Home Use of Day-and-Night Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Very Young Children: A Multicenter, 3-Week, Randomized Trial

Demographic, Clinical, Management, and Outcome Characteristics of 8,004 Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To compare demographic, clinical, and therapeutic characteristics of children with type 1 diabetes age <6 years across three international registries: Diabetes Prospective Follow-Up Registry (DPV; Europe), T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Network (T1DX-QI; U.S.), and Australasian Diabetes Data Network (ADDN; Australasia).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

An analysis was conducted comparing 2019-2021 prospective registry data from 8,004 children.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD ages at diabetes diagnosis were 3.2 ± 1.4 (DPV and ADDN) and 3.7 ± 1.8 years (T1DX-QI). Mean ± SD diabetes durations were 1.4 ± 1.3 (DPV), 1.4 ± 1.6 (T1DX-QI), and 1.5 ± 1.3 years (ADDN). BMI z scores were in the overweight range in 36.2% (DPV), 41.8% (T1DX-QI), and 50.0% (ADDN) of participants. Mean ± SD HbA1c varied among registries: DPV 7.3 ± 0.9% (56 ± 10 mmol/mol), T1DX-QI 8.0 ± 1.4% (64 ± 16 mmol/mol), and ADDN 7.7 ± 1.2% (61 ± 13 mmol/mol). Overall, 37.5% of children achieved the target HbA1c of <7.0% (53 mmol/mol): 43.6% in DPV, 25.5% in T1DX-QI, and 27.5% in ADDN. Use of diabetes technologies such as insulin pump (DPV 86.6%, T1DX 46.6%, and ADDN 39.2%) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM; DPV 85.1%, T1DX-QI 57.6%, and ADDN 70.5%) varied among registries. Use of hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems was uncommon (from 0.5% [ADDN] to 6.9% [DPV]).

CONCLUSIONS

Across three major registries, more than half of children age <6 years did not achieve the target HbA1c of <7.0% (53 mmol/mol). CGM was used by most participants, whereas insulin pump use varied across registries, and HCL system use was rare. The differences seen in glycemia and use of diabetes technologies among registries require further investigation to determine potential contributing factors and areas to target to improve the care of this vulnerable group.

Impact of continuous glucose monitoring on everyday life of young children with type 1 diabetes and their parents: An evaluation of 114 families

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of type 1 diabetes is increasing worldwide. The advent of new monitoring devices has enabled tighter glycemic control.

AIM

To study the impact of glucose monitoring devices on the everyday life of young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and their parents.

METHODS

A questionnaire was addressed to parents of children with T1D under the age of 6 years with an insulin pump treated in one of the hospitals of the ADIM network in France between January and July 2020.

RESULTS

Among the 114 families included in the study, 53% of parents (26/49) woke up every night to monitor blood glucose levels when their child had flash glucose monitoring (FGM), compared with 23% (13/56) of those whose child had continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Overall, 81% of parents (86/108) found that glucose monitoring improved their own sleep and parents whose child had CGM were significantly more likely to report improved sleep (86% vs 73%, p = 0.006). Forty-nine percent of parents (55/113) declared that they (in 87% of cases, the mother only) had reduced their working hours or stopped working following their child's T1D diagnosis. Maternal unemployment was significantly associated with the presence of siblings (p = 0.001) but not with glycemic control (p = 0,87). Ninety-eight percent of parents (105/107) think that glucose monitoring improves school integration.

CONCLUSION

In these families of children with T1D, new diabetes technologies reduced the burden of care but sleep disruption remained common. Social needs evaluation, particularly of mothers, is important at initial diagnosis of T1D in children.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

IMPACT

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

Comparison of Control-IQ and open-source AndroidAPS automated insulin delivery systems in adults with type 1 diabetes: The CODIAC study

AIM

To compare open-source AndroidAPS (AAPS) and commercially available Control-IQ (CIQ) automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in a prospective, open-label, single-arm clinical trial.

METHODS

Adults with type 1 diabetes who had been using AAPS by their own decision entered the first 3-month AAPS phase then were switched to CIQ for 3 months. The results of this treatment were compared with those after the 3-month AAPS phase. The primary endpoint was the change in time in range (% TIR; 70-80 mg/dL).

RESULTS

Twenty-five people with diabetes (mean age 34.32 ± 11.07 years; HbA1c 6.4% ± 3%) participated in this study. CIQ was comparable with AAPS in achieving TIR (85.72% ± 7.64% vs. 84.24% ± 8.46%; P = .12). Similarly, there were no differences in percentage time above range (> 180 and > 250 mg/dL), mean sensor glucose (130.3 ± 13.9 vs. 128.3 ± 16.9 mg/dL; P = .21) or HbA1c (6.3% ± 2.1% vs. 6.4% ± 3.1%; P = .59). Percentage time below range (< 70 and < 54 mg/dL) was significantly lower using CIQ than AAPS. Even although participants were mostly satisfied with CIQ (63.6% mostly agreed, 9.1% strongly agreed), they did not plan to switch to CIQ.

CONCLUSIONS

The CODIAC study is the first prospective study investigating the switch between open-source and commercially available AID systems. CIQ and AAPS were comparable in achieving TIR. However, hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with CIQ.

MiniMed 780G™ advanced hybrid closed-loop system performance in Egyptian patients with type 1 diabetes across different age groups: evidence from real-world users

BACKGROUND

Advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system provides both automated basal rate and correction boluses to keep glycemic values in a target range.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the real-world performance of the MiniMed™ 780G system among different age groups of Egyptian patients with type 1diabetes.

METHODS

One-hundred seven AHCL system users aged from 3 to 71 years were enrolled. Data uploaded by patients were aggregated and analyzed. The mean glucose management indicator (GMI), percentage of time spent within glycemic ranges (TIR), time below range (TBR) and time above range (TAR) were determined.

RESULTS

Six months after initiating Auto Mode, patients spent a mean of 85.31 ± 22.04% of the time in Auto Mode (SmartGuard) and achieved a mean GMI of 6.95 ± 0.58% compared with 7.9 ± 2.1% before AHCL initiation (p < 0.001). TIR 70-180 mg/dL was increased post-AHCL initiation from 63.48 ± 10.14% to 81.54 ± 8.43% (p < 0.001) while TAR 180-250 mg/dL, TAR > 250 mg/dL, TBR < 70 mg/dL and TBR < 54 mg/dL were significantly decreased (p < 0.001). After initiating AHCL, TIR was greater in children and adults compared with adolescents (82.29 ± 7.22% and 83.86 ± 9.24% versus 78.4 ± 7.34%, respectively; p < 0.05). The total daily dose of insulin was increased in all age groups primarily due to increased system-initiated insulin delivery including auto correction boluses and basal insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

MiniMed™ 780G system users across different age groups achieved international consensus-recommended glycemic control with no serious adverse effects even in challenging age group as children and adolescents.

High incidence of skin reactions secondary to the use of adhesives in glucose sensors or insulin pumps for the treatment of children with type 1 diabetes

AIMS

To evaluate the incidence of the skin reactions secondary to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) or continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), sensors and the characteristics of affected children with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

An observational, retrospective, single-centre study included 198 children with type 1 diabetes, (46% girls, mean age 11.75 years). A standardised questionnaire was completed with the patient during current care to evaluate the skin reactions (mean and percentage), the type of reaction, their impact and the treatment) and the characteristics of affected children with univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven children (33.8%) reported active skin reactions: 45 children with CSII (30.4%) and 46 with CGM (23.5%). Children with skin reactions were younger (mean age 10.6 yo versus 12.34 yo, p < 0.05), with a younger age at the diagnosis of diabetes (5.59 yo versus 7.08 yo, p < 0.05). Atopy was more frequent in the group with skin reactions (76.1% versus 54.1% p < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, only the personal history of atopy was associated with skin reactions: OR 2.56 [1.16-5.97] (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the high incidence of skin reactions to adhesive devices used in the treatment of type 1 diabetes in children.

New therapies towards a better glycemic control in youths with type 1 diabetes

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is the most frequent form of diabetes in pediatric age, affecting more than 1.5 million people younger than age 20 years worldwide. Early and intensive control of diabetes provides continued protection against both microvascular and macrovascular complications, enhances growth, and ensures normal pubertal development. In the absence of definitive reversal therapy for this disease, achieving and maintaining the recommended glycemic targets is crucial. In the last 30 years, enormous progress has been made using technology to better treat T1D. In spite of this progress, the majority of children, adolescents and young adults do not reach the recommended targets for glycemic control and assume a considerable burden each day. The development of promising new therapeutic advances, such as more physiologic insulin analogues, pioneering diabetes technology including continuous glucose monitoring and closed loop systems as well as new adjuvant drugs, anticipate a new paradigm in T1D management over the next few years. This review presents insights into current management of T1D in youths.

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.

CGM accuracy: Contrasting CE marking with the governmental controls of the USA (FDA) and Australia (TGA): A narrative review

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence updated guidance for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in 2022, recommending that CGM be available to all people living with type 1 diabetes. Manufacturers can trade in the UK with Conformité Européenne (CE) marking without an initial national assessment. The regulatory process for CGM CE marking, in contrast to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) process, is described. Manufacturers operating in the UK provided clinical accuracy studies submitted for CE marking. Critical appraisal of the studies shows several CGM devices have CE marking for wide-ranging indications beyond available data, unlike FDA and TGA approval. The FDA and TGA use tighter controls, requiring comprehensive product-specific clinical data evaluation. In 2018, the FDA published the integrated CGM (iCGM) criteria permitting interoperability. Applying the iCGM criteria to clinical data provided by manufacturers trading in the UK identified several study protocols that minimized glucose variability, thereby improving CGM accuracy on all metrics. These results do not translate into real-life performance. Furthermore, for many CGM devices available in the UK, accuracy reported in the hypoglycaemic range is below iCGM standards, or measurement is absent. We offer a framework to evaluate CGM accuracy studies critically. The review concludes that FDA- and TGA-approved indications match the available clinical data, whereas CE marking indications can have discrepancies. The UK can bolster regulation with UK Conformity Assessed marking from January 2025. However, balanced regulation is needed to ensure innovation and timely technological access are not hindered.

Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) Systems: Use and Efficacy in Children and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes and Other Forms of Diabetes in Europe in Early 2023

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients' lifestyle and prognosis has remarkably changed over the years, especially after the introduction of insulin pumps, in particular advanced hybrid closed loop systems (AHCL). Emerging data in literature continuously confirm the improvement of glycemic control thanks to the technological evolution taking place in this disease. As stated in previous literature, T1D patients are seen to be more satisfied thanks to the use of these devices that ameliorate not only their health but their daily life routine as well. Limited findings regarding the use of new devices in different age groups and types of patients is their major limit. This review aims to highlight the main characteristics of each Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) system available for patients affected by Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus. Our main goal was to particularly focus on these systems' efficacy and use in different age groups and populations (i.e., children, pregnant women). Recent studies are emerging that demonstrate their efficacy and safety in younger patients and other forms of diabetes.

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.

Automated insulin delivery systems: from early research to routine care of type 1 diabetes

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, so-called closed-loop systems or artificial pancreas, are based upon the concept of insulin supply driven by blood glucose levels and their variations according to body glucose needs, glucose intakes and insulin action. They include a continuous glucose monitoring device which provides a signal to a control algorithm tuning insulin delivery from an infusion pump. The control algorithm is the key of the system since it commands insulin administration in order to maintain blood glucose in a predefined target range and close to a near-normal glucose level. The last two decades have shown dramatic advances toward the use in free life of AID systems for routine care of type 1 diabetes through step-by-step demonstrations of feasibility, safety and efficacy in successive hospital, transitional and outpatient trials. Because of the constraints of pharmacokinetics and dynamics of subcutaneous insulin delivery, the currently available AID systems are all 'hybrid' or 'semi-automated' insulin delivery systems with a need of meal and exercise announcements in order to anticipate rapid glucose variations through pre-meal bolus or pre-exercise reduction of infusion rate. Nevertheless, these AID systems significantly improve time spent in a near-normal range with a reduction of the risk of hypoglycemia and the mental load of managing diabetes in everyday life, representing a milestone in insulin therapy. Expected progression toward fully automated, further miniaturized and integrated, possibly implantable on long-term and more physiological closed-loop systems paves the way for a functional cure of type 1 diabetes.

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.

Automated insulin delivery: benefits, challenges, and recommendations. A Consensus Report of the Joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association

A technological solution for the management of diabetes in people who require intensive insulin therapy has been sought for decades. The last 10 years have seen substantial growth in devices that can be integrated into clinical care. Driven by the availability of reliable systems for continuous glucose monitoring, we have entered an era in which insulin delivery through insulin pumps can be modulated based on sensor glucose data. Over the past few years, regulatory approval of the first automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has been granted, and these systems have been adopted into clinical care. Additionally, a community of people living with type 1 diabetes has created its own systems using a do-it-yourself approach by using products commercialised for independent use. With several AID systems in development, some of which are anticipated to be granted regulatory approval in the near future, the joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association has created this consensus report. We provide a review of the current landscape of AID systems, with a particular focus on their safety. We conclude with a series of recommended targeted actions. This is the fourth in a series of reports issued by this working group. The working group was jointly commissioned by the executives of both organisations to write the first statement on insulin pumps, which was published in 2015. The original authoring group was comprised by three nominated members of the American Diabetes Association and three nominated members of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Additional authors have been added to the group to increase diversity and range of expertise. Each organisation has provided a similar internal review process for each manuscript prior to submission for editorial review by the two journals. Harmonisation of editorial and substantial modifications has occurred at both levels. The members of the group have selected the subject of each statement and submitted the selection to both organisations for confirmation.

Automated Insulin Delivery: Benefits, Challenges, and Recommendations. A Consensus Report of the Joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association

A technological solution for the management of diabetes in people who require intensive insulin therapy has been sought for decades. The last 10 years have seen substantial growth in devices that can be integrated into clinical care. Driven by the availability of reliable systems for continuous glucose monitoring, we have entered an era in which insulin delivery through insulin pumps can be modulated based on sensor glucose data. Over the past few years, regulatory approval of the first automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has been granted, and these systems have been adopted into clinical care. Additionally, a community of people living with type 1 diabetes has created its own systems using a do-it-yourself approach by using products commercialized for independent use. With several AID systems in development, some of which are anticipated to be granted regulatory approval in the near future, the joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association has created this consensus report. We provide a review of the current landscape of AID systems, with a particular focus on their safety. We conclude with a series of recommended targeted actions. This is the fourth in a series of reports issued by this working group. The working group was jointly commissioned by the executives of both organizations to write the first statement on insulin pumps, which was published in 2015. The original authoring group was comprised by three nominated members of the American Diabetes Association and three nominated members of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Additional authors have been added to the group to increase diversity and range of expertise. Each organization has provided a similar internal review process for each manuscript prior to submission for editorial review by the two journals. Harmonization of editorial and substantial modifications has occurred at both levels. The members of the group have selected the subject of each statement and submitted the selection to both organizations for confirmation.

Related factors associated with fear of hypoglycemia in parents of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes - A systematic review

PROBLEM

Fear of hypoglycemia is a significant concern for parents of children/ adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Although some studies have explained the parental fear of hypoglycemia, the related factors were yet to be determined. This systematic review aims to identify the related factors of fear of hypoglycemia in the parents of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and provide a theoretical basis for further intervention.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from 2010 to 2021. Studies evaluating the fear of hypoglycemia of parents and its associated factors were included.

SAMPLE

Twenty-three observational articles met the criteria.

RESULTS

Significant associations were found between fear of hypoglycemia and specific factors, including motherhood, nocturnal hypoglycemia, and the number of blood glucose monitoring. Psychological factors, including anxiety, depression, pediatric parenting stress, mindfulness, self-efficacy, quality of life, and sleep disorders, were conclusive and associations with parental fear of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding parental fear of hypoglycemia can help parents prevent potential problems in diabetes management, thus promoting children's growth. According to current evidence, effective targeted interventions based on modifiable relevant factors can be developed to reduce the fear of hypoglycemia in parents while maintaining optimal blood glucose control in children/ adolescents.

IMPLICATIONS

Health professionals should pay more attention to the mental health of parents, and parents should be involved in the care plan and have the opportunity to discuss their fear of hypoglycemia in the most appropriate way to manage type 1 diabetes.

In-home use of a hybrid closed loop achieves time-in-range targets in preschoolers and school children: Results from a randomized, controlled, crossover trial

AIM

To obtain additional information on the incremental differences between using a sensor-augmented pump (SAP) without automated insulin delivery (AID), using it with predictive low-glucose management (PLGM) or as hybrid closed loop (HCL), in preschool and school children.

METHODS

We conducted a monocentric, randomized, controlled, two-phase crossover study in 38 children aged 2-6 and 7-14 years. The primary endpoint was the percentage of time in range (TIR) of 70-180 mg/dl. Other continuous glucose sensor metrics, HbA1c, patient-related outcomes (DISABKIDS questionnaire, Fear of Hypoglycaemia Survey) and safety events were also assessed. Results from 2 weeks of SAP, 8 weeks of PLGM and 8 weeks of HCL were compared using a paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

Overall, we found a high rate of TIR target (>70%) achievement with HCL in preschool (88%) and school children (50%), with average times in Auto Mode of 93% and 87%, respectively. Preschool children achieved a mean TIR of 73% ± 6% (+8% vs. SAP, +6% vs. PLGM) and school children 69% ± 8% (+15% vs. SAP and + 14% vs. PLGM). Overall, HbA1c improved from 7.4% ± 0.9% to 6.9% ± 0.5% (P = .0002). Diabetes burden and worries and fear of hypoglycaemia remained at low levels, without significant changes versus PLGM. No events of severe hypoglycaemia or diabetic ketoacidosis occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Preschool children profit from AID at least as much as those aged 7 years and older. To ensure safe use and prescribing modalities, regulatory approval is also required for young children.

Young Children with Type 1 Diabetes: Recent Advances in Behavioral Research

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides a recent update of behavioral research pertinent to young children with T1D and addresses current priorities and future directions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Rates of type 1 diabetes (T1D) in young children (ages 1-7) are continuing to rise. Since 2014, changes to diabetes care and management have impacted young children and reinforced the need for increased attention and interventions to support diabetes management, especially in caregivers who are primarily responsible for their young child's diabetes management. T1D is associated with unique physiologic challenges in young children, with constant management demands elevating parental diabetes-related stress and fear of hypoglycemia. Diabetes technology use has significantly increased in young children, contributing to improvements in glycemic levels and parent and child psychosocial functioning. Yet despite the positive outcomes demonstrated in select clinical behavioral interventions, research with this young child age group remains limited in scope and quantity.

The Impact of a Recently Approved Automated Insulin Delivery System on Glycemic, Sleep, and Psychosocial Outcomes in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Older adults with type 1 diabetes (≥65 years) are often under-represented in clinical trials of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. We sought to test the efficacy of a recently FDA-approved AID system in this population.

METHODS

Participants with type 1 diabetes used sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy for four weeks and then used an AID system (Control-IQ) for four weeks. In addition to glucose control variables, patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were assessed with questionnaires and sleep parameters were assessed by actigraphy.

RESULTS

Fifteen older adults (mean age 68.7 ± 3.3, HbA1c of 7.0 ± 0.8) completed the pilot trial. Glycemic outcomes improved during AID compared to SAP. During AID use, mean glucose was 146.0 mg/dL; mean percent time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) was 79.6%; median time below 70 mg/dL was 1.1%. The AID system was in use 92.6% ± 7.0% of the time. Compared to SAP, while participants were on AID the TIR increased significantly (+10%, P = .002) accompanied by a reduction in both time above 180 mg/dL (-6.9%, P = .005) and below 70 mg/dl (-0.4%, P = .053). Diabetes-related distress decreased significantly while using AID (P = .028), but sleep parameters remained unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of this AID system in older adults improved glycemic control with high scores in ease of use, trust, and usability. Participants reported an improvement in diabetes distress with AID use. There were no significant changes in sleep.

Glycemic outcomes of children 2-6 years of age with type 1 diabetes during the pediatric MiniMed™ 670G system trial

BACKGROUND

Highly variable insulin sensitivity, susceptibility to hypoglycemia and inability to effectively communicate hypoglycemic symptoms pose significant challenges for young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Herein, outcomes during clinical MiniMed™ 670G system use were evaluated in children aged 2-6 years with T1D.

METHODS

Participants (N = 46, aged 4.6 ± 1.4 years) at seven investigational centers used the MiniMed™ 670G system in Manual Mode during a two-week run-in period followed by Auto Mode during a three-month study phase. Safety events, mean A1C, sensor glucose (SG), and percentage of time spent in (TIR, 70-180 mg/dl), below (TBR, <70 mg/dl) and above (TAR, >180 mg/dl) range were assessed for the run-in and study phase and compared using a paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

From run-in to end of study (median 87.1% time in auto mode), mean A1C and SG changed from 8.0 ± 0.9% to 7.5 ± 0.6% (p < 0.001) and from 173 ± 24 to 161 ± 16 mg/dl (p < 0.001), respectively. Overall TIR increased from 55.7 ± 13.4% to 63.8 ± 9.4% (p < 0.001), while TBR and TAR decreased from 3.3 ± 2.5% to 3.2 ± 1.6% (p = 0.996) and 41.0 ± 14.7% to 33.0 ± 9.9% (p < 0.001), respectively. Overnight TBR remained unchanged and TAR was further improved 12:00 am-6:00 am. Throughout the study phase, there were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and no serious adverse device-related events.

CONCLUSIONS

At-home MiniMed™ 670G Auto Mode use by young children safely improved glycemic outcomes compared to two-week open-loop Manual Mode use. The improvements are similar to those observed in older children, adolescents and adults with T1D using the same system for the same duration of time.

Cambridge hybrid closed-loop algorithm in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre 6-month randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Closed-loop insulin delivery systems have the potential to address suboptimal glucose control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. We compared safety and efficacy of the Cambridge hybrid closed-loop algorithm with usual care over 6 months in this population.

METHODS

In a multicentre, multinational, parallel randomised controlled trial, participants aged 6-18 years using insulin pump therapy were recruited at seven UK and five US paediatric diabetes centres. Key inclusion criteria were diagnosis of type 1 diabetes for at least 12 months, insulin pump therapy for at least 3 months, and screening HbA1c levels between 53 and 86 mmol/mol (7·0-10·0%). Using block randomisation and central randomisation software, we randomly assigned participants to either closed-loop insulin delivery (closed-loop group) or to usual care with insulin pump therapy (control group) for 6 months. Randomisation was stratified at each centre by local baseline HbA1c. The Cambridge closed-loop algorithm running on a smartphone was used with either (1) a modified Medtronic 640G pump, Medtronic Guardian 3 sensor, and Medtronic prototype phone enclosure (FlorenceM configuration), or (2) a Sooil Dana RS pump and Dexcom G6 sensor (CamAPS FX configuration). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c at 6 months combining data from both configurations. The primary analysis was done in all randomised patients (intention to treat). Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02925299.

FINDINGS

Of 147 people initially screened, 133 participants (mean age 13·0 years [SD 2·8]; 57% female, 43% male) were randomly assigned to either the closed-loop group (n=65) or the control group (n=68). Mean baseline HbA1c was 8·2% (SD 0·7) in the closed-loop group and 8·3% (0·7) in the control group. At 6 months, HbA1c was lower in the closed-loop group than in the control group (between-group difference -3·5 mmol/mol (95% CI -6·5 to -0·5 [-0·32 percentage points, -0·59 to -0·04]; p=0·023). Closed-loop usage was low with FlorenceM due to failing phone enclosures (median 40% [IQR 26-53]), but consistently high with CamAPS FX (93% [88-96]), impacting efficacy. A total of 155 adverse events occurred after randomisation (67 in the closed-loop group, 88 in the control group), including seven severe hypoglycaemia events (four in the closed-loop group, three in the control group), two diabetic ketoacidosis events (both in the closed-loop group), and two non-treatment-related serious adverse events. There were 23 reportable hyperglycaemia events (11 in the closed-loop group, 12 in the control group), which did not meet criteria for diabetic ketoacidosis.

INTERPRETATION

The Cambridge hybrid closed-loop algorithm had an acceptable safety profile, and improved glycaemic control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. To ensure optimal efficacy of the closed-loop system, usage needs to be consistently high, as demonstrated with CamAPS FX.

FUNDING

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Emotional and Physical Health Impact in Children and Adolescents and their Caregivers Using Open-Source Automated Insulin Delivery: Qualitative Analysis of Lived Experiences. (Preprint)

Background

Given the limitations in the access and license status of commercially developed automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, open-source AID systems are becoming increasingly popular among people with diabetes, including children and adolescents.

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the lived experiences and physical and emotional health implications of children and their caregivers following the initiation of open-source AID, their perceived challenges, and sources of support, which have not been explored in the existing literature.

Methods

Data were collected through 2 sets of open-ended questions from a web-based multinational survey of 60 families from 16 countries. The narratives were thematically analyzed, and a coding framework was identified through iterative alignment.

Results

A range of emotions and improvements in quality of life and physical health were reported, as open-source AID enabled families to shift their focus away from diabetes therapy. Caregivers were less worried about hypoglycemia at night and outside their family homes, leading to increased autonomy for the child. Simultaneously, the glycemic outcomes and sleep quality of both the children and caregivers improved. Nonetheless, the acquisition of suitable hardware and technical setup could be challenging. The #WeAreNotWaiting community was the primary source of practical and emotional support.

Conclusions

Our findings show the benefits and transformative impact of open-source AID and peer support on children with diabetes and their caregivers and families, where commercial AID systems are not available or suitable. Further efforts are required to improve the effectiveness and usability and facilitate access for children with diabetes, worldwide, to benefit from this innovative treatment.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/15368

Safe and effective use of a hybrid closed-loop system from diagnosis in children under 18 months with type 1 diabetes

The management of type 1 diabetes in infancy presents significant challenges. Hybrid closed loop systems have been shown to be effective in a research setting and are now available for clinical use. There are relatively little reported data regarding their safety and efficacy in a real world clinical setting. We report two cases of very young children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at ages 18 (Case 1) and 7 months (Case 2), who were commenced on hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery using the CamAPS FX™ system from diagnosis. At diagnosis, total daily dose (TDD) was 6 and 3.3 units for Case 1 and 2, respectively. Closed loop was started during the inpatient stay and weekly follow up was provided via video call on discharge. Seven months from diagnosis, Case 1 has an HbA1C of 49 mmol/mol, 61% time in range (TIR, 3.9-10 mmol/L) with 2% time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) with no incidents of very low blood glucose (BG; <3 mmol/L, 54 mg/dL) over 6 months. Given the extremely small TDD of insulin in Case 2, we elected to use diluted insulin (insulin aspart injection, NovoLog, Novo Nordisk Inc., Plainsboro, NJ, Diluting Medium for NovoLog®). Six months from diagnosis, the estimated HbA1c is 50 mmol/mol, TIR 76% with 1% hypoglycemia and no incidents of very low BG (<3 mmol/L, 54 mg/dL) over 6 months. We conclude that the use hybrid closed-loop can be safe and effective from diagnosis in children under 2 years of age with type 1 diabetes.

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.

The Impact of Hypo- and Hyperglycemia on Cognition and Brain Development in Young Children with Type 1 Diabetes

Human and experimental animal data suggest both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia can lead to altered brain structure and neurocognitive function in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Young children with T1D are prone to extreme fluctuations in glucose levels. The overlap of these potential dysglycemic insults to the brain during the time of most active brain and cognitive development may cause cellular and structural injuries that appear to persist into adult life. Brain structure and cognition in persons with T1D are influenced by age of onset, exposure to glycemic extremes such as severe hypoglycemic episodes, history of diabetic ketoacidosis, persistent hyperglycemia, and glucose variability. Studies using brain imaging techniques have shown brain changes that appear to be influenced by metabolic abnormalities characteristic of diabetes, changes apparent at diagnosis and persistent throughout adulthood. Some evidence suggests that brain injury might also directly contribute to psychological and mental health outcomes. Neurocognitive deficits manifest across multiple cognitive domains. Moreover, impaired executive function and mental health can affect patients' adherence to treatment. This review summarizes the current data on the impact of glycemic extremes on brain structure and cognitive function in youth with T1D and the use of new diabetes technologies that may reduce these complications.

Randomized Trial of Closed-Loop Control in Very Young Children with Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

The possible advantage of hybrid closed-loop therapy (i.e., artificial pancreas) over sensor-augmented pump therapy in very young children with type 1 diabetes is unclear.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, crossover trial, we recruited children 1 to 7 years of age with type 1 diabetes who were receiving insulin-pump therapy at seven centers across Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom. Participants received treatment in two 16-week periods, in random order, in which the closed-loop system was compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy (control). The primary end point was the between-treatment difference in the percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was in the target range (70 to 180 mg per deciliter) during each 16-week period. The analysis was conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary end points included the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state (glucose level, >180 mg per deciliter), the glycated hemoglobin level, the mean sensor glucose level, and the percentage of time spent in a hypoglycemic state (glucose level, <70 mg per deciliter). Safety was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 74 participants underwent randomization. The mean (±SD) age of the participants was 5.6±1.6 years, and the baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 7.3±0.7%. The percentage of time with the glucose level in the target range was 8.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.4 to 9.9) higher during the closed-loop period than during the control period (P<0.001). The mean adjusted difference (closed-loop minus control) in the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state was -8.5 percentage points (95% CI, -9.9 to -7.1), the difference in the glycated hemoglobin level was -0.4 percentage points (95% CI, -0.5 to -0.3), and the difference in the mean sensor glucose level was -12.3 mg per deciliter (95% CI, -14.8 to -9.8) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). The time spent in a hypoglycemic state was similar with the two treatments (P = 0.74). The median time spent in the closed-loop mode was 95% (interquartile range, 92 to 97) over the 16-week closed-loop period. One serious adverse event of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the closed-loop period. One serious adverse event that was deemed to be unrelated to treatment occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

A hybrid closed-loop system significantly improved glycemic control in very young children with type 1 diabetes, without increasing the time spent in hypoglycemia. (Funded by the European Commission and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03784027.).

Patient reported outcome measures in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes using advanced hybrid closed loop insulin delivery

PURPOSE

To determine the impact of advanced hybrid closed - loop (AHCL) insulin delivery on quality of life, metabolic control and time in range (TIR) in youth with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

METHODS

Twenty-four children and adolescents with T1DM (14 female) aged of 10 to 18 years participated in the study. Mixed methods study design was implemented. Quantitative part of the study was conducted as a longitudinal crossover study with data collection before and at the end of AHCL use. Qualitative data were obtained with modeled interviews of four focus groups before and the end of the period. Clinical data were collected from the electronic medical records.

RESULTS

The use of AHCL significantly improved the quality of life in terms of decreased fear of hypoglycemia (p<0.001), decrease in diabetes-related emotional distress (p<0.001), and increased wellbeing (p=0.003). The mean A1C decreased from 8.55 ± 1.34% (69.9 ± 12.3 mmol/mol) to 7.73 ± 0.42 (61.1 ± 2.2 mmol/mol) (p=0.002) at the end of the study. Mean TIR was 68.22% (± 13.89) before and 78.26 (± 6.29) % (p<0.001) at the end of the study.

CONCLUSION

The use of advanced hybrid closed loop significantly improved the quality of life and metabolic control in children and adolescents with T1DM.

Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery Systems: Past, Present, and Future Directions

Closed-loop (artificial pancreas) systems for automated insulin delivery have been likened to the holy grail of diabetes management. The first iterations of glucose-responsive insulin delivery were pioneered in the 1960s and 1970s, with the development of systems that used venous glucose measurements to dictate intravenous infusions of insulin and dextrose in order to maintain normoglycemia. Only recently have these bulky, bedside technologies progressed to miniaturized, wearable devices. These modern closed-loop systems use interstitial glucose sensing, subcutaneous insulin pumps, and increasingly sophisticated algorithms. As the number of commercially available hybrid closed-loop systems has grown, so too has the evidence supporting their efficacy. Future challenges in closed-loop technology include the development of fully closed-loop systems that do not require user input for meal announcements or carbohydrate counting. Another evolving avenue in research is the addition of glucagon to mitigate the risk of hypoglycemia and allow more aggressive insulin dosing.

The automated pancreas: A review of technologies and clinical practice

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

Empfehlungen zur Diabetes-Behandlung mit automatischen Insulin-Dosierungssystemen

Das Prinzip der automatischen Insulindosierung, kurz „AID“ genannt, zeigt in Zulassungsstudien und Real-World-Erfahrungen ausgezeichnete Behandlungsergebnisse. Beim AID wird eine Insulinpumpe mit einem System zur kontinuierlichen Glukosemessung zusammengeschaltet, während ein Rechenprogramm, der sogenannte Algorithmus, die Steuerung der Insulingabe nach Bedarf übernimmt. Idealerweise wäre das System ein geschlossener Kreis, bei dem die Menschen mit Diabetes keine Eingabe mehr machen müssten. Jedoch sind bei den heute verfügbaren Systemen verschiedene Grundeinstellungen und Eingaben erforderlich (insbesondere von Kohlenhydratmengen der Mahlzeiten oder körperlicher Aktivität), die sich von den bisherigen Empfehlungen der sensorunterstützten Pumpentherapie in einzelnen Aspekten unterscheiden. So werden die traditionellen Konzepte von „Basal“ und „Bolus“ mit AID weniger nützlich, da der Algorithmus beide Arten der Insulinabgabe verwendet, um die Glukosewerte dem eingestellten Zielwert zu nähern. Daher sollte bei diesen Systemen statt der Erfassung von „Basal“ und „Bolus“, zwischen einer „nutzerinitiierten“ und einer „automatischen“ Insulindosis unterschieden werden. Gemeinsame Therapieprinzipien der verschiedenen AID-Systeme umfassen die passgenaue Einstellung des Kohlenhydratverhältnisses, die Bedeutung des Timings der vom Anwender initiierten Insulinbolusgaben vor der Mahlzeit, den korrekten Umgang mit einem verzögerten oder versäumten Mahlzeitenbolus, neue Prinzipien im Umgang mit Sport oder Alkoholgenuss sowie den rechtzeitigen Umstieg von AID zu manuellem Modus bei Auftreten erhöhter Ketonwerte. Das Team vom Diabetes-Zentrum AUF DER BULT in Hannover hat aus eigenen Studienerfahrungen und der zugrunde liegenden internationalen Literatur praktische Empfehlungen zur Anwendung und Schulung der gegenwärtig und demnächst in Deutschland kommerziell erhältlichen Systeme zusammengestellt. Für den Erfolg der AID-Behandlung scheint das richtige Erwartungsmanagement sowohl beim Behandlungsteam und als auch beim Anwender von großer Bedeutung zu sein.

Automated insulin dosing systems: Advances after a century of insulin

The daily complexities of insulin therapy and glucose variability in type 1 diabetes still pose significant challenges, despite advancements in modern insulin analogues. Minimising hypoglycaemia and optimising time spent within target glucose range are recommended to reduce the risk of diabetes-related complications and distress. Access to structured education and adjuvant diabetes technologies, such as insulin pumps and glucose sensors, are recommended by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to enable people with type 1 diabetes achieve their glycaemic goals. One hundred years after the discovery of insulin, automated insulin dosing (AID, a.k.a. closed loop or artificial pancreas) systems are a reality with a number of systems available and being used in usual clinical practice. Evidence from randomised clinical trials and real-world prospective studies support efficacy, effectiveness and safety of AID systems. Qualitative evaluations reveal treatment satisfaction and positive effects on quality of life. Current insulin-only AID systems still require carbohydrate and activity announcement (hybrid closed loop) due to the inherent pharmacokinetic limitations of rapid-acting insulin analogies. Ultra-rapid acting insulin and adjunctive use of other therapies (e.g. glucagon, pramlitide) are being evaluated to achieve full closed loop. Open-source AID (OS-AID) systems have been developed by the diabetes community, driven by a desire for safety and to accelerate technological advancement. In addition to effectiveness and safety, real-world prospective studies suggest that OS-AID systems fulfil unmet needs of commercially approved systems. The development, ongoing challenges and expectations of AID are outlined in this review.

Barriers to Uptake of Insulin Technologies and Novel Solutions

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

Current Advances of Artificial Pancreas Systems: A Comprehensive Review of the Clinical Evidence

Since Banting and Best isolated insulin in the 1920s, dramatic progress has been made in the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). However, dose titration and timely injection to maintain optimal glycemic control are often challenging for T1DM patients and their families because they require frequent blood glucose checks. In recent years, technological advances in insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring systems have created paradigm shifts in T1DM care that are being extended to develop artificial pancreas systems (APSs). Numerous studies that demonstrate the superiority of glycemic control offered by APSs over those offered by conventional treatment are still being published, and rapid commercialization and use in actual practice have already begun. Given this rapid development, keeping up with the latest knowledge in an organized way is confusing for both patients and medical staff. Herein, we explore the history, clinical evidence, and current state of APSs, focusing on various development groups and the commercialization status. We also discuss APS development in groups outside the usual T1DM patients and the administration of adjunct agents, such as amylin analogues, in APSs.

Efficacy of advanced hybrid closed loop systems for the management of type 1 diabetes in children

Over the last years significant advances have been achieved in the development of technologies for diabetes management. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), predictive low glucose management (PLGM), hybrid closed loop (HCL) and advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) systems allow better diabetes management, thus reducing the burden of the disease and the risk of chronic complications. This review summarizes the main characteristics of the currently available HCL and AHCL systems and their primary effects in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). The findings of trials assessing the glucose control (time in range, HbA1c values, hypoglycemic events), the health-related quality of life and the existing limits of the use of these technologies are reported. The most recent data clearly confirm the ability of the HCL and AHCL insulin delivery systems to safely achieve a significant improvement of glucose control and quality of life in the pediatric population with T1D. Further studies are underway to overcame current barriers and future improvements in the usability of these technologies are awaited to facilitate their use in the routine clinical practice. The HCL and AHCL algorithms are the key features of today's insulin delivery systems that mark a crucial step towards fully automated closed loop systems.

Review of Automated Insulin Delivery Systems for Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes: Tailored Solutions for Subpopulations

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have proven safe and effective in improving glycemic outcomes in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Clinical evaluation of this technology has progressed to large randomized, controlled outpatient studies and recent commercial approval of AID systems for children and adults. However, several challenges remain in improving these systems for different subpopulations (e.g., young children, athletes, pregnant women, seniors and those with hypoglycemia unawareness). In this review, we highlight the requirements and challenges in AID design for selected subpopulations, and discuss current advances from recent clinical studies.

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

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

Pre-school and school-aged children benefit from the switch from a sensor-augmented pump to an AndroidAPS hybrid closed loop: A retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

Data on closed loop systems in young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) are limited. We tested the efficacy and safety of an open-source, do-it-yourself automated insulin delivery system AndroidAPS in preschool and school-aged children.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed diabetes control in 18 preschool (3-7 years) and 18 school-aged children (8-14 years) with T1D who switched from a sensor-augmented pump (SAP) to AndroidAPS. We compared the CGM parameters and HbA1c levels 3 months before and 6 months after the initiation of AndroidAPS therapy and evaluated frequency of severe adverse events during AndroidAPS use, the most frequent reasons for its interruption, and the experience and psychosocial benefits of AndroidAPS use.

RESULTS

General glycemic control was significantly improved after the switch from SAP to AndroidAPS. Time in range (TIR) increased in both preschool (70.8%-78.6%, p = 0.004) and school-aged children (77.2%-82.9%, p < 0.001), whereas HbA1c levels decreased (preschool children 53.8-48.5 mmol/mol, p < 0.001; school-aged children 52.6-45.1 mmol/mol, p = 0.001). Time spent in range of 3.0-3.8 mmol/L increased slightly in school children (2.6%-3.8%, p = 0.040), but not in preschool children (3.0%-3.0%, p = 0.913). Time spent at <3 mmol/L remained unchanged in both preschool (0.95%-0.67%, p = 0.432) and school-aged children (0.8%-0.8%, p = 1.000). No episodes of severe hypoglycemia or DKA and significant improvement of quality of life were reported by AndroidAPS users.

CONCLUSIONS

AndroidAPS seems effective for T1D control both in preschool and school-age children but further validation by prospective studies is necessary.

Sleep and diabetes-specific psycho-behavioral outcomes of a new automated insulin delivery system in young children with type 1 diabetes and their parents

BACKGROUND

Data on the use of Control-IQ, the latest FDA-approved automated insulin delivery (AID) system for people with T1D 6 years of age or older is still scarce, particularly regarding nonglycemic outcomes. Children with T1D and their parents are at higher risk for sleep disturbances. This study assesses sleep, psycho-behavioral and glycemic outcomes of AID compared to sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAP) therapy in young children with T1D and their parents.

METHODS

Thirteen parents and their young children (ages 7-10) on insulin pump therapy were enrolled. Children completed an initial 4-week study with SAP using their own pump and a study CGM followed by a 4-week phase of AID. Sleep outcomes for parents and children were evaluated through actigraphy watches. Several questionnaires were administered at baseline and at the end of each study phase. CGM data were used to assess glycemic outcomes.

RESULTS

Actigraphy data did not show any significant change from SAP to AID, except a reduction of number of parental awakenings during the night (p = 0.036). Parents reported statistically significant improvements in Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index total score (p = 0.009), Hypoglycemia Fear Survey total score (p = 0.011), diabetes-related distress (p = 0.032), and depression (p = 0.023). While on AID, time in range (70-180 mg/dL) significantly increased compared to SAP (p < 0.001), accompanied by a reduction in hyperglycemia (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that use of AID has a positive impact on glycemic outcomes in young children as well as sleep and diabetes-specific quality of life outcomes in their parents.

New closed-loop insulin systems

Advances in diabetes technologies have enabled the development of automated closed-loop insulin delivery systems. Several hybrid closed-loop systems have been commercialised, reflecting rapid transition of this evolving technology from research into clinical practice, where it is gradually transforming the management of type 1 diabetes in children and adults. In this review we consider the supporting evidence in terms of glucose control and quality of life for presently available closed-loop systems and those in development, including dual-hormone closed-loop systems. We also comment on alternative 'do-it-yourself' closed-loop systems. We remark on issues associated with clinical adoption of these approaches, including training provision, and consider limitations of presently available closed-loop systems and areas for future enhancements to further improve outcomes and reduce the burden of diabetes management.

Safety and Performance of the Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ Automated Insulin Delivery System in Toddlers and Preschoolers

Background: Glycemic control is particularly challenging for toddlers and preschoolers with type 1 diabetes (T1D), and data on the use of closed-loop systems in this age range are limited. Materials and Methods: We studied use of a modified investigational version of the Tandem t:slim X2 Control-IQ system in children aged 2 to 5 years during 48 h in an outpatient supervised hotel (SH) setting followed by 3 days of home use to examine the safety of this system in young children. Meals and snacks were not restricted and boluses were estimated per parents' usual routine. At least 30 min of daily exercise was required during the SH phase. All participants were remotely monitored by study staff while on closed-loop in addition to monitoring by at least one parent throughout the study. Results: Twelve participants diagnosed with T1D for at least 3 months with mean age 4.7 ± 1.0 years (range 2.0-5.8 years) and hemoglobin A1c of 7.3% ± 0.8% were enrolled at three sites. With use of Control-IQ, the percentage of participants meeting our prespecified goals of less than 6% time below 70 mg/dL and less than 40% time above 180 mg/dL increased from 33% to 83%. Control-IQ use significantly improved percent time in range (70-180 mg/dL) compared to baseline (71.3 ± 12.5 vs. 63.7 ± 15.1, P = 0.016). All participants completed the study with no adverse events. Conclusions: In this brief pilot study, use of the modified Control-IQ system was safe in 2-5-year-old children with T1D and improved glycemic control.

New closed-loop insulin systems

Advances in diabetes technologies have enabled the development of automated closed-loop insulin delivery systems. Several hybrid closed-loop systems have been commercialised, reflecting rapid transition of this evolving technology from research into clinical practice, where it is gradually transforming the management of type 1 diabetes in children and adults. In this review we consider the supporting evidence in terms of glucose control and quality of life for presently available closed-loop systems and those in development, including dual-hormone closed-loop systems. We also comment on alternative 'do-it-yourself' closed-loop systems. We remark on issues associated with clinical adoption of these approaches, including training provision, and consider limitations of presently available closed-loop systems and areas for future enhancements to further improve outcomes and reduce the burden of diabetes management.

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.

Real-World Patient Experience of Long-Term Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Pump Use

OBJECTIVES

Understanding of patient experiences and adaptations to hybrid closed-loop (HCL) pumps beyond the confines of short-term clinical trials is needed to inform best practices surrounding this emerging technology. We investigated long-term, real-world patient experiences with HCL technology.

METHODS

In semistructured interviews, 21 adults with type 1 diabetes at a single Canadian tertiary diabetes centre discussed their transition to use of Medtronic MiniMed 670G auto-mode. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed iteratively to identify emerging themes.

RESULTS

Participants' mean age was 50±13 years, 12 of the 21 participants were female, baseline glycated hemoglobin (A1C) was 7.9±1.0% and auto-mode duration was 9.3±4.6 months. Three had discontinued auto-mode. Most participants praised auto-mode for reducing hypoglycemia, stabilizing glucose overnight and improving A1C, while also reporting frustration with frequency of alarms and user input, sensor quality and inadequate response to hyperglycemia. Participants with the highest baseline A1Cs (8.8% to 9.8%) tended to report immense satisfaction and trust in auto-mode, meeting their primary expectations of improved glycemic control. In contrast, participants with controlled diabetes (A1C <7.5%) had hoped to offload active management, but experienced significant cognitive and emotional labour associated with relinquishing control during suboptimal auto-mode performance. Participants were commonly aware of workarounds to "trick" the pump, and almost all participants with A1C <7.5% tried at least 1 workaround.

CONCLUSIONS

In the real-world setting, patients' goals and satisfaction with auto-mode appeared to vary considerably with their baseline diabetes control. Patients with the most suboptimal glycemic control described the greatest benefits and easiest adaptation process, challenging commonly held assumptions for patient selection for pump therapy.