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

Modifiable factors to prevent severe hypoglycaemic and diabetic ketoacidosis presentations in people with type 1 diabetes

AIMS

In tackling rising diabetes-related emergencies, the need to understand and address emergency service usage by people with type 1 diabetes is vital. This review aimed to quantify current trends in presentations for type 1 diabetes-related emergencies and identify public health strategies that reduce the frequency of diabetes-related emergencies and improve glycaemic management.

METHODS

Medline (OVID), Cochrane and CINAHL were searched for studies published between 2000 and 2023, focusing on people with type 1 diabetes, severe hypoglycaemia and/or diabetic ketoacidosis, and ambulance and/or emergency department usage. There were 1313 papers identified, with 37 publications meeting review criteria.

RESULTS

The incidence of type 1 diabetes-related emergencies varied from 2.4 to 14.6% over one year for hypoglycaemic episodes, and between 0.07 and 11.8 events per 100 person-years for hyperglycaemic episodes. Notably, our findings revealed that ongoing diabetes education and the integration of diabetes technology, such as continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump therapy, significantly reduced the incidence of these emergencies. However, socio-economic disparities posed barriers to accessing these technologies, subsequently shifting the cost to emergency healthcare and highlighting the need for governments to consider subsidising these technologies as part of preventative measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving access to continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump therapy, in combination with ongoing diabetes education focusing on symptom recognition and early management, will reduce the incidence of diabetes-related emergencies. Concurrent research assessing emergency healthcare usage patterns during the implementation of such measures is essential to ensure these are cost-effective.

Heterogeneity of glycaemic phenotypes in type 1 diabetes

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Our study aims to uncover glycaemic phenotype heterogeneity in type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

In the Study of the French-speaking Society of Type 1 Diabetes (SFDT1), we characterised glycaemic heterogeneity thanks to a set of complementary metrics: HbA1c, time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR), CV, Gold score and glycaemia risk index (GRI). Applying the Discriminative Dimensionality Reduction with Trees (DDRTree) algorithm, we created a phenotypic tree, i.e. a 2D visual mapping. We also carried out a clustering analysis for comparison.

RESULTS

We included 618 participants with type 1 diabetes (52.9% men, mean age 40.6 years [SD 14.1]). Our phenotypic tree identified seven glycaemic phenotypes. The 2D phenotypic tree comprised a main branch in the proximal region and glycaemic phenotypes in the distal areas. Dimension 1, the horizontal dimension, was positively associated with GRI (coefficient [95% CI]) (0.54 [0.52, 0.57]), HbA1c (0.39 [0.35, 0.42]), CV (0.24 [0.19, 0.28]) and TBR (0.11 [0.06, 0.15]), and negatively with TIR (-0.52 [-0.54, -0.49]). The vertical dimension was positively associated with TBR (0.41 [0.38, 0.44]), CV (0.40 [0.37, 0.43]), TIR (0.16 [0.12, 0.20]), Gold score (0.10 [0.06, 0.15]) and GRI (0.06 [0.02, 0.11]), and negatively with HbA1c (-0.21 [-0.25, -0.17]). Notably, socioeconomic factors, cardiovascular risk indicators, retinopathy and treatment strategy were significant determinants of glycaemic phenotype diversity. The phenotypic tree enabled more granularity than traditional clustering in revealing clinically relevant subgroups of people with type 1 diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Our study advances the current understanding of the complex glycaemic profile in people with type 1 diabetes and suggests that strategies based on isolated glycaemic metrics might not capture the complexity of the glycaemic phenotypes in real life. Relying on these phenotypes could improve patient stratification in type 1 diabetes care and personalise disease management.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

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, an interprofessional 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.

One-year follow-up comparison of two hybrid closed-loop systems in Italian children and adults with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Tandem Control-IQ and MiniMed 780G are the main Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop (AHCL) systems currently available in pediatric and adult patients with Type 1 Diabetes (T1D). The aim of our study was to evaluate glycemic control after 1-year of follow-up extending our previous study of 1-month comparison between the two systems.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared clinical and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data from the patients included in the previous study which have completed 1-year observation period. The study population consisted of 74 patients, 42 Minimed 780G users and 32 Tandem Control-IQ users. Linear mixed models with random intercept were performed to study the variations over time and the interaction between time and system; Mann-Whitney or T-test were used to compare systems at 1-year.

RESULTS

Both systems have been shown to be effective in maintaining the glycemic improvement achieved one month after starting AHCL. Significant changes over time were observed for TIR, TAR, TAR>250mg/dl, average glucose levels and SD (p<0.001). At 1-year follow-up Minimed 780G obtained better improvement in TIR (p<0.001), TAR (p=0.002), TAR>250mg/dl (p=0.001), average glucose levels (p<0.001). The comparison of the glycemic parameters at 1-year showed a significant superiority of Minimed 780G in terms of TIR (71% vs 68%; p=0.001), TAR (p=0.001), TAR>250 (p=0.009), average glucose levels(p=0.001) and SD (p=0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of AHCL systems led to a significant improvement of glycemic control at 1-month, which is maintained at 1-year follow-up. MiniMed is more effective than Tandem in reaching the International recommended glycemic targets. Continuous training and education in the use of technology is essential to get the best out of the most advanced technological tools.