: Qualitative study

AIMS

To explore parents' experiences of using a hybrid closed-loop system (CamAPS FX) when caring for a very young child (aged 1-7 years) with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

Interviews with n = 33 parents of 30 children who used the system during a randomised controlled trial. Data analysis used a descriptive thematic approach.

RESULTS

While some parents were initially reticent about handing control to the system, all reported clinical benefits to using the technology, having to do less diabetes-related work and needing less clinical input over time. Parents welcomed opportunities to enhance the system's efficacy (using Ease-off and Boost functions) as required. Parents described how the system's automated glucose control facilitated more normality, including sleeping better, worrying less about their child, and feeling more confident and able to outsource care. Parents also described more normality for the child (alongside better sleep, mood and concentration, and lessened distress) and siblings. Parents liked being able to administer insulin using a smartphone, but suggested refinements to device size and functionality.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a hybrid closed-loop system in very young children can facilitate greater normality and may result in a lessened demand for health professionals' input. Systems may need to be customised for very young children.

Recent advances in closed-loop insulin delivery

Since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago, we have seen considerable advances across diabetes therapies. The more recent advent of glucose-responsive automated insulin delivery has started to revolutionise the management of type 1 diabetes in children and adults. Evolution of closed-loop insulin delivery from research to clinical practice has been rapid, and multiple systems are now commercially available. In this review, we summarise key evidence on currently available closed-loop systems and those in development. We comment on dual-hormone and do-it-yourself systems, as well as reviewing clinical evidence in special populations such as very young children, older adults and in pregnancy. We identify future directions for research and barriers to closed-loop adoption, including how these might be addressed to ensure equitable access to this novel therapy.

Adolescents' Experiences of Using a Smartphone Application Hosting a Closed-loop Algorithm to Manage Type 1 Diabetes in Everyday Life: Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Closed-loop technology may help address health disparities experienced by adolescents, who are more likely to have suboptimal glycemic control than other age groups and, because of their age, find diabetes self-management particularly challenging. The CamAPS FX closed-loop has sought to address accessibility and usability issues reported by users of previous prototype systems. It comprises small components and a smartphone app used to: announce meal-time boluses, adjust ("boost" or "ease-off") closed-loop insulin delivery, customize alarms, and review/share data. We explored how using the CamAPS FX platform influences adolescents' self-management practices and everyday lives.

METHODS

Eighteen adolescents were interviewed after having ≥6 months experience using the closed-loop platform. Data were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Participants reported feeling less burdened and shackled by diabetes because closed-loop components were easier to carry/wear, finger-pricks were not required, the smartphone app provided a discreet and less stigmatizing way of managing diabetes in public, and they were able to customize alarms. Participants also reported checking and reviewing data more regularly, because they did so when using the smartphone for other reasons. Some reported challenges in school settings where use of personal phones was restricted. Participants highlighted how self-management practices were improved because they could easily review glucose data and adjust closed-loop insulin delivery using the "boost" and "ease-off" functions. Some described how using the system resulted in them forgetting about diabetes and neglecting certain tasks.

CONCLUSIONS

A closed-loop system with small components and control algorithm on a smartphone app can enhance usability and acceptability for adolescents and may help address the health-related disparities experienced by this age group. However, challenges can arise from using a medical app on a device which doubles as a smartphone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Closed Loop From Onset in Type 1 Diabetes (CLOuD); NCT02871089; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02871089.

Benefits and Challenges of Current Closed-Loop Technologies in Children and Young People With Type 1 Diabetes

Recent advances in diabetes technology have led to the development of closed-loop insulin delivery systems for the management of type 1 diabetes. Several such systems are now commercially available for children and young people. While all available systems have been shown to improve glycaemic control and quality of life in this population, qualitative data also highlights the challenges in using closed-loop systems, which vary among different pediatric age-groups. Very young children require systems that are able to cope with low insulin doses and significant glycaemic variability due to their high insulin sensitivity and unpredictable eating and exercise patterns. Adolescents' compliance is often related to size and number of devices, usability of the systems, need for calibrations, and their ability to interact with the system. Given the speed of innovations, understanding the capabilities and key similarities and differences of current systems can be challenging for healthcare professionals, caregivers and young people with type 1 diabetes alike. The aim of this review is to summarize the key evidence on currently available closed-loop systems for children and young people with type 1 diabetes, as well as commenting on user experience, where real-world data are available. We present findings on a system-basis, as well as identifying specific challenges in different pediatric age-groups and commenting on how current systems might address these. Finally, we identify areas for future research with regards to closed-loop technology tailored for pediatric use and how these might inform reimbursement and alleviate disease burden.