Glucose Outcomes with the In-Home Use of a Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery System in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Landscape of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) and Integrated CGM: Accuracy Considerations

Continuous glucose monitoring devices have significantly improved in many respects compared with earlier versions. As sensor accuracy improved, U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a nonadjunctive indication for use that no longer required confirmatory blood glucose monitoring. This article discusses the performance characteristics and regulatory classifications for the current systems that are relevant to informed clinical decision-making.

Real-world performance of hybrid closed loop in youth, young adults, adults and older adults with type 1 diabetes: Identifying a clinical target for hybrid closed-loop use

AIM

To describe real-world hybrid closed loop (HCL) use and glycaemic outcomes across the lifespan and identify a clinical threshold for HCL use associated with meeting the internationally recommended target of 70% sensor glucose time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Mixed models examined MiniMed 670G HCL use and glycaemic outcomes in 276 people with type 1 diabetes from four age groups: youth (aged <18 years), young adults (18-25 years), adults (26-49 years) and older adults (≥50 years) for 1 year. ROC analysis identified the minimum percentage HCL use associated with meeting the TIR goal of 70%.

RESULTS

HCL use at month 1 was 70.7% ± 2.9% for youth, 71.0% ± 3.8% for young adults, 78.9% ± 2.1% for adults and 84.7% ± 3.8% in older adults. HCL use declined significantly at 12 months to 49.3% ± 3.2% in youth (P < .001) and 55.7% ± 4.3% in young adults (P = .002). HCL use was sustained at 12 months in adults (76.4% ± 2.2%, P = .36) and older adults (80.4% ± 3.9%, P = .36). HCL use of 70.6% was associated with 70% TIR (sensitivity 58.3%, specificity 85%, AUC 0.77). Older age, 80% or higher continuous glucose monitor use and four or more blood glucose checks per day were associated with attaining the HCL-use threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

HCL use of 70% or higher may be a useful target for clinicians to use to assist people with diabetes in attaining glycaemic goals. Youth may struggle with HCL use more than adults and require clinical intervention to help sustain HCL use across time.

Advanced Closed-Loop Control System Improves Postprandial Glycemic Control Compared With a Hybrid Closed-Loop System Following Unannounced Meal

OBJECTIVE

Meals are a major hurdle to glycemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Our objective was to test a fully automated closed-loop control (CLC) system in the absence of announcement of carbohydrate ingestion among adolescents with T1D, who are known to commonly omit meal announcement.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Eighteen adolescents with T1D (age 15.6 ± 1.7 years; HbA1c 7.4 ± 1.5%; 9 females/9 males) participated in a randomized crossover clinical trial comparing our legacy hybrid CLC system (Unified Safety System Virginia [USS]-Virginia) with a novel fully automated CLC system (RocketAP) during two 46-h supervised admissions (each with one announced and one unannounced dinner), following 2 weeks of data collection. Primary outcome was the percentage time-in-range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) following the unannounced meal, with secondary outcomes related to additional continuous glucose monitoring-based metrics.

RESULTS

Both TIR and time-in-tight-range 70-140 mg/dL (TTR) were significantly higher using RocketAP than using USS-Virginia during the 6 h following the unannounced meal (83% [interquartile range 64-93] vs. 53% [40-71]; P = 0.004 and 49% [41-59] vs. 27% [22-36]; P = 0.002, respectively), primarily driven by reduced time-above-range (TAR >180 mg/dL: 17% [1.3-34] vs. 47% [28-60]), with no increase in time-below-range (TBR <70 mg/dL: 0% median for both). RocketAP also improved control following the announced meal (mean difference TBR: -0.7%, TIR: +7%, TTR: +6%), overall (TIR: +5%, TAR: -5%, TTR: +8%), and overnight (TIR: +7%, TTR: +19%, TAR: -5%). RocketAP delivered less insulin overall (78 ± 23 units vs. 85 ± 20 units, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

A new fully automated CLC system with automatic prandial dosing was proven to be safe and feasible and outperformed our legacy USS-Virginia in an adolescent population with and without meal announcement.

Real-world performance of the MiniMed™ 670G system in Europe

AIM

To evaluate the real-world performance of the MiniMed 670G system in Europe, in individuals with diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data uploaded from October 2018 to July 2020 by individuals living in Europe were aggregated and retrospectively analysed. The mean glucose management indicator (GMI), percentage of time spent within (TIR), below (TBR) and above (TAR) glycaemic ranges, system use and insulin consumed in users with 10 or more days of sensor glucose data after initial Auto Mode start were determined. Another analysis based on suboptimally (GMI > 8.0%) and well-controlled (GMI < 7.0%) glycaemia pre-Auto Mode initiation was also performed.

RESULTS

Users (N = 14 899) spent a mean of 81.4% of the time in Auto Mode and achieved a mean GMI of 7.0% ± 0.4%, TIR of 72.0% ± 9.7%, TBR less than 3.9 mmol/L of 2.4% ± 2.1% and TAR more than 10 mmol/L of 25.7% ± 10%, after initiating Auto Mode. When compared with pre-Auto Mode initiation, GMI was reduced by 0.3% ± 0.4% and TIR increased by 9.6% ± 9.9% (P < .0001 for both). Significantly improved glycaemic control was observed irrespective of pre-Auto Mode GMI levels of less than 7.0% or of more than 8.0%. While the total daily dose of insulin increased for both groups, a greater increase was observed in the latter, an increase primarily due to increased basal insulin delivery. By contrast, basal insulin decreased slightly in well-controlled users.

CONCLUSIONS

Most MiniMed 670G system users in Europe achieved TIR more than 70% and GMI less than 7% while minimizing hypoglycaemia, in a real-world environment. These international consensus-met outcomes were enabled by automated insulin delivery meeting real-time insulin requirements adapted to each individual user.

Amelioration of user experiences and glycaemic outcomes with an Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop System in a real-world clinical setting

AIMS

Automation in diabetes technology is rapidly evolving. The aim was to evaluate the real-world glycemic outcomes and user acceptance after 3 months of using the Medtronic 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) system.

METHODS

A prospective analysis was performed. A glucose target of 100 mg/dl and an active insulin time of 2 h were set. Capillary HbA1c, 2-week of pump and sensor data and several satisfaction questionnaire scores were compared at baseline and after 3 months of using the AHCL system.

RESULTS

52 subjects were selected (age: 43 ± 12 years, sex: 73% female, diabetes duration: 27 ± 11 years, higher education: 31%). Time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dl increased from 67.3 ± 13.6% to 80.1 ± 7.5% and time >180 mg/dl and >250 mg/dl were reduced (16.8 ± 8.4 vs 29.4 ± 15.1%, 2.7 ± 3.0% vs 6.9 ± 7.8%, respectively) (all p < 0.001), while time in hypoglycaemia remained below recommended targets. Time in Auto-Mode and sensor use were 94 ± 10% and 90 ± 11%, respectively. Auto-correction boluses represented 29 ± 12% of bolus insulin. Fear of hypoglycaemia, diabetes quality of life, sleep quality and satisfaction with the monitoring system improved after 3 months.

CONCLUSION

The real-world use of the AHCL system Medtronic 780G provides an 80.1% TIR 70-180 mg/dl with minimal hypoglycaemia and an increased level of patient satisfaction.

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.

Activity detection and classification from wristband accelerometer data collected on people with type 1 diabetes in free-living conditions

This paper introduces methods to estimate aspects of physical activity and sedentary behavior from three-axis accelerometer data collected with a wrist-worn device at a sampling rate of 32 [Hz] on adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in free-living conditions. In particular, we present two methods able to detect and grade activity based on its intensity and individual fitness as sedentary, mild, moderate or vigorous, and a method that performs activity classification in a supervised learning framework to predict specific user behaviors. Population results for activity level grading show multi-class average accuracy of 99.99%, precision of 98.0 ± 2.2%, recall of 97.9 ± 3.5% and F1 score of 0.9 ± 0.0. As for the specific behavior prediction, our best performing classifier, gave population multi-class average accuracy of 92.43 ± 10.32%, precision of 92.94 ± 9.80%, recall of 92.20 ± 10.16% and F1 score of 92.56 ± 9.94%. Our investigation showed that physical activity and sedentary behavior can be detected, graded and classified with good accuracy and precision from three-axial accelerometer data collected in free-living conditions on people with T1D. This is particularly significant in the context of automated glucose control systems for diabetes, in that the methods we propose have the potential to inform changes in treatment parameters in response to the intensity of physical activity, allowing patients to meet their glycemic targets.

Impact of Hybrid Closed Loop Therapy on Hypoglycemia Awareness in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes and Impaired Hypoglycemia Awareness

Objective: This study evaluated the efficacy of using a hybrid closed loop (HCL) system in restoring hypoglycemia awareness in individuals with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH). Research Design and Methods: Participants with IAH (Gold score ≥4) were recruited into a randomized crossover pilot study. They participated in two 8-week periods using a HCL system (Medtronic 670G™) (intervention) and standard insulin pump therapy (control). Hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemic clamp studies were undertaken at baseline and at the end of each study period for the evaluation of the counter-regulatory hormonal and symptomatic responses to hypoglycemia. Results: Seventeen participants (mean age [standard deviation] 35.8 years [11.2 years]) were included in the study. Peak epinephrine levels (median, interquartile range [IQR]) in response to hypoglycemia were similar postintervention and control periods; 234.7 pmol/L (109.2; 938.9) versus 188.3 pmol/L (133.7; 402.9), P = 0.233. However, both peak adrenergic and neuroglycopenic symptom scores were higher after intervention; 5.0 (4.5; 9.0) versus 4.0 (4.0; 5.5), P = 0.009, and 8.5 (6.0; 15.0) versus 6.5 (6.0; 7.0) P = 0.014, respectively. Self-reported hypoglycemia awareness improved: median (IQR) Gold score was 4.0 (3.0; 5.5) versus 5.5 (4.5; 6.0); intervention versus control, P = 0.033. Time spent <3.9 and <3.0 mmol/L was lower in the intervention group than in control, P = 0.002. Other patient-reported outcomes (hypoglycemia fear and diabetes treatment satisfaction) did not change. Conclusions: A short-term use of a HCL system failed to demonstrate an improvement in counter-regulatory hormonal responses. However, higher hypoglycemia symptom scores during controlled hypoglycemia, better self-reported hypoglycemia awareness, and less time spent in hypoglycemia suggest the potential benefits of a HCL system in people with IAH. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12616000909426.

An analysis of Medtronic MiniMed 670G insulin pump use in clinical practice and the impact on glycemic control, quality of life, and compliance

AIMS

This study evaluated the use of the Medtronic MiniMed 670G system in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus from a large endocrinology practice and its impact on glycemic control, quality of life (QoL), compliance and safety.

METHODS

84 participants completed one site visit for data collection. Percentage of time in range (TIR: 70-180 mg/dL), hyperglycemia or time above range (TAB) (>180 mg/dL), hypoglycemia or time below range (TBR) (<70 mg/dL), HbA1c, average blood glucose (ABG), and other metrics were evaluated at the last visit using the system (LVMM) and compared between the last visit on previous insulin therapy (LVPT).

RESULTS

The mean percentage of TIR at the LVMM was 74.0 ± 12.1%, with an increase of 27.1% (p < 0.001) in TIR from the LVPT. The mean percentage of TAR was 22.9 ± 11.8% and the mean percentage of TBR was 3.2 ± 5.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the Medtronic MiniMed 670G system in our practice resulted in a TIR above the recommended target with a high degree of treatment satisfaction and compliance in adults with type 1 diabetes. Furthermore, the system may be a reasonable choice for patients struggling with significant amounts of hypoglycemia.

Commercialized Hybrid Closed-Loop System (Minimed Medtronic 670G) Results During Pregnancy

Objective

Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) devices can achieve tight glycemic control but are rarely used in pregnancy, which remains an off-label indication. We present a case of a pregnant patient with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) who used the Medtronic MiniMed 670G HCL system.

Methods

MiniMed 670G includes an advanced automode option (HCL therapy), which our patient used from the first trimester to the end of the pregnancy.

Results

An unplanned pregnancy was detected in the T1DM patient, with a glycated hemoglobin level of 8.7 mmol/L (7.1%). The patient started sensor-augmented pump therapy at week 13. Subsequently, she entered automode (HCL) at week 16. The time in range (3.7-7.8 mmol/mol, 63-140 mg/dL) increased from 46.8% to 51.3% after HCL initiation. The glycated hemoglobin level remained close to 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) until the end of the pregnancy. Furthermore, the time under range (<3.7 mmol/mol, <63 mg/dL) remained below the optimal 4% level during the gestation. Finally, a healthy male baby was born at week 37. No safety events were recorded.

Conclusion

This case represents the successful off-label use of HCL during pregnancy in a patient with T1DM.

Real-world outcomes with different technology modalities in type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Several treatment modalities are available for type 1 diabetes (T1D), including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and flash glucose monitoring (FGM) with MDI, sensor-augmented pumps with predictive low-glucose suspend function (SAP-PLGS) and hybrid closed-loop systems (HCL). The aim of the study was to evaluate the real-world benefits obtained with these treatment modalities.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A cross-sectional study was performed, selecting 4 groups of T1D subjects, regarding their treatment modalities, paired by age, sex and diabetes duration. A comparison was performed, concerning time in different glucose ranges in 2-week sensor downloads. Estimated HbA1c, glycaemic variability measures and sensor use were also compared. 302 T1D people were included (age: 39 ± 12 years, 47% male, diabetes duration: 21 ± 10 years, estimated HbA1c: 7.28 ± 0.84% (56 ± 9 mmol/mol), baseline HbA1c: 7.4 ± 1.0% (57 ± 11 mmol/mol), length of use of the device 8 [3-21] months). Group 1 (CGM + MDI) and 2 (FGM + MDI) showed no differences in time in different glucose ranges. Group 4 (HCL) showed a higher time 70-180 mg/dl and a lower time in hypoglycaemia than group 3 (SAP-PLGS). Group 1 and 2 showed lower time 70-180 mg/dl, higher time in hyperglycaemia and higher glycaemic variability measures than group 3. Group 4 was superior to groups 1 and 2 in all the outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Real-life achievements in glycaemic control and glycaemic variability are described. HCL offer the maximum benefit in terms of time in range and hypoglycaemia protection, compared to CGM + MDI, FGM + MDI and SAP-PLGS.

Health-Related Quality of Life and Treatment Satisfaction in Parents and Children with Type 1 Diabetes Using Closed-Loop Control

Introduction: Hybrid closed-loop systems increase time-in-range (TIR) and reduce glycemic variability. Person-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential to assess the utility of new devices and their impact on quality of life. This article focuses on the PROs for pediatric participants (ages 6-13 years) with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and their parents during a trial using the Tandem Control-IQ system, which was shown to increase TIR and improve other glycemic metrics. Research Design and Methods: One hundred and one children 6 to 13 years old with T1D were randomly assigned to closed-loop control (CLC) or sensor-augmented pump (SAP) in a 16-week randomized clinical trial with extension to 28 weeks during which the SAP group crossed over to CLC. Health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction measures were obtained from children and their parents at baseline, 16 weeks, and 28 weeks. Results: Neither the children in the CLC group nor their parents had statistically significant changes in PRO outcomes compared with the SAP group at the end of the 16-week randomized controlled trial and the 28-week extension. Parents in the CLC group reported nonsignificant improvements in some PRO scores when compared with the SAP group at 16 weeks, which were sustained at 28 weeks. Sleep scores for parents improved from "poor sleep quality" to "adequate sleep quality" between baseline and 16 weeks, however, the change in scores was not statistically different between groups. Conclusions: Children with T1D who used the Control-IQ system did not experience increased burden compared with those using SAP based on person-reported outcomes from the children and their parents. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT03844789.

First Outpatient Evaluation of a Tubeless Automated Insulin Delivery System with Customizable Glucose Targets in Children and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Background: The objective of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of the first commercial configuration of a tubeless automated insulin delivery system, Omnipod^® 5, in children (6-13.9 years) and adults (14-70 years) with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in an outpatient setting. Materials and Methods: This was a single-arm, multicenter, prospective clinical study. Data were collected over a 14-day standard therapy (ST) phase followed by a 14-day hybrid closed-loop (HCL) phase, where participants (n = 36) spent 72 h at each of three prespecified glucose targets (130, 140, and 150 mg/dL, 9 days total) then 5 days with free choice of glucose targets (110-150 mg/dL) using the Omnipod 5. Remote safety monitoring alerts were enabled during the HCL phase. Primary endpoints were difference in time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) between ST and HCL phases and proportion of participants reporting serious device-related adverse events. Results: Mean TIR was significantly higher among children in the free-choice period overall (64.9% ± 12.2%, P < 0.01) and when using a 110 mg/dL target (71.2% ± 10.2%, P < 0.01), a 130 mg/dL target (61.5% ± 7.7%, P < 0.01), and a 140 mg/dL target (64.8% ± 11.6%, P < 0.01), and among adults using a 130 mg/dL target (75.1% ± 11.6%, P < 0.05), compared to the ST phase (children: 51.0% ± 13.3% and adults: 65.6% ± 15.7%). There were no serious device-related adverse events reported during the HCL phase, nor were there episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis. Conclusion: The Omnipod 5 System was safe and effective when used at glucose targets from 110 to 150 mg/dL for 14 days at home in children and adults with T1D.

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.

Fast-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp®) improves glycemic outcomes when used with MiniMedTM 670G hybrid closed-loop system in simulated trials compared to NovoLog®

INTRODUCTION

Medtronic has developed a virtual patient simulator for modeling and predicting insulin therapy outcomes for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). An enhanced simulator was created to estimate outcomes when using the MiniMed^TM 670G system with standard NovoLog® (EU: NovoRapid, US: NovoLog) versus Fiasp ® by using clinical data.

METHODS

Sixty-seven participants' PK profiles were generated per type of insulin (Total of 134 PK profiles). 7,485 virtual patients' PK measurements was matched with one of the 67 NovoLog® PK Tmax values. These 7,485 virtual patients were then simulated using the Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G algorithm following an in-silico protocol of 90 days: 14 days in open loop (Manual Mode) followed by 76 days in closed loop (Auto Mode). Simulation study was repeated with each NovoLog® PK profile being replaced by its corresponding Fiasp® PK profile in the same virtual patient. To validate our in-silico analysis, we compared the results of "actual" 19 "real life" patients from a clinical study RESULTS: Simulated overall and postprandial glycemic outcomes improved in all age groups with Fiasp®. The percentage of time in the euglycemic range increased by about ~2.2% with Fiasp®, in all age groups (p < 0.01). The percentage of time spent at <70 mg/dL was reduced by about ~0.6% with insulin Fiasp® (p < 0.01) and the mean glucose was reduced by about 1.3 mg/dL (p < 0.01), excluding those age <7 years. The simulated mean postprandial SG was reduced by ~5 mg/dL, a significant difference for all age groups. A clinical study results showed similar improvements with MiniMed^TM 670G system when switching from NovoLog® to Fiasp®.

CONCLUSIONS

The simulation studies indicate that using Fiasp® in place of NovoLog® with the MiniMed^TM 670G system will significantly improve the time spent in the healthy, euglycemic range and reduce exposure to hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia in most patients.

A Virtual Training Program for the Tandem t:slim X2 Insulin Pump: Implementation and Outcomes

Insulin pump training has traditionally been performed in-person. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated vast increases in the number of virtual pump trainings for Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump starts. A customized structured pump training curriculum specifically tailored to virtual learning was deployed in early 2020, and included (1) preparation for training with use of the t:simulator app, (2) use of the teach-back method during video training, and (3) automating data uploads for follow-up. Retrospective analysis from >23,000 pump training sessions performed from January 1, 2020 to July 28, 2020 showed sensor time-in-range for up to 6 months after training was 72% (60%-81%) for virtual training versus 67% (54%-78%) for in-person training. Higher user satisfaction (4.78 ± 0.52 vs. 4.64 ± 0.68; P < 0.01) and higher user confidence (4.61 ± 0.75 vs. 4.47 ± 0.0.85; P < 0.01) were reported after the virtual sessions. Virtual pump training was well received and proved safe and effective with the new virtual training curriculum.

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.

'Smart' insulin-delivery technologies and intrinsic glucose-responsive insulin analogues

Insulin replacement therapy for diabetes mellitus seeks to minimise excursions in blood glucose concentration above or below the therapeutic range (hyper- or hypoglycaemia). To mitigate acute and chronic risks of such excursions, glucose-responsive insulin-delivery technologies have long been sought for clinical application in type 1 and long-standing type 2 diabetes mellitus. Such 'smart' systems or insulin analogues seek to provide hormonal activity proportional to blood glucose levels without external monitoring. This review highlights three broad strategies to co-optimise mean glycaemic control and time in range: (1) coupling of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to delivery devices (algorithm-based 'closed-loop' systems); (2) glucose-responsive polymer encapsulation of insulin; and (3) mechanism-based hormone modifications. Innovations span control algorithms for CGM-based insulin-delivery systems, glucose-responsive polymer matrices, bio-inspired design based on insulin's conformational switch mechanism upon insulin receptor engagement, and glucose-responsive modifications of new insulin analogues. In each case, innovations in insulin chemistry and formulation may enhance clinical outcomes. Prospects are discussed for intrinsic glucose-responsive insulin analogues containing a reversible switch (regulating bioavailability or conformation) that can be activated by glucose at high concentrations.

Closed-Loop Insulin Therapy Improves Glycemic Control in Adolescents and Young Adults: Outcomes from the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of closed-loop control (CLC) insulin delivery system in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Research Design and Methods: Prespecified subanalysis of outcomes in adolescents and young adults aged 14-24 years old with type 1 diabetes in a previously published 6-month multicenter randomized trial. Participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to CLC (Tandem Control-IQ) or sensor augmented pump (SAP, various pumps+Dexcom G6 CGM) and followed for 6 months. Results: Mean age of the 63 participants was 17 years, median type 1 diabetes duration was 7 years, and mean baseline HbA1c was 8.1%. All 63 completed the trial. Time in range (TIR) increased by 13% with CLC versus decreasing by 1% with SAP (adjusted treatment group difference = +13% [+3.1 h/day]; 95% confidence interval [CI] 9-16, P < 0.001), which largely reflected a reduction in time >180 mg/dL (adjusted difference -12% [-2.9 h/day], P < 0.001). Time <70 mg/dL decreased by 1.6% with CLC versus 0.3% with SAP (adjusted difference -0.7% [-10 min/day], 95% CI -1.0% to -0.2%, P = 0.002). CLC use averaged 89% of the time for 6 months. The mean adjusted difference in HbA1c after 6 months was 0.30% in CLC versus SAP (95% CI -0.67 to +0.08, P = 0.13). There was one diabetic ketoacidosis episode in the CLC group. Conclusions: CLC use for 6 months was substantial and associated with improved TIR and reduced hypoglycemia in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Thus, CLC has the potential to improve glycemic outcomes in this challenging age group. The clinical trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03563313).

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.

Safety and glycemic outcomes of do-it-yourself AndroidAPS hybrid closed-loop system in adults with type 1 diabetes

Background

The aim of the study was to assess the safety and glycemic outcomes with the use of a Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Hybrid Closed-Loop (HCL) system based on the AndroidAPS application in type 1 diabetes (T1D).

Methods

Single-center clinical trial, with 3-week run-in and 12-week study period. DIY HCL system consisted of the Dana Diabecare RS insulin pump, Dexcom G5 continuous glucose monitoring system and AndroidAPS application. Primary outcome was safety: incidences of severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, time spent in glycemia <54 mg/dl. Secondary endpoints included percentage of time in range (TIR) 70–180 mg/dl, time below 70 mg/dl, HbA1c, insulin requirements, and body weight.

Results

In total 12 subjects (5 men, 7 women) were enrolled, mean age 31.3±6.7, 95%CI(27.7–34.9) years, mean diabetes duration 16.1±5.7, 95%CI(13.0–19.2) years. No episodes of severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis were observed. Percentage of time spent in glycemia below 54mg/dl was not increased. Average sensor glycemia was lower in the study period than baseline (141.1 ± 8.4, 95%CI(136.3–145.9) vs. 153.3 ± 17.9, 95%CI(143.2–163.4), mg/dl p<0.001). TIR 70–180 mg/dl was improved by 11.3%, 95%CI(2.8%-19.8%) (from 68.0 ± 12.7 to 79.3 ± 6.4%, p<0.001), without increasing hypoglycemia time. The HbA1c level decreased by -0.5%, 95%CI(-0.9%–-0.1%) (from 6.8 ± 0.5 to 6.3 ± 0.4%, p<0.001). Additionally, in the last 4 weeks of the study period participants significantly improved and showed TIR 70–180 mg/dl 82.1 ± 5.6%, 95%CI(78.9–85.3), time <54 mg/dl 0.30 (0.20–0.55)%, median 95%CI(0.1–0.7) and <70 mg/dl 1.90 (1.10–3.05)%, median 95%CI(0.7–3.2). The insulin requirement and body weight did not change in the study.

Conclusions

The study revealed safety of the Do-It-Yourself HCL system AndroidAPS in adults with T1D, limited to well-controlled, highly selected and closely monitored patients. The use of AndroidAPS significantly improved HbA1c, time in range and average sensor glycemia without increasing hypoglycemia. As both patients and their medical team are gaining experience using the system over time, they improve glycemic control.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register: no. DRKS00015439; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00015439.

Improved Glycemic Outcomes With Medtronic MiniMed Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Delivery: Results From a Randomized Crossover Trial Comparing Automated Insulin Delivery With Predictive Low Glucose Suspend in People With Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To study the MiniMed Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) system, which includes an algorithm with individualized basal target set points, automated correction bolus function, and improved Auto Mode stability.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This dual-center, randomized, open-label, two-sequence crossover study in automated-insulin-delivery-naive participants with type 1 diabetes (aged 7-80 years) compared AHCL to sensor-augmented pump therapy with predictive low glucose management (SAP + PLGM). Each study phase was 4 weeks, preceded by a 2- to 4-week run-in and separated by a 2-week washout.

RESULTS

The study was completed by 59 of 60 people (mean age 23.3 ± 14.4 years). Time in target range (TIR) 3.9-10 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL) favored AHCL over SAP + PLGM (70.4 ± 8.1% vs. 57.9 ± 11.7%) by 12.5 ± 8.5% (P < 0.001), with greater improvement overnight (18.8 ± 12.9%, P < 0.001). All age-groups (children [7-13 years], adolescents [14-21 years], and adults [>22 years]) demonstrated improvement, with adolescents showing the largest improvement (14.4 ± 8.4%). Mean sensor glucose (SG) at run-in was 9.3 ± 0.9 mmol/L (167 ± 16.2 mg/dL) and improved with AHCL (8.5 ± 0.7 mmol/L [153 ± 12.6 mg/dL], P < 0.001), but deteriorated during PLGM (9.5 ± 1.1 mmol/L [17 ± 19.8 mg/dL], P < 0.001). TIR was optimal when the algorithm set point was 5.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) compared with 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL), 72.0 ± 7.9% vs. 64.6 ± 6.9%, respectively, with no additional hypoglycemia. Auto Mode was active 96.4 ± 4.0% of the time. The percentage of hypoglycemia at baseline (<3.9 mmol/L [70 mg/dL] and ≤3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) was 3.1 ± 2.1% and 0.5 ± 0.6%, respectively. During AHCL, the percentage time at <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) improved to 2.1 ± 1.4% (P = 0.034) and was statistically but not clinically reduced for ≤3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) (0.5 ± 0.5%; P = 0.025). There was one episode of mild diabetic ketoacidosis attributed to an infusion set failure in combination with an intercurrent illness, which occurred during the SAP + PLGM arm.

CONCLUSIONS

AHCL with automated correction bolus demonstrated significant improvement in glucose control compared with SAP + PLGM. A lower algorithm SG set point during AHCL resulted in greater TIR, with no increase in hypoglycemia.

Fast Acting Insulin Aspart Compared with Insulin Aspart in the Medtronic 670G Hybrid Closed Loop System in Type 1 Diabetes: An Open Label Crossover Study

This is a single-center randomized open label active-controlled crossover trial comparing efficacy and safety of fast acting insulin aspart (FA) (FIASP^®) versus insulin aspart (IAsp) (NovoLog^®) when used in the Medtronic 670G system in auto mode in patients with type 1 diabetes. Forty patients were randomized to either IAsp or FA. Each treatment period was 7 weeks and a standardized meal test was administered 6 weeks after the start of each treatment period. The primary endpoint was postprandial glucose (PPG) increment after the meal test at 1 h. Treatment with FA using the MiniMed 670G hybrid closed loop (HCL) led to a greater reduction in 1-h postprandial glucose increase compared with treatment with IAsp during the standardized mixed meal test. Change in glucose: [estimated treatment difference (ETD ± standard deviation [SD]); 95% confidence interval]: 70.27 (±17.36) mg/dL (3.9 ± 1.0 mmol/L) with FA versus 98.42 (±17.36) mg/dL (5.5 ± 1.0 mmol/L) with IAsp (P = 0.008). Patients spent 1.81% (P = 0.016) more time (equivalent to 26 min per day) in the 70-180 mg/dL (3.89-9.99 mmol/L) range with FA than with IAsp. The entire sample spent only 0.5% of time <54 mg/dL (<3.0 mmol/L) range. The increment in the 1 h postmeal test glucose was significantly lower with FA versus IAsp. FA in a HCL setting is safe and effective with patients spending more time in the 70-180 mg/dL (3.89-9.99 mmol/L) target range than with IAsp. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03977727.

Clinical Management and Pump Parameter Adjustment of the Control-IQ Closed-Loop Control System: Results from a 6-Month, Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Data are limited on the need for and benefits of pump setting optimization with automated insulin delivery. We examined clinical management of a closed-loop control (CLC) system and its relationship to glycemic outcomes. Materials and Methods: We analyzed personal parameter adjustments in 168 participants in a 6-month multicenter trial of CLC with Control-IQ versus sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. Preset parameters (BR = basal rates, CF = correction factors, CR = carbohydrate ratios) were optimized at randomization, 2 and 13 weeks, for safety issues, participant concerns, or initiation by participants' usual diabetes care team. Time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was compared in the week before and after parameter changes. Results: In 607 encounters for parameter changes, there were fewer adjustments for CLC than SAP (3.4 vs. 4.1/participant). Adjustments involved BR (CLC 69%, SAP 80%), CR (CLC 68%, SAP 50%), CF (CLC 44%, SAP 41%), and overnight parameters (CLC 62%, SAP 75%). TIR before and after adjustments was 71.2% and 71.3% for CLC and 61.0% and 62.9% for SAP. The highest baseline HbA_1c CLC subgroup had the largest TIR improvement (51.2% vs. 57.7%). When a CR was made more aggressive in the CLC group, postprandial time >180 mg/dL was 43.1% before the change and 36.0% after the change. The median postprandial time <70 mg/dL before making CR less aggressive was 1.8%, and after the change was 0.7%. Conclusions: No difference in TIR was detected with parameter changes overall, but they may have an effect in higher HbA_1c subgroups or following user-directed boluses, suggesting that changes may matter more in suboptimal control or during discrete periods of the day. Clinical Trials Registration number: NCT03563313.

Brain Health in Children with Type 1 Diabetes: Risk and Protective Factors

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To synthesize findings from studies of neurocognitive complications in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and highlight potential risk and protective factors.

RECENT FINDINGS

Emerging evidence suggests that hyperglycemia and time in range may be more important for brain development than episodes of hypoglycemia. Further, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) at the time of T1D diagnosis appears to be a particular risk factor for neurocognitive complications, particularly deficits in executive function skills and memory, with differences in cerebral white matter microstructure seen via advanced magnetic resonance imaging methods, and lower scores on measures of attention and memory observed among children who were diagnosed in DKA. Other factors that may influence neurocognitive development include child sleep, caregiver distress, and diabetes device use, presumably due to improved glycemic control. We highlight neurocognitive risk and protective factors for children with T1D and priorities for future research in this high-risk population.

Performance of an Automated Insulin Delivery System: Results of Early Phase Feasibility Studies

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have demonstrated improvements in time-in-range (TIR, blood glucose 70-180 mg/dL) without increasing hypoglycemia. Testing a closed-loop system in an inpatient environment with supervised challenges allows for initial evaluation of performance and safety of the system. Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) were enrolled into two similar studies (n = 10 per study), with 3-day inpatient analysis periods. Participants tested a Lilly hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system comprising an investigational insulin pump, insulin lispro, a pump-embedded model predictive control algorithm, a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and an external dedicated controller. Each protocol included meal-related and exercise challenges to simulate real-world diabetes self-management errors. Only study staff interacted with the HCL system. Performance was assessed using standard CGM metrics overall and within prespecified periods. Results: Participants (25% male) had mean ± standard deviation (SD) age 44.7 ± 14.2 years, T1D duration 30.2 ± 11.1 years, A1C 7.2% ± 0.8%, and insulin usage 0.53 ± 0.21 U/(kg·day). Percentage TIR 70-180 mg/dL (mean ± SD) was 81.2 ± 8.4 overall, 85.2 ± 8.1 outside of challenge periods, 97.3 ± 5.3 during the nocturnal periods, and 74.5 ± 16.2 for the postprandial periods. During challenge periods, percentage TIR for the overbolus challenge was 65.4 ± 29.2 and that for the delayed bolus challenge was 57.1 ± 25.1. No adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, or unanticipated adverse device events occurred while participants were using the HCL system. Conclusions: In participants with T1D, Lilly AID system demonstrated expected algorithm performance and safety with satisfactory glycemic outcomes overall and in response to simulated diabetes management challenges. Additional studies in less supervised conditions and with broader patient populations are warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration number NCT03743285, NCT03849612.

Fully Closed Loop Glucose Control With a Bihormonal Artificial Pancreas in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: An Outpatient, Randomized, Crossover Trial

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the performance and safety of a bihormonal (insulin and glucagon) artificial pancreas (AP) in adults with type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this outpatient, randomized, crossover trial, 2-week fully closed loop glucose control (AP therapy) was compared with 2-week open loop control (patient's normal insulin pump therapy with a glucose sensor if they had one).

RESULTS

A total of 23 patients were included in the analysis. Time in range (70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]) was significantly higher during closed loop (median 86.6% of time [interquartile range 84.9-88.5]) compared with open loop (53.9% [49.7-67.2]; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with insulin pump therapy, the bihormonal AP provided superior glucose control, without meal or exercise announcements, and was safe in adults with type 1 diabetes.

Hybrid closed-loop therapy: Where are we in 2021?

Hybrid closed-loop systems are characterized by the coexistence of algorithm-driven automated insulin delivery combined with manual mealtime boluses. Used correctly, these insulin delivery systems offer better glucose control and reduced risk of hypoglycaemia and represent the most advanced form of insulin delivery available for people with type 1 diabetes. The aim of this paper was to compare the currently available commercial hybrid closed-loop systems in the UK: the Medtronic 670G/780G, Tandem t:slim X2 Control IQ and CamAPS FX systems. The Medtronic 670G/780G systems use Guardian 3 sensor (7-day use, two to four calibrations per day), while Tandem and CamAPS systems use the calibration-free Dexcom G6 sensor (10 days). The CamAPS system is available as an android app, whereas the other two systems have the algorithm embedded in the insulin pump. During pivotal studies, depending on the study population and baseline glycated haemoglobin level, these systems achieve a time spent in the target range 3.9 to 10 mmol/L (70 to 180 mg/dL) of 65% to 76% with low burden of hypoglycaemia. All three systems allow a higher glucose target for announced exercise, while the Tandem system offers an additional night-time tighter target. The CamAPS system offers fully customizable glucose targets and is the only system licensed for use during pregnancy. Additional education is required for both users and healthcare professionals to harness the best performance from these systems as well as to troubleshoot when "automode exits" occur. We provide consensus recommendations to develop pragmatic pathways to guide patients, clinicians and commissioners in making informed decisions on the appropriate use of the diabetes technology.

A Comparison of Feature Selection and Forecasting Machine Learning Algorithms for Predicting Glycaemia in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM1) is a metabolic disease derived from falls in pancreatic insulin production resulting in chronic hyperglycemia. DM1 subjects usually have to undertake a number of assessments of blood glucose levels every day, employing capillary glucometers for the monitoring of blood glucose dynamics. In recent years, advances in technology have allowed for the creation of revolutionary biosensors and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) techniques. This has enabled the monitoring of a subject’s blood glucose level in real time. On the other hand, few attempts have been made to apply machine learning techniques to predicting glycaemia levels, but dealing with a database containing such a high level of variables is problematic. In this sense, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the issues of proper feature selection (FS)—the stage before applying predictive algorithms—have not been subject to in-depth discussion and comparison in past research when it comes to forecasting glycaemia. Therefore, in order to assess how a proper FS stage could improve the accuracy of the glycaemia forecasted, this work has developed six FS techniques alongside four predictive algorithms, applying them to a full dataset of biomedical features related to glycaemia. These were harvested through a wide-ranging passive monitoring process involving 25 patients with DM1 in practical real-life scenarios. From the obtained results, we affirm that Random Forest (RF) as both predictive algorithm and FS strategy offers the best average performance (Root Median Square Error, RMSE = 18.54 mg/dL) throughout the 12 considered predictive horizons (up to 60 min in steps of 5 min), showing Support Vector Machines (SVM) to have the best accuracy as a forecasting algorithm when considering, in turn, the average of the six FS techniques applied (RMSE = 20.58 mg/dL).

Assessing the efficacy, safety and utility of closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in very young children with type 1 diabetes (KidsAP02 study): an open-label, multicentre, multinational, randomised cross-over study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes management in very young children remains challenging. Glycaemic targets are achieved at the expense of high parental diabetes management burden and frequent hypoglycaemia, impacting quality of life for the whole family. Our objective is to assess whether automated insulin delivery can improve glycaemic control and alleviate the burden of diabetes management in this particular age group.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study adopts an open-label, multinational, multicentre, randomised, crossover design and aims to randomise 72 children aged 1-7 years with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy. Following screening, participants will receive training on study insulin pump and study continuous glucose monitoring devices. Participants will be randomised to 16-week use of the hybrid closed-loop system (intervention period) or to 16-week use of sensor-augmented pump therapy (control period) with 1-4 weeks washout period before crossing over to the other arm. The order of the two study periods will be random. The primary endpoint is the between-group difference in time spent in the target glucose range from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L based on sensor glucose readings during the 16-week study periods. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Key secondary endpoints are between group differences in time spent above and below target glucose range, glycated haemoglobin and average sensor glucose. Participants' and caregivers' experiences will be evaluated using questionnaires and qualitative interviews, and sleep quality will be assessed. A health economic analysis will be performed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been obtained from Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee (UK), Ethics Committees of the University of Innsbruck, the University of Vienna and the University of Graz (Austria), Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Leipzig (Germany) and Comité National d'Ethique de Recherche (Luxembourg). The results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03784027.

Toward a Fully Automated Artificial Pancreas System Using a Bioinspired Reinforcement Learning Design: In Silico Validation

OBJECTIVE

The automation of insulin treatment is the most challenge aspect of glucose management for type 1 diabetes owing to unexpected exogenous events (e.g., meal intake). In this article, we propose a novel reinforcement learning (RL) based artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for a fully automated artificial pancreas (AP) system.

METHODS

A bioinspired RL designing method was developed for automated insulin infusion. This method has reward functions that imply the temporal homeostatic objective and discount factors that reflect an individual specific pharmacological characteristic. The proposed method was applied to a training method using an RL algorithm and was evaluated in virtual patients from the FDA approved UVA/Padova simulator with unannounced meal intakes.

RESULTS

For a single-meal experiment with preprandial fasting, the trained policy demonstrated fully automated regulation in both the basal and postprandial phases. In the in silico trial with a variation of insulin sensitivity and dawn phenomenon, the policy achieved a mean glucose of 124.72 mg/dL and percentage time in the normal range of 89.56%. The layer-wise relevance propagation provides interpretable information on AI-driven decision for robustness to sensor noise, automated postprandial regulation, and insulin stacking avoidance.

CONCLUSION

The AP algorithm based on the bioinspired RL approach enables fully automated blood glucose control with unannounced meal intake.

SIGNIFICANCE

The proposed framework can be extended to other drug-based treatments for systems with significant uncertainties.

The Digital/Virtual Diabetes Clinic: The Future Is Now-Recommendations from an International Panel on Diabetes Digital Technologies Introduction

The increasing prevalence of diabetes, combined with a growing global shortage of health care professionals (HCP), necessitates the need to develop new approaches to diabetes care delivery to expand access to care, lessen the burden on people with diabetes, improve efficiencies, and reduce the unsustainable financial liability on health systems and payers. Use of digital diabetes technologies and telehealth protocols within a digital/virtual diabetes clinic has the potential to address these challenges. However, several issues must be resolved to move forward. In February 2020, organizers of the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes Annual Conference convened an international panel of HCP, researchers, patient advocates, and industry representatives to review the status of digital diabetes technologies, characterize deficits in current technologies, and identify issues for consideration. Since that meeting, the importance of using telehealth and digital diabetes technologies has been demonstrated amid the global coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. This article summarizes the panel's discussion of the opportunities, obstacles, and requisites for advancing the use of these technologies as a standard of care for the management of diabetes.

One-year experience of hybrid closed-loop system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes previously treated with multiple daily injections: drivers to successful outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of a 1-year hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system on glycemic control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) previously treated with multiple daily injections (MDI).

METHODS

This was a 1-year observational study, as a continuation of the previous 3 months prospective study of pediatric patients with T1D conducted at Sidra Medicine in Qatar. The study enrolled individuals aged 7-18 years with T1D > 1 year, on MDI with self-monitoring of blood glucose or continuous glucose monitoring, with no prior pump experience, and with an HbA1c level < 12.5% (< 113 mmol/mol). After the first 3 months of HCL use, patients were followed at 6, 9 and 12 months, where HbA1c was obtained and pump data were collected.

RESULTS

All 30 participants (age 10.24 ± 2.6 years) who initiated HCL completed 12 months of HCL system use in Auto Mode. The participants used the sensor 88.4 ± 6.5% of the time with Auto Mode usage 85.6 ± 7.4% during 12 months of HCL system use. HbA1c decreased from 8.2 ± 1.4% (66 ± 15.3 mmol/mol) at baseline, to 6.7 ± 0.5% (50 ± 5.5 mmol/mol) at 3 months (p = 0.02) and remained stable to 7.1 ± 0.6 (54 ± 6.6 mmol/mol) at 12 months (p = 0.02). TIR (70-180 mg/dL) increased from 46.9% at baseline to 71.9% at 1 month and remained above 70% during the 12 months of HCL use.

CONCLUSION

HCL system (MiniMed 670G) in children and adolescents previously treated with MDI significantly improves glycemic outcomes (HbA1c and Time in Ranges) immediately during the first month. This improved glycemic control was maintained over the 1 year following Auto Mode initiation.

A comparison of two hybrid closed-loop systems in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes (FLAIR): a multicentre, randomised, crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Management of type 1 diabetes is challenging. We compared outcomes using a commercially available hybrid closed-loop system versus a new investigational system with features potentially useful for adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

In this multinational, randomised, crossover trial (Fuzzy Logic Automated Insulin Regulation [FLAIR]), individuals aged 14-29 years old, with a clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes with a duration of at least 1 year, using either an insulin pump or multiple daily insulin injections, and glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels of 7·0-11·0% (53-97 mmol/mol) were recruited from seven academic-based endocrinology practices, four in the USA, and one each in Germany, Israel, and Slovenia. After a run-in period to teach participants how to use the study pump and continuous glucose monitor, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated sequence, with a permuted block design (block sizes of two and four), stratified by baseline HbA_1c and use of a personal MiniMed 670G system (Medtronic) at enrolment, to either use of a MiniMed 670G hybrid closed-loop system (670G) or the investigational advanced hybrid closed-loop system (Medtronic) for the first 12-week period, and then participants were crossed over with no washout period, to the other group for use for another 12 weeks. Masking was not possible due to the nature of the systems used. The coprimary outcomes, measured with continuous glucose monitoring, were proportion of time that glucose levels were above 180 mg/dL (>10·0 mmol/L) during 0600 h to 2359 h (ie, daytime), tested for superiority, and proportion of time that glucose levels were below 54 mg/dL (<3·0 mmol/L) calculated over a full 24-h period, tested for non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin 2%). Analysis was by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all participants randomly assigned to treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03040414, and is now complete.

FINDINGS

Between June 3 and Aug 22, 2019, 113 individuals were enrolled into the trial. Mean age was 19 years (SD 4) and 70 (62%) of 113 participants were female. Mean proportion of time with daytime glucose levels above 180 mg/dL (>10·0 mmol/L) was 42% (SD 13) at baseline, 37% (9) during use of the 670G system, and 34% (9) during use of the advanced hybrid closed-loop system (mean difference [advanced hybrid closed-loop system minus 670G system] -3·00% [95% CI -3·97 to -2·04]; p<0·0001). Mean 24-h proportion of time with glucose levels below 54 mg/dL (<3·0 mmol/L) was 0·46% (SD 0·42) at baseline, 0·50% (0·35) during use of the 670G system, and 0·46% (0·33) during use of the advanced hybrid closed-loop system (mean difference [advanced hybrid closed-loop system minus 670G system] -0·06% [95% CI -0·11 to -0·02]; p<0·0001 for non-inferiority). One severe hypoglycaemic event occurred in the advanced hybrid closed-loop system group, determined to be unrelated to study treatment, and none occurred in the 670G group.

INTERPRETATION

Hyperglycaemia was reduced without increasing hypoglycaemia in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes using the investigational advanced hybrid closed-loop system compared with the commercially available MiniMed 670G system. Testing an advanced hybrid closed-loop system in populations that are underserved due to socioeconomic factors and testing during pregnancy and in individuals with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia would advance the effective use of this technology FUNDING: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

A Comprehensive Review of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Accuracy during Exercise Periods

Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) has been a springboard of new diabetes management technologies such as integrated sensor-pump systems, the artificial pancreas, and more recently, smart pens. It also allows patients to make better informed decisions compared to a few measurements per day from a glucometer. However, CGM accuracy is reportedly affected during exercise periods, which can impact the effectiveness of CGM-based treatments. In this review, several studies that used CGM during exercise periods are scrutinized. An extensive literature review of clinical trials including exercise and CGM in type 1 diabetes was conducted. The gathered data were critically analysed, especially the Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD), as the main metric of glucose accuracy. Most papers did not provide accuracy metrics that differentiated between exercise and rest (non-exercise) periods, which hindered comparative data analysis. Nevertheless, the statistic results confirmed that CGM during exercise periods is less accurate.

Time in range centered diabetes care

Optimal glycemic control remains challenging and elusive for many people with diabetes. With the comprehensive clinical evidence on safety and efficiency in large populations, and with broader reimbursement, the adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is rapidly increasing. Standardized visual reporting and interpretation of CGM data and clear and understandable clinical targets will help professionals and individuals with diabetes use diabetes technology more efficiently, and finally improve long-term outcomes with less everyday disease burden. For the majority of people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, time in range (between 70 and 180 mg/dL, or 3.9 and 10 mmol/L) target of more than 70% is recommended, with each incremental increase of 5% towards this target being clinically meaningful. At the same time, the goal is to minimize glycemic excursions: a recommended target for a time below range (< 70 mg/dL or < 3.9 mmol/L) is less than 4%, and time above range (> 180 mg/dL or 10 mmol/L) less than 25%, with less stringent goals for older individuals or those at increased risk. These targets should be individualized: the personal use of CGM with the standardized data presentation provides all necessary means to accurately tailor diabetes management to the needs of each individual with diabetes.

Virtual training on the hybrid close loop system in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In Colombia, the government established mandatory isolation after the first case of COVID-19 was reported. As a diabetes care center specialized in technology, we developed a virtual training program for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) who were upgrading to hybrid closed loop (HCL) system. The aim of this study is to describe the efficacy and safety outcomes of the virtual training program.

METHOD

ology: A prospective observational cohort study was performed, including patients with diagnosis of T1D previously treated with multiple doses of insulin (MDI) or sensor augmented pump therapy (SAP) who were updating to HCL system, from March to July 2020. Virtual training and follow-up were done through the Zoom video conferencing application and Medtronic Carelink System version 3.1 software. CGM data were analyzed to compare the time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR) and glycemic variability, during the first two weeks corresponding to manual mode with the final two weeks of follow-up in automatic mode.

RESULTS

91 patients were included. Mean TIR achieved with manual mode was 77.3 ± 11.3, increasing to 81.6% ± 7.6 (p < 0.001) after two weeks of auto mode use. A significant reduction in TBR <70 mg/dL (2,7% ± 2,28 vs 1,83% ± 1,67, p < 0,001) and in glycemic variability (% coefficient of variation 32.4 vs 29.7, p < 0.001) was evident, independently of baseline therapy.

CONCLUSION

HCL systems allows T1D patients to improve TIR, TBR and glycemic variability independently of previous treatment. Virtual training can be used during situations that limit the access of patients to follow-up centers.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical 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, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), 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, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart Use with the MiniMedTM 670G System

Background: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of ultrarapid insulin Fiasp^® in the hybrid closed-loop MiniMed™ 670G system. Methods: This was a pilot randomized double-blinded crossover study among established MiniMed™ 670G users comparing percentage time in range (TIR) and hypoglycemia for Novolog^® and Fiasp. After 2 weeks optimization with their home insulin, participants were randomized to receive Novolog or Fiasp for 2 weeks, followed by the other insulin for the next 2 weeks. Data from the second week of blinded insulin use were analyzed to allow 1 week for 670G adaptation. During the second week, individuals were asked to eat the same breakfast for 3 days to assess differences in meal pharmacodynamics. Results: Nineteen adults were recruited with mean age of 40 ± 18 years, diabetes duration of 27 ± 12 years, and median hemoglobin A1c of 7.1% (6.9, 7.5), using 0.72 (0.4, 1.2) units/(kg·day). For Novolog and Fiasp, respectively, the %TIR (70-180 mg/dL) was 75.3 ± 9.5 and 78.4 ± 9.3; %time <70 mg/dL was 3.1 ± 2.1 and 2.3 ± 2.0; %time >180 mg/dL was 21.6 ± 9.0 and 19.3 ± 8.9; mean glucose was 147 ± 12 and 146 ± 12 mg/dL; coefficient of variation was 28.6% ± 4.5% and 26.8% ± 4.4%; %time in auto mode 86.4 ± 9.2 and 84.4 ± 9.2. All comparisons were nonsignificant for insulin type. Total daily dose (Novolog 48.8 ± 28.4 vs. Fiasp 52.4 ± 31.7 units; P = 0.01) and daily basal (Novolog 17.6 [15.5, 33.8] vs. Fiasp 19.1 [15.3, 38.5] units; P = 0.07) correlated with TIR and %time >180 mg/dL. For insulin delivery in auto mode there was no statistical difference in total daily dose or daily basal between arms. Paired analysis for matched breakfast meals revealed no significant differences in time to maximum glucose, peak glucose, or glucose excursion. Conclusions: In this pilot study, the use of either Novolog or Fiasp in a commercially available MiniMed 670G system operating in auto mode resulted in clinically similar glycemic outcomes, with a slight increase in daily insulin requirements using Fiasp.

Six-Month Effectiveness of Advanced vs. Standard Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of advanced- (a-HCL) vs. standard-hybrid closed-loop (s-HCL) systems use up to 6 months of treatment in a real-world setting of children and adolescents with T1DM.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated all T1DM pediatric users of MiniMed™ 670G system (s-HCL) and 780G system (a-HCL). HbA1c and BMI were collected at baseline and three and six months after HCL start. Data on glycemic control were extracted from reports generated with CareLink™ Personal Software in Manual Mode, at HCL start, after one, three, and six months after HCL beginning.

RESULTS

The study included 44 individuals with a median age of 13.3 years (range 2- 21 years), 20 on s-HCL, and 24 on a-HCL. a-HCL users had a significantly lower HbA1c compared to s-HCL after six months of HCL use (7.1 vs. 7.7%). Significant differences in HbA1c between a-HCL and s-HCL users were found in children aged 7-14 years (7.1 vs. 7.7% after six months) and in those with a worse (HbA1c >8%) glycemic control at the beginning (7.1 vs. 8.1% after six months). No significant changes in HbA1c were found in a-HCL users that previously used a s-HCL system. Nevertheless, only the use of a-HCL significantly predicted a lower HbA1c after six months. All sensor-specific measures of glycemic control improved from Manual to Auto mode, in both s-HCL and a-HCL, without increasing time spent in hypoglycemia. However, the percentage of individuals with TIR>70% increased significantly in a-HCL users, who attained this target earlier and more stably: younger age, a higher rate of auto-correction, and a lower amount of CHO inserted predicted a TIR>70%. BMI SDS did not significantly change throughout the study period.

CONCLUSION

This real-world study suggests that effectiveness might be greater in a-HCL than in s-HCL, with significant changes in HbA1c, and reaching earlier and more stably the target of TIR >70%, without increasing hypoglycemia or BMI. At the same time, previous users of s-HCL systems did not show any further improvement with a-HCL. Children under the age of 14 years of age, not represented in previous studies, seem to benefit the most from a-HCL pumps as well as individuals with the worst glycemic control.

Characterizing Glycemic Control and Sleep in Adults with Long-Standing Type 1 Diabetes and Hypoglycemia Unawareness Initiating Hybrid Closed Loop Insulin Delivery

Nocturnal hypoglycemia is life threatening for individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) due to loss of hypoglycemia symptom recognition (hypoglycemia unawareness) and impaired glucose counter regulation. These individuals also show disturbed sleep, which may result from glycemic dysregulation. Whether use of a hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin delivery system with integrated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) designed for improving glycemic control, relates to better sleep across time in this population remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to describe long-term changes in glycemic control and objective sleep after initiating hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes and hypoglycemia unawareness. To accomplish this, six adults (median age = 58 y) participated in an 18-month ongoing trial assessing HCL effectiveness. Glycemic control and sleep were measured using continuous glucose monitoring and wrist accelerometers every 3 months. Paired sample t-tests and Cohen's d effect sizes modeled glycemic and sleep changes and the magnitude of these changes from baseline to 9 months. Reduced hypoglycemia (d = 0.47-0.79), reduced basal insulin requirements (d = 0.48), and a smaller glucose coefficient of variation (d = 0.47) occurred with medium-large effect sizes from baseline to 9 months. Hypoglycemia awareness improved from baseline to 6 months with medium-large effect sizes (Clarke score (d = 0.60), lability index (d = 0.50), HYPO score (d = 1.06)). Shorter sleep onset latency (d = 1.53; p < 0.01), shorter sleep duration (d = 0.79), fewer total activity counts (d = 1.32), shorter average awakening length (d = 0.46), and delays in sleep onset (d = 1.06) and sleep midpoint (d = 0.72) occurred with medium-large effect sizes from baseline to 9 months. HCL led to clinically significant reductions in hypoglycemia and improved hypoglycemia awareness. Sleep showed a delayed onset, reduced awakening length and onset latency, and maintenance of high sleep efficiency after initiating HCL. Our findings add to the limited evidence on the relationships between diabetes therapeutic technologies and sleep health. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03215914).

Cost-effectiveness of a novel hybrid closed-loop system compared with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in people with type 1 diabetes in the UK

AIMS

The MiniMed 670 G insulin pump system is the first commercially available hybrid closed-loop (HCL) insulin delivery system and clinical studies have shown that this device is associated with incremental benefits in glycemic control relative to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with or without continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The aim was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the MiniMed 670 G system versus CSII alone in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the UK.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical input data were sourced from a clinical trial of the MiniMed 670 G system in 124 adults and adolescents with T1D. The analysis was performed over a lifetime time horizon and both future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. The analysis was performed from a healthcare payer perspective.

RESULTS

The use of the MiniMed 670 G system led to an improvement in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.73 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), relative to CSII. Total lifetime direct costs were GBP 35,425 higher with the MiniMed 670 G system than with CSII resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 20,421 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the ICER was sensitive to assumptions around glycemic control and assumptions relating to the quality-of-life benefit associated with a reduction in fear of hypoglycemia.

LIMITATIONS

Long-term projections from short-term data are inherently associated with uncertainty but represent arguably the best available evidence in lieu of long-term clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

In the UK, over patient lifetimes, the incremental clinical benefits associated with the use of MiniMed 670 G system means that it is likely to be cost-effective relative to the continued use of CSII in people with T1D, particularly for those with a fear of hypoglycemia or poor baseline glycemic control.

Review of the Long-Term Implantable Senseonics Continuous Glucose Monitoring System and Other Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems

The article published by Kevin Cowart in this issue of the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (JDST) is a detailed overview of the clinical trial data and analysis used to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the Eversense continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) System for regulatory approval and clinical acceptance. The article describes the published study results for safety, accuracy, reliability, ease of insertion/removal, adverse events, and ease of diabetes patient-use for controlling their glucose levels short and long term. The author nicely compares Eversense CGM System safety and performance with the short-term subcutaneous tissue CGM systems being commercialized by Dexcom, Medtronic Diabetes, and Abbott Diabetes. This comparison may help the clinician define which type of patient with diabetes might benefit the most from the long-term implantable CGM system. The majority of studied patients describe a positive experience managing their diabetes with the Eversense CGM System and request implantation of a new sensor 90 or 180 days later.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical 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, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), 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, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

A Pilot Study of Youth With Type 1 Diabetes Initiating Use of a Hybrid Closed-Loop System While Receiving a Behavioral Economics Intervention

OBJECTIVE

Many youth do not use the hybrid closed-loop system for type 1 diabetes effectively. This study evaluated the impact of financial incentives for diabetes-related tasks on use of the 670G hybrid closed-loop system and on glycemia.

METHODS

At auto mode initiation and for 16 weeks thereafter, participants received a flat rate for wearing and calibrating the sensor ($1/day), administering at least 3 mealtime insulin boluses per day ($1/day), and uploading ($5/week). Weekly bonuses were given for maintaining at least 70% of the time in auto mode, which were increased for persistent auto mode use from $3/week to a maximum of $13/week. If a participant failed to maintain auto mode for a week, the rewards were reset to baseline. Data from 17 participants aged 15.9 years ± 2.5 years (baseline hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] 8.6% ± 1.1%) were collected at 6, 12, and 16 weeks. The reinforcers were withdrawn at 16 weeks, with a follow-up assessment at 24 weeks.

RESULTS

With reinforcers, the participants administered an average of at least 3 mealtime insulin boluses per day and wore the sensor over 70% of the time. However, auto mode use waned. HbA1c levels decreased by 0.5% after 6 weeks, and this improvement was maintained at 12 and 16 weeks (P < .05). Upon withdrawal of reinforcers, HbA1c levels increased back to baseline at 24 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Compensation for diabetes-related tasks was associated with lower HbA1c levels, consistent administration of mealtime insulin boluses, and sustained sensor use. These results support the potential of financial rewards for improving outcomes in youth with type 1 diabetes.

Are Physicians in Saudi Arabia Ready for Patients with an Insulin Pump? An Examination of Physician Knowledge and Attitude

Aims: The use of insulin pump therapy in patients with diabetes continues to expand worldwide. Although insulin pumps have been demonstrated to be successful and safe, physicians’ insufficient knowledge may carry a risk to the patients using insulin pumps. This study aimed to assess the attitude and knowledge among physicians in Saudi Arabia regarding insulin pump therapy. Methods: Three hundred and seven physicians, including 82 family physicians, 76 pediatricians, 48 internists, 27 pediatric endocrinologists, 17 adult endocrinologists, and 57 physicians from other specialties, completed a questionnaire that evaluated their knowledge and attitude toward insulin pump therapy. Results: Among the evaluated physicians, 56.7% had poor knowledge level, while 53.4% had positive attitude. Statistical tests revealed that older age, years of practice, consultancy, and endocrinology specialty were the influential factors of knowledge (p < 0.001). Non-endocrinologists demonstrated poor knowledge despite seeing patients with insulin pumps; however, those who had previously cared for such patients scored significantly higher knowledge scores. Conclusions: There was a significant lack of knowledge among physicians regarding insulin pump therapy; however, the perceived attitude of physicians toward this therapy was deemed positive. These findings support the implementation of insulin pump education programs.