Parents' experiences of using a hybrid closed-loop system (CamAPS FX) to care for a very young child with type 1 diabetes: Qualitative study

Towards standardization of person-reported outcomes (PROs) in pediatric diabetes research: A consensus report

BACKGROUND

Diabetes ranks among the most common chronic conditions in childhood and adolescence. It is unique among chronic conditions, in that clinical outcomes are intimately tied to how the child or adolescent living with diabetes and their parents or carers react to and implement good clinical practice guidance. It is widely recognized that the individual's perspective about the impact of trying to manage the disease together with the burden of self-management should be addressed to achieve optimal health outcomes. Standardized, rigorous assessment of behavioural and mental health outcomes is crucial to aid understanding of person-reported outcomes alongside, and in interaction with, physical health outcomes. Whilst tempting to conceptualize person-reported outcomes as a focus on perceived quality of life, the reality is that health-related quality of life is multi-dimensional and covers indicators of physical or functional health status, psychological well-being and social well- being.

METHODS

In this context, this Consensus Statement has been developed by a collection of experts in diabetes to summarize the central themes and lessons derived in the assessment and use of person-reported outcome measures in relation to children and adolescents and their parents/carers, helping to provide a platform for future standardization of these measures for research studies and routine clinical use.

RESULTS

This consensus statement provides an exploration of person-reported outcomes and how to routinely assess and incorporate into clincial research.

Using Time in Tight Glucose Range as a Health-Promoting Strategy in Preschoolers With Type 1 Diabetes

Children who develop diabetes in their first years of life risk being exposed to many decades of hyperglycemia, hence having a high risk of early complications and premature death. An additional age-dependent risk is that dysglycemia, especially hyperglycemia, negatively affects the developing brain. In evaluating the outcome of insulin treatment at an individual and group level, cutoff thresholds for glucose values are needed. Time in tight range (TITR) was defined as a measurement of time spent in a state of normoglycemia. The International Society of Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes recommended that for preschoolers with type 1 diabetes (T1D), either >70% of time with glucose in range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10 mmol/L) or >50% of time in a tighter range 70-140 mg/dL (TITR) can be used as continuous glucose monitoring targets. In Sweden, over the past two decades, pediatric diabetes teams set glycemic targets to 70-140 mg/dL (3.9-7.8 mmol/L). Swedish registry data show that >50% of children <7 years old have >50% TITR. The purpose of this review is to share and discuss international knowledge and experiences of working with TITR as a health-promoting strategy in preschoolers with T1D on a structural and individual level. We conclude that as insulin treatment improves, a reasonable goal is to strive for as much time in a state of normoglycemia as possible, and this can easily be explained to families of children with diabetes. For children with access to an experienced health care team and diabetes technologies a currently realistic target can be at least half of the time in normoglycemic range, i.e., TITR >50%.

International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2024: Diabetes Technologies - Insulin Delivery

The International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) guidelines represent a rich repository that serves as the only comprehensive set of clinical recommendations for children, adolescents, and young adults living with diabetes worldwide. This chapter builds on the 2022 ISPAD guidelines, and summarizes recent advances in the technology behind insulin administration, with special emphasis on insulin pump therapy, especially on glucose-responsive integrated technology that is feasible with the use of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in children and adolescents. The International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) guidelines represent a rich repository that serves as the only comprehensive set of clinical recommendations for children, adolescents, and young adults living with diabetes worldwide. This chapter builds on the 2022 ISPAD guidelines, and summarizes recent advances in the technology behind insulin administration, with special emphasis on insulin pump therapy, especially on glucose-responsive integrated technology that is feasible with the use of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in children and adolescents.

Eighteen-Month Hybrid Closed-Loop Use in Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes: A Single-Arm Multicenter Trial

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the longer-term safety and efficacy of hybrid closed-loop (CL) therapy in very young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Following a 16-week multinational, randomized crossover trial comparing hybrid CL with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy in 74 very young children aged 1-7 years with T1D, participants were invited to an extension phase using CL for a further 18 months. Outcomes were compared with the primary-phase SAP period and primary-phase CL period.

RESULTS

After the primary study phase, 60 participants were eligible to enroll in the extension. Of these, 49 consented (mean ± SD age 6.6 ± 1.5 years) to continue use of CL for 18 months. Percentage time in range (TIR) 3.9-10.0 mmol/L was 8.4 percentage points (95% CI 6.7-10.1; P < 0.001) higher, while HbA1c was 0.4% ([5.0 mmol/mol], 95% CI 0.3-0.6 [3.7-6.2]; P < 0.001) lower during the CL extension phase compared with primary-phase SAP period. At 18 months, mean HbA1c was 6.7 ± 0.5% and TIR was 70 ± 7%, compared with 6.7 ± 0.5% and 71 ± 6% in the primary-phase CL period. Time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) was similar between CL extension phase and both primary-phase SAP (P = 0.31) and CL periods (P = 0.70). There were two severe hypoglycemia events and one other serious adverse event during the extension phase. One unexpected serious adverse device effect occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the Cambridge hybrid CL system led to sustained improvements in glycemic control lasting more than 18 months in very young children with T1D.

Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes: A Narrative Review

This narrative review assesses the use of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in managing persons with type 1 diabetes (PWD) in the pediatric population. It outlines current research, the differences between various AID systems currently on the market and the challenges faced, and discusses potential opportunities for further advancements within this field. Furthermore, the narrative review includes various expert opinions on how different AID systems can be used in the event of challenges with rapidly changing insulin requirements. These include examples, such as during illness with increased or decreased insulin requirements and during physical activity of different intensities or durations. Case descriptions give examples of scenarios with added user-initiated actions depending on the type of AID system used. The authors also discuss how another AID system could have been used in these situations.

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.

The role of automated insulin delivery technology in diabetes

The role of automated insulin delivery systems in diabetes is expanding. Hybrid closed-loop systems are being used in routine clinical practice for treating people with type 1 diabetes. Encouragingly, real-world data reflects the performance and usability observed in clinical trials. We review the commercially available hybrid closed-loop systems, their distinctive features and the associated real-world data. We also consider emerging indications for closed-loop systems, including the treatment of type 2 diabetes where variability of day-to-day insulin requirements is high, and other challenging applications for this technology. We discuss issues around access and implementation of closed-loop technology, and consider the limitations of present closed-loop systems, as well as innovative approaches that are being evaluated to improve their performance.

Use of diabetes technology in children

Children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers face numerous challenges navigating the unpredictability of this complex disease. Although the burden of managing diabetes remains significant, new technology has eased some of the load and allowed children with type 1 diabetes to achieve tighter glycaemic management without fear of excess hypoglycaemia. Continuous glucose monitor use alone improves outcomes and is considered standard of care for paediatric type 1 diabetes management. Similarly, automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have proven to be safe and effective for children as young as 2 years of age. AID use improves not only blood glucose levels but also quality of life for children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers and should be strongly considered for all youth with type 1 diabetes if available and affordable. Here, we review key data on the use of diabetes technology in the paediatric population and discuss management issues unique to children and adolescents.

Effect of automated insulin delivery systems on person-reported outcomes in people with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Conclusive evidence on the benefits of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems on person-reported outcomes (PROs) is missing.

Methods

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, four databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and GoogleScholar) were searched from inception up to August 7th, 2024. All types of studies were included if studies reported on PROs in people with diabetes using an AID system. All types of control groups in randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included. Summary data were extracted by three reviewers. Main outcomes focused on diabetes distress, fear of hypoglycaemia and quality of life. Meta-analyses were conducted for RCTs and observational studies separately. When five or more studies could be pooled, random-effects meta-analysis was used, otherwise common-effects meta-analysis was used. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane tools. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022352502.

Findings

A total of 62 studies (n = 9253) were included reporting on 45 different questionnaires. Twenty-seven studies were RCTs and 25 were observational studies. RCT meta-analyses showed reduced diabetes distress (standardised mean difference [95% CI]: -0.159 [-0.309, -0.010], I2 = 23.0%), reduced fear of hypoglycaemia (-0.339 [-0.566, -0.111], I2 = 42.6%), and improved hypoglycaemia unawareness (-0.231 [-0.424, -0.037], I2 = 0.0%), quality of life in adults (0.347 [0.134, 0.560], I2 = 0.0%) and children/adolescents (0.249 [0.050, 0.448], I2 = 0.0%). Observational meta-analyses corroborated improvements in diabetes distress (-0.217 [-0.403, -0.031], I2 = 68.5%), fear of hypoglycaemia (-0.445 [-0.540, -0.349], I2 = 0.0%), hypoglycaemia unawareness (-0.212 [-0.419, -0.004], I2 = 0.0%), and showed improved sleep quality (-0.158 [-0.255, -0.061], I2 = 0.0%).

Interpretation

We found low to moderate effect sizes indicating that AID therapy is associated with reduced burden and improved well-being in people with diabetes. Evidence comes from both RCTs and observational studies. However, for some PROs only a limited number of studies could be pooled with a large heterogeneity in questionnaires used. More research is needed with a more uniformed assessment of PROs to demonstrate the added value of AID therapy on psychosocial outcomes.

Funding

None.

Closed-loop systems: recent advancements and lived experiences

INTRODUCTION

Hybrid closed loop systems are now commercially available for people with type 1 diabetes and are increasingly being adopted into clinical practice. Real-world data reflect both the glycemic and quality of life benefits reported in trials.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we summarize the key clinical efficacy and safety evidence for hybrid closed-loop systems, and the lived experience of users with type 1 diabetes across different age groups and during pregnancy. We comment on recent and emerging advancements addressing performance limitations and user experience, as well as the use of closed-loop systems in other types of diabetes.

EXPERT OPINION

Emerging technological developments in closed-loop systems focus on improving performance and increasing automation to further optimize glycemic outcomes and improve quality of life for users. Workforce developments are now urgently required to ensure widespread equitable access to this life-changing technology. Future applications of closed-loop technology are expected to expand into other types of diabetes including type 2 diabetes.

Effectiveness of a hybrid closed-loop system for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes during physical exercise: A cross-sectional study in real life

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to describe how physical exercise affects metabolic control, insulin requirements and carbohydrate intake in children who use hybrid closed-loop systems.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study design. The sample included 21 children and adolescents diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. During the study, participants were monitored for a period of 7 days to gather comprehensive data on these factors.

RESULTS

Nine participants (42.9%) had switched to exercise mode to raise the target glucose temporarily to 150 mg/dL. The HbA1c values ranged from 5.5% to 7.9% (median, 6.5%; IQR, 0.75). The percentage of time within the target range of 70-180 mg/dL was similar; however, there was an increased duration of hyperglycaemia and more autocorrections on exercise days. The time spent in severe hyperglycaemia (>250 mg/dL) increased by 2.7% in exercise compared to non-exercise days (P = .02). It is worth noting that hypoglycaemic episodes did not increase during the exercise days compared with non-exercise days.

CONCLUSION

The hybrid closed-loop system was effective and safe in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes during the performance of competitive sports in real life.

Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus in the First Years of Life - Onset, Initial Treatment, and Early Disease Course

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the onset and the choice of treatment in children with very early onset of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D).

METHODS

The study included 5,763 patients from the German Diabetes Patient Follow-up registry with onset of T1D in the first 4 years of life from January 2010 - June 2022. The analysis included diabetes-specific parameters, anthropometric data, and mode of treatment at onset, within the first and second year of T1D. Three groups were compared according to age at onset (G1: 223 patients 6-<12 months, G2: 1519 patients 12-<24 months, G3: 4001 patients 24-48 months).

RESULTS

In 12.3% of all cases in childhood and adolescence, the incidence of diabetes in the first 4 years of life was rare. At the onset, clinical status was worse and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) rates were higher in G1 and G2 (52.3% and 46.5%, respectively) compared to G3 (27.3% (p<0.001)). G1 and G2 were significantly more likely to be treated with insulin pump therapy (CSII) 2 years after onset (98.1% and 94.1%, respectively)) compared to G3 (85.8%, p<0.001). Median HbA1c after 2 years did not differ between groups (G1: 7.27% (56.0 mmol/mol), G2: 7.34% (56.7 mmol/mol) and G3: 7.27% (56.0 mmol/mol)) or when comparing CSII vs MDI. The rate of severe hypoglycemia (SH) and DKA during the first 2 years of treatment did not differ among the three groups, ranging from 1.83-2.63/100 patient-years (PY) for DKA and 9.37-24.2/100 PY for SH. Children with T1D under 4 years of age are more likely to be diagnosed with celiac disease but less likely to have thyroiditis than older children with T1DM.

CONCLUSIONS

Young children with T1D had high rates of DKA at onset and were predominantly treated with insulin pump therapy during the first 2 years. The median HbA1c for all three groups was<7.5% (58 mmol/mol) without increased risk of SH or DKA. The use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was not associated with lower HbA1c in children under 48 months.

Safety of User-Initiated Intensification of Insulin Delivery Using Cambridge Hybrid Closed-Loop Algorithm

OBJECTIVE

Many hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems struggle to manage unusually high glucose levels as experienced with intercurrent illness or pre-menstrually. Manual correction boluses may be needed, increasing hypoglycemia risk with overcorrection. The Cambridge HCL system includes a user-initiated algorithm intensification mode ("Boost"), activation of which increases automated insulin delivery by approximately 35%, while remaining glucose-responsive. In this analysis, we assessed the safety of "Boost" mode.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from closed-loop studies involving young children (1-7 years, n = 24), children and adolescents (10-17 years, n = 19), adults (≥24 years, n = 13), and older adults (≥60 years, n = 20) with type 1 diabetes. Outcomes were calculated per participant for days with ≥30 minutes of "Boost" use versus days with no "Boost" use. Participants with <10 "Boost" days were excluded. The main outcome was time spent in hypoglycemia <70 and <54 mg/dL.

RESULTS

Eight weeks of data for 76 participants were analyzed. There was no difference in time spent <70 and <54 mg/dL between "Boost" days and "non-Boost" days; mean difference: -0.10% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.28 to 0.07; P = .249) time <70 mg/dL, and 0.03 (-0.04 to 0.09; P = .416) time < 54 mg/dL. Time in significant hyperglycemia >300 mg/dL was 1.39 percentage points (1.01 to 1.77; P < .001) higher on "Boost" days, with higher mean glucose and lower time in target range (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of an algorithm intensification mode in HCL therapy is safe across all age groups with type 1 diabetes. The higher time in hyperglycemia observed on "Boost" days suggests that users are more likely to use algorithm intensification on days with extreme hyperglycemic excursions.

Listening to Women: Experiences of Using Closed-Loop in Type 1 Diabetes Pregnancy

Introduction: Recent high-profile calls have emphasized that women's experiences should be considered in maternity care provisioning. We explored women's experiences of using closed-loop during type 1 diabetes (T1D) pregnancy to inform decision-making about antenatal rollout and guidance and support given to future users. Methods: We interviewed 23 closed-loop participants in the Automated insulin Delivery Among Pregnant women with T1D (AiDAPT) trial after randomization to closed-loop and ∼20 weeks later. Data were analyzed thematically. Results: Women described how closed-loop lessened the physical and mental demands of diabetes management, enabling them to feel more normal and sleep better. By virtue of spending increased time-in-range, women also worried less about risks to their baby and being judged negatively by health care professionals. Most noted that intensive input and support during early pregnancy had been crucial to adjusting to, and developing confidence in, the technology. Women emphasized that attaining pregnancy glucose targets still required ongoing effort from themselves and the health care team. Women described needing education to help them determine when, and how, to intervene and when to allow the closed-loop to operate without interference. All women reported more enjoyable pregnancy experiences as a result of using closed-loop; some also noted being able to remain longer in paid employment. Conclusions: Study findings endorse closed-loop use in T1D pregnancy by highlighting how the technology can facilitate positive pregnancy experiences. To realize fully the benefits of closed-loop, pregnant women would benefit from initial intensive oversight and support together with closed-loop specific education and training. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04938557.

Sleep Quality and Quantity in Caregivers of Children with Type 1 Diabetes Using Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery or a Sensor-Augmented Pump

Introduction

Parents of children living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) often report short and/or poor quality sleep. The development of closed-loop systems promises to transform the management of T1D. This study compared sleep quality and quantity in caregivers of children using a closed-loop system (CL) or sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy.

Method

Data from sleep diaries, accelerometers, and questionnaires were provided by forty parents (classified as caregiver 1 (main analyses) or 2 (supplementary analyses) based on their contribution towards treatment management) of 21 very young children aged 1 to 7 years living with T1D (mean age: 4.7 (SD = 1.7)). Assessments were made at a single post-randomisation time point when the child was completing either the 16-week CL arm (n = 10) or the 16-week SAP arm (n = 11) of the main study.

Results

Overall, there was a mixed pattern of results and group differences were not statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level. However, when we consider the direction of results and results from caregiver 1, sleep diary data showed that parents of the CL (as compared to the SAP) group reported a shorter sleep duration but better sleep quality, fewer awakenings, and less wake after sleep onset (WASO). Actiwatch data showed that caregiver 1 of the CL (as compared to the SAP) group had a shorter sleep latency; greater sleep efficiency; and less wake after sleep onset. Results from the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index also showed better sleep quality for caregiver 1 of the CL group as compared to the SAP group.

Conclusions

Results from this study suggest that sleep quality and quantity in parents of children using CL were not significantly different to those using SAP. Considering effect sizes and the direction of the non-significant results, CL treatment could be associated with better sleep quality in the primary caregiver. However, further research is needed to confirm these findings. This trial is registered with NCT05158816.

Healthcare professionals' views about how pregnant women can benefit from using a closed-loop system: Qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Interest is growing in how closed-loop systems can support attainment of within-target glucose levels amongst pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. We explored healthcare professionals' views about how, and why, pregnant women benefitted from using the CamAPS FX system during the AiDAPT trial.

METHODS

We interviewed 19 healthcare professionals who supported women using closed-loop during the trial. Our analysis focused on identifying descriptive and analytical themes relevant to clinical practice.

RESULTS

Healthcare professionals highlighted clinical and quality-of-life benefits to using closed-loop in pregnancy; albeit, they attributed some of these to the continuous glucose monitoring component. They emphasised that the closed-loop was not a panacea and that, to gain maximum benefit, an effective collaboration between themselves, the woman and the closed-loop was needed. Optimal performance of the technology, as they further noted, also required women to interact with the system sufficiently, but not excessively; a requirement that they felt some women had found challenging. Even where healthcare professionals felt that this balance was not achieved, they suggested that women had still benefitted from using the system. Healthcare professionals reported difficulties predicting how specific women would engage with the technology. In light of their trial experiences, healthcare professionals favoured an inclusive approach to closed-loop rollout in routine clinical care.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare professionals recommended that closed-loop systems be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes in the future. Presenting closed-loop systems to pregnant women and healthcare teams as one pillar of a three-party collaboration may help promote optimal use.

MiniMed 780G™ in 2- to 6-Year-Old Children: Safety and Clinical Outcomes After the First 12 Weeks

Objective: The safety and impact of the advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system on glycemic outcome in 2- to 6-year-old children with type 1 diabetes and the diabetes distress of caregivers were evaluated. Research Design and Methods: This was an open-label prospective study (n = 35) with historical controls matched by treatment unit, diabetes duration, age, gender, and baseline treatment modality. The inclusion criteria were (1) type 1 diabetes diagnosis >6 months, (2) total daily dose of insulin ≥8 U/day, (3) HbA1c <10% (85 mmol/mol), and (4) capability to use insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring. The MiniMed 780G™ AHCL in SmartGuard™ Mode was used for 12 weeks. Parental diabetes distress was evaluated with a validated Problem Areas In Diabetes-Parent, revised (PAID-PR) survey. Results: No events of diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred. Between 0 and 12 weeks, HbA1c (mean change = -2.7 mmol/mol [standard deviation 5.7], P = 0.010), mean sensor glucose value (SG) (-0.8 mmol/L [1.0], P < 0.001), and time above range (TAR) (-8.6% [9.5], P < 0.001) decreased and time in range (TIR) (8.3% [9.3], P < 0.001) increased significantly, whereas no significant change in time below range (TBR) was observed. At the same time, PAID-PR score decreased from 37.5 (18.2) to 27.5 (14.8) (P = 0.006). Conclusions: MiniMed 780G™ AHCL is a safe system and 12-week use was associated with improvements in glycemic control in 2- to 6-year-old children with type 1 diabetes. In addition, AHCL is associated with a reduction in parental diabetes distress after 12-week use. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT04949022.

Diabetestechnologie bei Kindern und Jugendlichen mit Diabetes mellitus Typ 1

Die Behandlung des Diabetes mellitus Typ 1 (T1D) im Kindes- und Jugendalter ist komplex und stellt eine Herausforderung für die betroffenen Kinder und Jugendlichen, deren Familien und das ganze Umfeld (Schule/Kindergarten) dar. Das Ziel der Diabetestherapie besteht darin, eine möglichst normoglykämische Blutzuckerkontrolle zu erreichen, um akuten und chronischen Komplikationen vorzubeugen. Laut Registerstudien können die metabolischen Therapieziele derzeit noch nicht erreicht werden, weswegen ein Risiko für Akut- und Spätkomplikationen besteht. Weitere Therapieziele sind eine normale Entwicklung, Inklusion, Flexibilität im Alltag sowie eine hohe Lebensqualität. Abgesehen von neueren Insulinanaloga gingen auch die Entwicklungen in der Diabetestechnologie in den letzten Jahren mit großen Veränderungen und Verbesserungen in der Behandlung und Lebensqualität der betroffenen Familien einher. Die Insulinpumpentherapie, die kontinuierliche Glukosemessung sowie die automatische Insulindosierung (AID) führten zu einer signifikanten Verbesserung der metabolischen Einstellung sowie einer Reduktion der schweren Hypoglykämien und Ketoazidosen. Die Diabetestechnologie entwickelt sich ständig weiter und erfordert eine umfassende Schulung und Fortbildung der betroffenen Familien, der Betreuungseinrichtungen sowie auch des multidisziplinären Behandlungsteams. Ziel sind eine Reduktion der glykämischen Variabilität und damit ein besseres Langzeitoutcome der jungen Menschen mit T1D. Die AID ist zunehmend die Therapie der Wahl bei Kindern und Jugendlichen mit T1D. Mit weiteren Innovationen im Bereich der Diabetestechnologie ist in naher Zukunft zu rechnen.

Closed-loop insulin delivery: update on the state of the field and emerging technologies

INTRODUCTION

Over the last five years, closed-loop insulin delivery systems have transitioned from research-only to real-life use. A number of systems have been commercialized and are increasingly used in clinical practice. Given the rapidity of new developments in the field, understanding the capabilities and key similarities and differences of current systems can be challenging. This review aims to provide an update on the state of the field of closed-loop insulin delivery systems, including emerging technologies.

AREAS COVERED

We summarize key clinical safety and efficacy evidence of commercial and emerging insulin-only hybrid closed-loop systems for type 1 diabetes. A literature search was conducted and clinical trials using closed-loop systems during free-living conditions were identified to report on safety and efficacy data. We comment on emerging technologies and adjuncts for closed-loop systems, as well as non-technological priorities in closed-loop insulin delivery.

EXPERT OPINION

Commercial hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems are efficacious, consistently improving glycemic control when compared to standard therapy. Challenges remain in widespread adoption due to clinical inertia and the lack of resources to embrace technological developments by health care professionals.