Glycemic Outcomes in Baseline Hemoglobin A1C Subgroups in the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial

The Type of Patient Training Does Not Impact Outcomes in the First 90 Days of Automated Insulin Delivery Use

BACKGROUND

Youth starting Omnipod 5 (OP5) can onboard with a diabetes educator or self-start with support from online, industry-provided educational modules. We compared glycemic control and pump interaction by training type among youth initiating OP5.

METHODS

This retrospective review included 297 youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) aged <22 years initiating OP5. We analyzed baseline CGM data and pump and CGM data from the first 90 days of OP5 use. Multilevel mixed-effects regression assessed for changes in time in range (TIR) from baseline to 90 days by training type.

RESULTS

Of youth initiating OP5 42.4% trained with a diabetes educator and 57.6% self-started. At baseline self-starters had a longer T1D duration (5.0 (2.6,7.9) vs 2.5 (1.3,5.5) years, p=0.001), more time <54 mg/dL (0.3% (0.1,1) vs 0.15% (0,1), p=0.01), and a higher coefficient of variation (40.2% (37,44.4) vs 38.7% (34.4,42.4), p=0.004). After 90 days of OP5 use, groups did not differ in time in automated mode or boluses per day. In a longitudinal model, after adjusting for baseline TIR and T1D duration, 90-day TIR was 10.5%-points higher (CI 9.2-11.8, p<0.0001), positively associated with baseline TIR (β=0.82, CI 0.78-0.85, p<0.0001), and 1.1%-point greater among self-starters (CI 0.06-2.2; p=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

After 90 days of OP5 use glycemic control and pump interactions were minimally different between youth who self-started and those who trained with a diabetes educator. For youth at a tertiary care center previously using an Omnipod system, online educational modules offered by industry provides sufficient training for use.

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.

Time in Range Analysis in Automated Insulin Delivery Era: Should Day and Nighttime Targets be the Same?

INTRODUCTION

Hybrid closed-loop systems (HCLS) use has shown that time in range (TIR) tends to improve more during the nighttime than during the day. This study aims to compare the conventional TIR, currently accepted as 70 to 180 mg/dL, with a proposed recalculated time in range (RTIR) considering a tighter glucose target of 70 to 140 mg/dL for the nighttime fasting period in T1DM patients under HCLS.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study that included adults patients receiving treatment with Tandem t:slim X2 Control-IQ. Daytime TIR was characterized as glucose values between 70 and 180 mg/dL during the 07:01 to 23:59 time frame. Nighttime fasting TIR was specified as glucose values from 70 to 140 mg/dL between 00:00 and 07:00. The combination of the daytime and nighttime fasting glucose targets results in an RTIR, which was compared with the conventional TIR for each patient. The 14 days Dexcom G6 CGM data were downloaded from Tidepool platform and analyzed.

RESULTS

We included 22 patients with a mean age of 49.7 years and diabetes duration of 24.7 years, who had been using automatic insulin delivery (AID) HCLS for a median of 305.3 days. We verified a mean conventional TIR of 68.7% vs a mean RTIR of 60.3%, with a mean percentage difference between these two metrics of -8.4%. A significant decrease in conventional TIR was verified when tighter glucose targets were considered during the nighttime period. No significant correlation was found between the percentage difference values and RTIR, even among the group of patients with the lowest conventional TIR.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, meeting the conventional TIR metrics may fall short of achieving an ideal level of glycemic control. An individualized strategy should be adopted until further data become available for a precise definition of optimal glucose targets.

Efficacy of a Hybrid Closed-Loop Solution in Patients With Excessive Time in Hypoglycaemia: A Post Hoc Analysis of Trials With DBLG1 System

BACKGROUND

Automated insulin delivery is an efficient treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes. Little is known on its impact on patients with excessive time in hypoglycaemia.

METHODS

We performed a post hoc analysis of three randomized control trials that used the DBLG1 (Diabeloop Generation 1) hybrid closed-loop solution. Patients whose time below 70 mg/dL during baseline, open-loop phase exceeded 5% were selected. The outcomes were the differences between the closed-loop and the open-loop phases in time in various ranges and Glycemia Risk Index (GRI).

RESULTS

We identified 45 patients exhibiting ≥5% of time below 70 mg/dL during the open-loop phase. Under closed-loop, the time in hypoglycaemia (54 to <70 mg/dL) dropped from 7.9% (SD 2.4) to 3.2% (SD 1.6) (difference -4.7% [-5.3; -4.1], P < 10-4). The time below 54 mg/dL decreased from 1.9% (SD 1.3) to 0.8% (SD 0.7) (difference -0.9% [-1.4; -0.8], P < 10-4). The time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) improved from 63.3 (SD 9.5) to 68.2% (SD 8.2) (difference 5.1% [2.9; 7.0], P < 10-4). The GRI improved from 51.2 (SD 12.4) to 38.0 (SD 10.9) (difference 13.2 [10.4; 16.0], P < 10-4).

CONCLUSION

DBLG1 decreased time in hypoglycaemia by more than 50% even in patients with excessive time in hypoglycaemia at baseline, while also improving both TIR and GRI, under real-life conditions. The improvement in GRI (13.2%) exceeded that of the improvement in TIR (5.1%) indicating that in this data set, GRI was more sensitive than TIR to the improvement in glycaemia achieved with closed-loop. These results support the safety and efficacy of this treatment.

Hybrid Closed Loop Systems Improve Glycemic Control and Quality of Life in Historically Minoritized Youth with Diabetes

Background: We assessed changes in glycemic control and person-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology use among historically minoritized youth who are least likely to access hybrid closed loop (HCL) technology. Methods: This single-arm, prospective pilot study enrolled 15 publicly insured, insulin pump-naïve, non-Hispanic Black youth ages 6 to <21 years with type 1 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥10% in a 6-month study of HCL use. The primary outcome was absolute change in time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes included other continuous glucose monitor metrics, PROMs, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) incidence. Results: For 13 youth (median 14.8 years, 53.3% female, HbA1c 11.7%) who completed the study, baseline TIR of 12.3% (6.3-27.1%) increased 23.7%-points (16.9, 30.5%; P < 0.001) or 5.7 h per day. Percent time >250 mg/dL decreased 33.9%-points (-44.8, -23.1%; P < 0.001) or 8.1 h per day from a baseline of 69.4% (51.6, 84.0%). Median time in HCL was 78.3% (59.7, 87.3%). Youth received 10.1 (9.2, 11.9) boluses per day, 71.7% (63.8, 79.3%) of which were HCL-initiated autoboluses. Diabetes-specific quality of life increased among parents (P < 0.001) and youth (P = 0.004), and diabetes distress decreased in both groups (P < 0.001, P = 0.005). Improvements in glycemia did not correlate with any baseline youth or parent PROMs. DKA was high at baseline (67 episodes/100-person years) and did not increase during the intervention (72 episodes/100-person years, P = 0.78). Conclusion: Improvements in glycemic control and quality of life exceeding pivotal trial findings without increased safety risks among historically minoritized youth emphasize the need for equitable access to HCL systems. ClinicalTrials.gov: clinicaltrials.gov ID (NCT04807374).

Real-World Evidence of Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System Use in 69,902 People with Type 1 Diabetes

Background: The Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System was associated with favorable glycemic outcomes for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in two pivotal clinical trials. Real-world evidence is needed to explore effectiveness in nonstudy conditions. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the United States Omnipod 5 System users (aged ≥2 years) with T1D and sufficient data (≥90 days of data; ≥75% of days with ≥220 continuous glucose monitor readings/day) available in Insulet Corporation's device and person-reported datasets as of July 2023 was performed. Target glucose setting usage (i.e., 110-150 mg/dL in 10 mg/dL increments) was summarized and glycemic outcomes were examined. Subgroup analyses of those using the lowest average glucose target (110 mg/dL) and stratification by baseline characteristics (e.g., age, prior therapy, health insurance coverage) were conducted. Results: In total, 69,902 users were included. Multiple and higher glucose targets were more commonly used in younger age groups. Median percentage of time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL) was 68.8%, 61.3%, and 53.6% for users with average glucose targets of 110, 120, and 130-150 mg/dL, respectively, with minimal time <70 mg/dL (all median <1.13%). Among those with an average glucose target of 110 mg/dL (n = 37,640), median TIR was 65.0% in children and adolescents (2-17 years) and 69.9% in adults (≥18 years). Subgroup analyses of users transitioning from Omnipod DASH or multiple daily injections and of Medicaid/Medicare users demonstrated favorable glycemic outcomes among these groups. Conclusion: These glycemic outcomes from a large and diverse sample of nearly 70,000 children and adults demonstrate effective use of the Omnipod 5 System under real-world conditions.

Glucose and Psychosocial Outcomes 12 Months Following Transition from Multiple Daily Injections to Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes and Suboptimal Glycemia

Objective: To investigate 12-month glycemic and psychosocial changes following transition from multiple daily injections (MDI) to advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) therapy in youth (aged 13-25 years) with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemia (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] ≥8.5% [69 mmol/mol]). Research Design and Methods: Prospective, single arm, dual-center study in 20 participants. Extension phase outcomes reported after 12 months, including HbA1c, time in glycemic ranges, AHCL system performance, and psychosocial questionnaires assessing quality of life, diabetes treatment, and sleep. Results: After 12 months, 19 out of 20 participants continued to use AHCL. Average time-in-range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) improved from 27.6% ± 13.2% to 62.5% ± 11.4%. This translated to an average 2.5 percentage-point (27.1 mmol/mol) improvement in HbA1c from 10.5% ± 2.1% (91.2 mmol/mol) at baseline to 8.0% ± 0.9% (64.1 mmol/mol) at 12 months. Psychosocial questionnaires and very high HbA1c at study entry indicated significant diabetes-associated burden for both individuals and parents. After 12 months, improvements were observed in general and diabetes-specific health-related quality of life, as well as in diabetes treatment satisfaction. Safety data were reassuring with a diabetic ketoacidosis rate of 0.15 per participant-year after 12 months of AHCL (compared to 0.25 per participant-year in the 12 months before the study). Conclusions: After 12 months of AHCL usage, this study highlights the potential for substantial and sustained glycemic and psychosocial improvements among individuals experiencing considerable diabetes burden and suboptimal glycemia, following their switch from MDI to AHCL.

Real-World Glycemic Outcomes with Early Omnipod 5 Use in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes

Background: Pivotal trials of diabetes technologies have demonstrated glycemic improvements; however, these trials include patients of limited diversity and ranges of glycemic control. We assessed changes in glycemic control during the first 90 days of Omnipod 5 use in a real-world cohort of youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Youth 2-21 years with T1D initiating Omnipod 5 at two pediatric academic centers were included. Fourteen days of baseline (BL) continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data were compared against data from the first 90 days of Omnipod 5 use. Outcome measures included changes in time in range (TIR), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and CGM and insulin pump metrics based on the duration of Omnipod 5 use. Results: Among 195 youth (78.9% non-Hispanic White, 15.4% publicly insured, age 11.7 years, T1D duration 3.3 years) TIR increased 11%-points, from 49% to 61% (P < 0.001), and HbA1c decreased 0.5%-points, from 7.5% to 6.9% (P < 0.001). TIR improved within the first 9 days of Omnipod 5 use (p < 0.001) and did not change significantly thereafter (P = 0.1) despite decreases in user-initiated boluses (5.1 vs. 5.0, P = 0.01) and carbohydrate entries (4.2 vs. 4.1, P = 0.005) from days 1-9 to days 1-90. TIR improved 15%-points among youth with BL TIR <60% compared to a 5%-point increase for youth with BL TIR ≥60% (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Glycemic control improved within 9 days of Omnipod 5 initiation in this real-world cohort, and improvements were sustained over the first 90 days of use despite concomitant decreases in user-initiated boluses. These improvements were comparable to those observed in the pivotal trial.

First Generation of a Modular Interoperable Closed-Loop System for Automated Insulin Delivery in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes: Lessons From Trials and Real-Life Data

BACKGROUND

DBLG1 (Diabeloop Generation 1) stands as one of the five commercially available closed-loop solution worldwide for patients with type 1 diabetes as of 2023. Our aim was to provide an overview of all data obtained with this system regarding outcomes and populations, with an emphasis on interoperability.

METHODS

This report includes all available sources of data (three randomized control trials and five surveys on real-life data). Collection ran from March 3, 2017 to April 30, 2022.

RESULTS

We gathered data from 6859 adult patients treated with closed-loop from three to 12 months. Overall, all sources of data showed that time in range (TIR) 70 to 180 mg/dL, starting from 47.4% to 56.6%, improved from 12.2 to 17.3 percentage points. Time in hypoglycemia was reduced by 48% in average (range: 26%-70%) and reached a level of 1.3% in the largest and most recent cohort. In patients with excessive time in hypoglycemia at baseline (≥5%), closed-loop allowed a reduction in time below range (TBR) by 59%. The comparison of days with declared physical activity versus days without physical activity did not show differences in TBR. The improvement in TIR observed with three different pump systems (Vicentra Kaleido, n = 117; Sooil Dana-I, n = 84; and Roche Insight, n = 6684) ranged from 15.4 to 17.3 percentage points.

DISCUSSION

These data obtained in different European countries were consistent throughout all reports, showing that this closed-loop system is efficient (high improvement in TIR), safe (remarkably low level of TBR), and interoperable (three pump settings so far).

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Utility and precision evidence of technology in the treatment of type 1 diabetes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The greatest change in the treatment of people living with type 1 diabetes in the last decade has been the explosion of technology assisting in all aspects of diabetes therapy, from glucose monitoring to insulin delivery and decision making. As such, the aim of our systematic review was to assess the utility of these technologies as well as identify any precision medicine-directed findings to personalize care.

METHODS

Screening of 835 peer-reviewed articles was followed by systematic review of 70 of them (focusing on randomized trials and extension studies with ≥50 participants from the past 10 years).

RESULTS

We find that novel technologies, ranging from continuous glucose monitoring systems, insulin pumps and decision support tools to the most advanced hybrid closed loop systems, improve important measures like HbA1c, time in range, and glycemic variability, while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Several studies included person-reported outcomes, allowing assessment of the burden or benefit of the technology in the lives of those with type 1 diabetes, demonstrating positive results or, at a minimum, no increase in self-care burden compared with standard care. Important limitations of the trials to date are their small size, the scarcity of pre-planned or powered analyses in sub-populations such as children, racial/ethnic minorities, people with advanced complications, and variations in baseline glycemic levels. In addition, confounders including education with device initiation, concomitant behavioral modifications, and frequent contact with the healthcare team are rarely described in enough detail to assess their impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review highlights the potential of technology in the treatment of people living with type 1 diabetes and provides suggestions for optimization of outcomes and areas of further study for precision medicine-directed technology use in type 1 diabetes.

Differences in positive expectancy of hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems do not explain racial differences in HCL use

Aims

Hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems improve glycemia and quality of life among youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D), however there are inequities in use. We aimed to evaluate whether differences in positive expectancy of HCL systems may explain differences in use.

Methods

Fifteen publicly-insured, non-Hispanic Black (NHB) youth with hemoglobin A1_C (HbA1c) ≥ 10% enrolled in a study exploring changes in glycemia and person reported outcomes (PRO) during 6 months of Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology. At baseline youth and parents completed PROs, including Insulin Delivery Systems: Perceptions, Ideas, Reflections and Expectations (INSPIRE) survey assessing positive expectancy of HCL use, and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) survey assessing diabetes-related distress. Differences between this cohort and the Tandem Control-IQ pediatric pivotal trial (DCLP5) cohort were assessed.

Results

As compared to the DCLP5 cohort (0% NHB, 10% publicly-insured), baseline glycemic indicators were suboptimal (M_HbA1c 11.9 ± 1.4% vs 7.6 ± 0.9%, p < 0.0001; continuous glucose monitor (CGM) time-above-range > 180 mg/dL 82 ± 15% vs 45 ± 18%, p < 0.0001). INSPIRE scores in both cohorts were equally high among youth (80 ± 10 vs 77 ± 13, p = 0.41) and parents (88 ± 14 vs 85 ± 11, p = 0.37). PAID scores were higher among parents (68 ± 19 vs 43 ± 16, p < 0.0001), but not youth (43 ± 16 vs 35 ± 16, p = 0.09) in the historically marginalized cohort as compared to the DCLP5 cohort.

Conclusions

Despite differences in glycemic control and diabetes related burden, positive expectancy of HCL systems is comparable among historically marginalized youth with T1D and the predominantly non-Hispanic White, privately insured DCLP5 cohort. These findings suggest that differences in perceptions of HCL technology may not explain inequities in use.

Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery Technologies in Clinical Practice

The significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers, and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past 6 years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage.

MiniMed 780G Six-Month Use in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: Clinical Targets and Predictors of Optimal Glucose Control

Background: The aim of this multicenter observational real-world study was to investigate glycemic outcomes in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes over the first 6-month use of MiniMed™ 780G. The secondary objective was to evaluate demographic and clinical factors that may be significantly associated with the achievement of therapeutic goals. Methods: Demographic, anamnestic, and clinical data of study participants were collected at the time of enrollment. Data on ambulatory glucose profile were acquired at 3 and 6 months after activating automatic mode. Aggregated glucose metrics and device settings of the entire study period were analyzed to identify predictors of optimal glycemic control, assessed by the concomitant achievement of time in range (TIR) >70%, coefficient of variation (CV) <36%, glucose management indicator (GMI) <7%, and time below range (TBR) <4%. Results: Our study cohort consisted of 111 children and adolescents (54.1% female) aged 7-18 years. All the most relevant clinical targets were achieved according to recommendations from the International Consensus both at 3 and 6 months. When considering aggregated data, primary goals in terms of TIR, CV, GMI, and TBR were achieved, respectively, by 72.1%, 74.8%, 68.5%, and 74.8% of participants. In addition, 44 individuals (39.6%) concomitantly addressed all the above clinical targets. Regression analysis revealed that older age, briefer duration of disease, and shorter active insulin time were significant predictors of optimal glucose control. Comparing two groups of individuals stratified according to the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) mean value in the year preceding MiniMed 780G use, achieving glycemic targets was observed in the subgroup with lower HbA1c. Conclusions: Our study highlights the effectiveness and safety of MiniMed 780G in the pediatric population. More extensive and personalized training on advanced hybrid closed-loop use should be considered for younger people and those with long disease duration.

Impact of Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop on Youth With High-Risk Type 1 Diabetes Using Multiple Daily Injections

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate glycemic outcomes in youth (aged 13-25 years) with type 1 diabetes and high-risk glycemic control (HbA1c ≥8.5% [69 mmol/mol]) on multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy after transitioning to advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) therapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This prospective, 3-month, single-arm, dual-center study enrolled 20 participants, and all completed the study.

RESULTS

HbA1c decreased from 10.5 ± 2.1% (91.2 ± 22.8 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7.6 ± 1.1% (59.7 ± 11.9 mmol/mol), and time spent in target range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) increased from 27.6 ± 13.2% at baseline to 66.5 ± 9.8% after 3 months of AHCL. Two episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis attributed to infusion set failure occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

AHCL has the potential to improve suboptimal glycemia in youth with type 1 diabetes previously on MDI therapy.

One-year real-world performance of the DBLG1 closed-loop system: Data from 3706 adult users with type 1 diabetes in Germany

AIM

The Diabeloop Generation 1 (DBLG1) system is an interoperable hybrid closed-loop solution that was commercialized in Germany in March 2021. We report the longitudinal glycaemic outcomes among the first 3706 users in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective data collection of all consenting adult patients with type 1 diabetes who were equipped in Germany with the DBLG1 system before 30 April 2022, and with a minimum 14 days of closed-loop usage.

RESULTS

In total, 3706 users (41% women, age 45.1 ± 14.5 years) met the inclusion criteria, reaching a mean follow-up of 131.0 ± 85.1 days, an overall 485 600 days of continuous glucose monitoring data, and a median time spent in closed-loop of 95.0% (IQR 89.1-97.4). The median percentage time in range (70-180 mg/dl) was 72.1% (IQR 65.0-78.9); the time below 70 mg/dl was 0.9% (0.5-1.7), the time below 54 mg/dl was 0.1% (0.1-0.3), and the median Glucose Management Index was 7.0% (6.8-7.3). Exploratory analysis of a subset of 2460 patients in whom baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was available [7.4% (IQR 6.9-8.0)] showed that the achieved mean time in range was influenced by baseline HbA1c, ranging from 65.8 ± 9.9% (A1c ≥8.5%) to 81.3 ± 6.8% (A1c <6.5%).

CONCLUSION

This large real-world analysis confirms the relevance of the DBLG1 automated insulin delivery solution for the achievement of standards of care in adult patients with type 1 diabetes.

One-year follow-up comparison of two hybrid closed-loop systems in Italian children and adults with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Tandem Control-IQ and MiniMed 780G are the main Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop (AHCL) systems currently available in pediatric and adult patients with Type 1 Diabetes (T1D). The aim of our study was to evaluate glycemic control after 1-year of follow-up extending our previous study of 1-month comparison between the two systems.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared clinical and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data from the patients included in the previous study which have completed 1-year observation period. The study population consisted of 74 patients, 42 Minimed 780G users and 32 Tandem Control-IQ users. Linear mixed models with random intercept were performed to study the variations over time and the interaction between time and system; Mann-Whitney or T-test were used to compare systems at 1-year.

RESULTS

Both systems have been shown to be effective in maintaining the glycemic improvement achieved one month after starting AHCL. Significant changes over time were observed for TIR, TAR, TAR>250mg/dl, average glucose levels and SD (p<0.001). At 1-year follow-up Minimed 780G obtained better improvement in TIR (p<0.001), TAR (p=0.002), TAR>250mg/dl (p=0.001), average glucose levels (p<0.001). The comparison of the glycemic parameters at 1-year showed a significant superiority of Minimed 780G in terms of TIR (71% vs 68%; p=0.001), TAR (p=0.001), TAR>250 (p=0.009), average glucose levels(p=0.001) and SD (p=0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of AHCL systems led to a significant improvement of glycemic control at 1-month, which is maintained at 1-year follow-up. MiniMed is more effective than Tandem in reaching the International recommended glycemic targets. Continuous training and education in the use of technology is essential to get the best out of the most advanced technological tools.