Are all HCL systems the same? long term outcomes of three HCL systems in children with type 1 diabetes: real-life registry-based study

Precision medicine in type 1 diabetes: comparing metabolic outcomes of Control-IQ and MiniMed 780G according to patient characteristics

AIMS

This study aimed to compare 12-month metabolic outcomes in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with either MiniMed 780G (Guardian 4) or Control-IQ (Dexcom G6) automated insulin delivery (AID) systems and identify interaction with patient characteristics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a single-centre, retrospective study including all patients (aged ≥16) with T1D who were started on either MiniMed 780G or Control-IQ between January 2021 and October 2022 and continued for ≥12 months. We used propensity score matching to compare the average marginal effects between MiniMed 780G and Control-IQ regarding the primary outcome (time in range [TIR]) and secondary outcomes (time below range [TBR], glucose monitoring indicator [GMI] and coefficient of variation [CV]) after 12 months. We tested for interaction effects between baseline characteristics (age, sex, socio-professional background, body mass index, insulin daily dose, carbohydrate counting practice) and treatment effect.

RESULTS

We included 245 patients (58% women): 178 treated with Control-IQ and 67 with MiniMed 780G. The mean ± SD age and haemoglobin A1c were 39 ± 15 years and 8.7 ± 1.8% (72 ± 20 mmol/mol) respectively. In the propensity score-matched sample (n = 221), we observed significant differences in 12-month TIR (MiniMed 780G minus Control-IQ [95% CI]: 6.4 [3.4;9.5]), GMI (-0.42 [-0.59; -0.25]) and CV (-2.12 [-3.68; -0.55]), while TBR showed no significant difference (-0.04 [-0.47; +0.40]). The 12-month TIR difference was consistent across subgroups, including baseline carbohydrate counting characteristics.

CONCLUSION

MiniMed 780G is associated with moderate metabolic superiority compared to Control-IQ, without interaction with patient characteristics. These results suggest that neither model is more appropriate for certain populations, particularly patients without carbohydrate counting practice.

Automated insulin delivery systems in the treatment of diabetes: Benefits, challenges, and practical considerations in pediatric patients

At present, the majority of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus do not achieve the recommended glycemic control goals to reduce the risk of acute and chronic complications. Hybrid closed-loop systems or automated insulin infusion systems emerged as an opportunity to improve metabolic control, quality of life and reduce the psychosocial impact of type 1 diabetes. This article analyzes the evidence regarding their effectiveness and safety, the challenges they pose and best practices to optimize results when implemented in clinical practice.

Twelve-Month Real-World Use of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Versus Previous Therapy in a Dutch Center For Specialized Type 1 Diabetes Care

BACKGROUND

Complexity of glucose regulation in persons with type 1 diabetes (PWDs) necessitates increased automation of insulin delivery (AID). This study aimed to analyze real-world data over 12 months from PWDs who started using the MiniMed 780G (MM780G) advanced hybrid closed-loop (aHCL) AID system at the Diabeter clinic, focusing on glucometrics and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Persons with type 1 diabetes switching to the MM780G system were included. Clinical data (e.g. HbA1c, previous modality) was collected from Diabeter's electronic health records and glucometrics (time in range [TIR], time in tight range [TITR], time above range [TAR], time below range [TBR], glucose management indicator [GMI]) from CareLink Personal for a 12-month post-initiation period of the MM780G system. Outcomes were age-stratified, and the MM780G system was compared with previous use of older systems (MM640G and MM670G). Longitudinal changes in glucometrics were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 481 PWDs were included, with 219 having prior pump/sensor system data and 334 having monthly longitudinal data. After MM780G initiation, HbA1c decreased from 7.6 to 7.1% (P < .0001) and the percentage of PWDs with HbA1c <7% increased from 30% to 50%. Glucose management indicator and TIR remained stable with mean GMI of 6.9% and TIR >70% over 12 months. Age-stratified analysis showed consistent improvements of glycemic control across all age groups, with older participants achieving better outcomes. Participants using recommended system settings achieved better glycemic outcomes, reaching TIR up to 77% and TTIR up to 55%.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of MM780G system results in significant and sustained glycemic improvements, consistent across age groups and irrespective of previous treatment modalities.

Safety and Psychological Outcomes of Tandem t:Slim X2 Insulin Pump with Control-IQ Technology in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review

The Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump is a second-generation automated insulin delivery system with Control-IQ technology. It consists of an X2 insulin pump, an integrated Dexcom sensor, and an embedded 'Control-IQ' algorithm, which predicts glucose levels 30 min in the future, adapting the programmed basal insulin rates to get glucose levels between 112.5 and 160 mg/dl (8.9 mmol/l). The system delivers automatic correction boluses of insulin when glucose levels are predicted to rise > 180 mg/dl (10 mmol/l). It has been commercially available since 2016. We reviewed the current evidence about the psychological, safety, and exercise-related outcomes of this device in children, adolescents, and young adults living with type 1 diabetes. We screened 552 papers, but only 21 manuscripts were included in this review. Fear of hypoglycemia is significantly reduced in young people with diabetes and their parents. Interestingly, diabetes-related distress is decreased; thus, the system is well accepted by the users. The sleeping quality of subjects living with diabetes and their caregivers is improved to a lesser extent as well. Despite the small number of data, this system is associated with a low rate of exercise-related hypoglycemia. Finally, evidence from the literature shows that this system is safe and effective in improving psychological personal outcomes. Even if further steps toward the fully closed loop are still mandatory, this second-generation automated insulin delivery system reduces the burden of diabetes. It properly addresses most psychological issues in children, adolescents, and young adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus; thus, it appears to be well accepted.

Efficacy and Safety of Different Hybrid Closed Loop Systems for Automated Insulin Delivery in People With Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of different hybrid closed loop (HCL) systems in people with diabetes through a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PubMed for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling children, adolescents and/or adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, evaluating Minimed 670G, Minimed 780G, Control-IQ, CamAPS Fx, DBLG-1, DBLHU, and Omnipod 5 HCL systems against other types of insulin therapy, and reporting time in target range (TIR) as outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 28 RCTs, all enrolling people with type 1 diabetes, were included. HCL systems significantly increased TIR compared with subcutaneous insulin therapy without continuous glucose monitoring (SIT). Minimed 780G achieved the highest TIR ahead of Control IQ (mean difference (MD) 5.1%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) [0.68; 9.52], low certainty), Minimed 670G (MD 7.48%, 95% CI [4.27; 10.7], moderate certainty), CamAPS Fx (MD 8.94%, 95% CI [4.35; 13.54], low certainty), and DBLG1 (MD 10.69%, 95% CI [5.73; 15.65], low certainty). All HCL systems decreased time below target range, with DBLG1 (MD -3.69%, 95% CI [-5.2; -2.19], high certainty), Minimed 670G (MD -2.9%, 95% CI [-3.77; -2.04], moderate certainty) and Minimed 780G (MD -2.79%, 95% CI [-3.94; -1.64], high certainty) exhibiting the largest reductions compared to SIT. The risk of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis was similar to other types of insulin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

We show a hierarchy of efficacy among the different HCL systems in people with type 1 diabetes, thus providing support to clinical decision-making.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023453717.

Correlation Between the Glycemia Risk Index and Longitudinal Hemoglobin A1c in Children and Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

The glycemia risk index (GRI) is a composite metric developed and used to estimate quality of glycemia in adults with diabetes who use continuous glucose monitor (CGM) devices. In a cohort of youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D), we examined the utility of the GRI for evaluating quality of glycemia between clinic visits by analyzing correlations between the GRI and longitudinal glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measures.

METHOD

Using electronic health records and CGM data, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to analyze the relationship between the GRI and longitudinal HbA1c measures in youth (T1D duration ≥1 year; ≥50% CGM wear time) receiving care from a Midwest pediatric diabetes clinic network (March 2016 to May 2022). Furthermore, we analyzed correlations between HbA1c and the GRI high and low components, which reflect time spent with high/very high and low/very low glucose, respectively.

RESULTS

In this cohort of 719 youth (aged = 2.5-18.0 years [median = 13.4; interquartile range [IQR] = 5.2]; 50.5% male; 83.7% non-Hispanic White; 68.0% commercial insurance), baseline GRI scores positively correlated with HbA1c measures at baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months later (r = 0.68, 0.65, 0.60, 0.57, and 0.52, respectively). At all time points, strong positive correlations existed between HbA1c and time spent in hyperglycemia. Substantially weaker, negative correlations existed between HbA1c and time spent in hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

In youth with T1D, the GRI may be useful for evaluating quality of glycemia between scheduled clinic visits. Additional CGM-derived metrics are needed to quantify risk for hypoglycemia in this population.

The Glycemia Risk Index Predicts Performance of Diabetes Self-Management Habits in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

The Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) was developed in adults with diabetes and is a validated metric of quality of glycemia. Little is known about the relationship between GRI and type 1 diabetes (T1D) self-management habits, a validated assessment of youths' engagement in habits associated with glycemic outcomes.

METHOD

We retrospectively examined the relationship between GRI and T1D self-management habits in youth with T1D who received care from a Midwest pediatric diabetes clinic network. The GRI was calculated using seven days of continuous glucose monitor (CGM) data, and T1D self-management habits were assessed ±seven days from the GRI score. A mixed-effects Poisson regression model was used to evaluate the total number of habits youth engaged in with GRI, glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), age, race, ethnicity, and insurance type as fixed effects and participant ID as a random effect to account for multiple clinic visits per individual.

RESULTS

The cohort included 1182 youth aged 2.5 to 18.0 years (mean = 13.8, SD = 3.5) comprising 50.8% male, 84.6% non-Hispanic White, and 64.8% commercial insurance users across a total of 6029 clinic visits. Glycemia Risk Index scores decreased as total number of habits performed increased, suggesting youth who performed more self-management habits achieved a higher quality of glycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

In youth using CGMs, GRI may serve as an easily obtainable metric to help identify youth with above target glycemia, and engagement/disengagement in the T1D self-management habits may inform clinicians with suitable interventions for improving glycemic outcomes.