Safety and Glycemic Outcomes During the MiniMedTM Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Pivotal Trial in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes

Parental perspectives following the implementation of advanced hybrid closed-loop therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and elevated glycaemia

AIMS

To identify from a parental perspective facilitators and barriers of effective implementation of advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) with elevated glycaemia.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents of participants while in a post-trial extension phase of the CO-PILOT randomized controlled trial. The Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour Model and Theoretical Domain Framework informed the interviews and framework analysis.

RESULTS

Eleven parents of 9 children and adolescents were interviewed. The median age of their children and adolescents was 14.2 years (IQR 13.3-14.7) with median HbA1c 78 mmol/mol (IQR 75-86) (9.3% IQR 9-10) before starting AHCL. Facilitators of implementing AHCL therapy included the following: (1) knowledge acquired from training, (2) establishing routines and action plans, (3) remote glucose monitoring, (4) achievement of glycaemic goals through automation, (5) children/adolescents' capability to use AHCL independently, (6) improved outcomes incentivized continued AHCL, (7) optimism about sustained improvements and (8) social support from healthcare providers, school staff, peers and parents. Barriers to AHCL implementation included the following: (1) challenges with device usability, (2) need for technical support, (3) forgotten knowledge and skills, (4) non-adherence to best practices, (5) negative social influences, (6) physical and psychosocial burden and (7) negative emotions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides comprehensive insights into parental perspectives of influences on implementing AHCL therapy in children and adolescents with elevated glycaemia. As parents remain key partners in diabetes care, these findings inform successful implementation of AHCL and development of future diabetes technology.

Simplified Meal Management in Adults Using an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System

Background: The advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm combines automated basal rates and corrections yet requires meal announcement for optimal performance, which poses a challenge for some. We aimed to compare glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using the MiniMedTM 780G AHCL system, utilizing simplified meal announcement versus precise carbohydrate (CHO) counting. Methods: In a study involving 14 adults with T1D, we evaluated glycemic control during a 13-week "precise phase," followed by two 3- to 4-week simplified meal announcement phases: "fixed one-step" (preset of one personalized fixed CHO amount) and "multistep" (entry of multiples of one, two, or three of these presets depending on meal size estimate). Results: The mean age was 45.7 ± 12.4, and 10 participants were male (71%). Mean baseline HbA1c was 6.8% ± 1.2% and time in range (TIR) was 67.5% ± 16.7%. Comparing the fixed one-step to the precise study phase, TIR was similar (75.4 ± 13% vs. 77.7 ± 9%, P = 0.12), and glucose management indicator (GMI) was slightly higher (6.8 ± 0.4 vs. 6.6 ± 0, P = 0.01). Furthermore, there was less level 1 and 2 hypoglycemia (1.6 ± 1% vs. 2.8 ± 2%, P = 0.03 and 0.3 ± 5% vs. 0.65 ± 1%, P = 0.08) but slightly more level 1 and 2 hyperglycemia (17.1 ± 8% vs. 15.0 ± 7%, P = 0.05 and 5.5 ± 5% vs. 3.6 ± 3%, P = 0.04). When comparing the multistep with the precise phase, GMI was identical (6.6%) and TIR superior (80.5 ± 10% vs. 77.7 ± 9%, P = 0.02). Additionally, there was less level 1 hypoglycemia (1.9 ± 1% vs. 2.8 ± 2%, P = 0.01) and a trend for less level 2 hypoglycemia (0.4 ± 0.7% vs. 0.65 ± 1%, P = 0.08). Conclusions: A simplified meal announcement strategy for adults using the MiniMed 780G system, relying on three increments of a fixed one-step CHO amount, may offer a way to improve glycemic control and ease self-care. For patients with more limitations, using one fixed one-step CHO amount could be a safe alternative to meeting most consensus glycemic targets.

The Myth of MARD (Mean Absolute Relative Difference): Limitations of MARD in the Clinical Assessment of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data

The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) is a numerical metric that has been adopted by the diabetes technology community as the main indicator that describes the accuracy of a glucose sensor at a single point in time. The appropriateness of this adoption is questionable because there is limited evidence that MARD has meaningful clinical relevance in the current era of sensor technology. The calculation may be simple, but evaluation of MARD can be very complex because it is substantially impacted by the design of the data collection in an accuracy study. Factors that can influence the overall MARD include participant demographics such as type of diabetes and age, site of sensor wear, and the percentage of collected values in each glycemic range during the study that is, in turn, a function of the study design. MARD is only one of several important statistical metrics such as bias and precision that are relevant to assessing accuracy of a sensor. Furthermore, these analytic metrics convey little information about the safety and effectiveness of sensor use with an automated insulin delivery system or a standalone device. There are no clinical studies in people with diabetes (PWD) proving that MARD can accurately differentiate between a safe and unsafe sensor or between a more and less clinically effective sensor. Moreover, there are alternatives to MARD that can do this in a clinically meaningful way, which include error grid analyses and clinical studies in PWD. This review attempts to demythologize the status of MARD for the diabetes community in an effort to shift the focus from MARD to using clinically relevant assessments.

A Peek Under the Hood: Explaining the MiniMed™ 780G Algorithm with Meal Detection Technology

The MiniMed™ 780G system (780G) received Conformité Européenne mark in June 2020 and was, recently, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (April 2023). Clinical trials and real-world analyses have demonstrated MiniMed™ 780G system safety and effectiveness and that glycemic outcomes (i.e., time in range) improve with recommended settings use. In this publication, we will explain the iterative development of the 780G algorithm and how this technology has simplified diabetes management.