Assessment of the Impact of Subcutaneous Catheter Change on Glucose Control in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Treated by Insulin Pump in Open- and Closed-Loop Modes

Introduction: Most continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) catheters (KT) are changed every 3 days. This study aims at evaluating whether KT changes impact glucose control while under open-loop (OL) or automated insulin delivery (AID) modes. Methods: We included patients with type 1 diabetes who used Tandem t:slim x2 insulin pump and Dexcom G6 glucose sensor for 20 days in OL, then as AID. CSII and sensor glucose data in OL and for the past 20 days of 3-month AID were retrospectively analyzed. The percentage of time spent with sensor glucose above 180 mg/dL (%TAR180) was compared between the calendar day of KT change (D0), the next day (D1), and 2 days later (D2). Values were adjusted for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at inclusion, and %TAR180 for the 2 h before KT change. Results: A total of 1636 KT changes were analyzed in 134 patients: 72 women (54%), age: 35.6 ± 15.7 years, BMI: 25.2 ± 4.7 kg/m2, and HbA1c: 7.5 ± 0.8%. %TAR180 in the 2 h before the KT change was 51.3 ± 37.0% in OL and 33.2 ± 30.0% in AID mode. In OL, significant absolute increases of %TAR180 at D0 versus D1 (+6.9%; P < 0.0001) or versus D2 (+6.8%; P < 0.0001) were observed. In AID, significant absolute increases of %TA180R at D0 versus D1 (+4.8%; P < 0.0001) or versus D2 (+4.2%; P < 0.0001) were also observed. Conclusion: This study shows an increase in time spent in hyperglycemia on the day of the KT change both in OL and AID modes. This additional information should be taken into account to improve current AID algorithms. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04939766.

Access of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes to insulin pump therapy has greatly increased in France since 2001

AIM

Insulin pump therapy is an emerging option in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D), but it often remains unused. For this reason, in 2007, a French national survey was carried out to update the frequency of insulin pump use in the paediatric population compared with a previous survey done in 2001.

METHODS

The present survey was performed in hospital departments involved in paediatric diabetes management (n = 67) and in adult departments involved in adolescent diabetes management (n = 113). The number of T1D children (age < 18 years) treated in each department, with or without the use of an insulin pump, and the number of insulin pump therapies initiated during the previous year were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 60 paediatric and 28 adult centres responded, involving 9073 T1D children and adolescents (93% in paediatric departments). Of these patients, 1461 (16%) were treated by insulin pump, 89% of which were managed in paediatric centres. However, pump use was more frequent in adult than in paediatric centres (32% versus 18%, respectively). Also, 38% of insulin pumps were initiated during the year prior to the survey. In addition, in 2001, 140 children were treated with insulin pump in 13 paediatric centres (versus 56 centres in 2007).

CONCLUSION

The number of centres using insulin pump therapy for diabetic children and the number of children treated by insulin pump were increased fourfold and 10-fold, respectively, from 2001 to 2007, indicating greater access to pump therapy in the French paediatric population. The present survey is still ongoing to evaluate the decision-making criteria that influence the initiation of insulin pump therapy in T1D paediatric patients.