A qualitative study exploring the expectations of people living with type 1 diabetes regarding prospective use of a hybrid closed-loop system

Participant Experiences of Low-Dose Empagliflozin Use as Adjunct Therapy to Hybrid Closed Loop: Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Very few patient-reported outcomes have been published in regard to opinions of individuals with type 1 diabetes concerning adjunctive therapy. The aim of this subanalysis was to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the thoughts and experiences of participants with type 1 diabetes who have used low doses of empagliflozin as an adjunct to hybrid closed-loop therapy.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were performed with adult participants who completed a double-blinded, crossover, randomized controlled trial using low-dose empagliflozin as an adjunct to hybrid closed-loop therapy. Participant experiences were captured through qualitative and quantitative methods. A descriptive analysis was performed using a qualitative approach; attitudes toward relevant topics were extracted from interview transcripts.

RESULTS

Twenty-four participants were interviewed; 15 (63%) perceived differences between interventions despite blinding, due to glycemic control or side effects. Advantages that arose were better glycemic control, in particular postprandially, requiring less insulin, and ease of use. Disadvantages were thought to be adverse effects, increased incidence of hypoglycemia, and increased pill burden. Thirteen (54%) participants were interested in using low-dose empagliflozin beyond the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Many participants had positive experiences with low-dose empagliflozin as an adjunct to the hybrid closed-loop therapy. A dedicated study with unblinding would be beneficial to better characterize patient-reported outcomes.

Experience with burdens of diabetes device use that affect uptake and optimal use in people with type 1 diabetes

Diabetes technology continues to advance, with more individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) adopting insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems that integrate real-time glucose data with an algorithm to assist with insulin dosing decisions. These technologies are linked with benefits to glycemic outcomes (e.g. increased time in target range), diabetes management behaviors, and quality of life. However, current devices and systems are not without barriers and hassles for the user. The intent of this review is to describe the personal challenges and reactions that users experience when interacting with current diabetes technologies, which can affect their acceptance and motivation to engage with their devices. This review will discuss user experiences and strategies to address three main areas: (i) the emotional burden of utilizing a wearable device; (ii) the perceived and experienced negative social consequences of device use; and (iii) the practical challenges of wearing devices.

Toward Diabetes Device Development That Is Mindful to the Needs of Young People Living With Type 1 Diabetes: A Data- and Theory-Driven Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

An important strategy to understand young people's needs regarding technologies for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) management is to examine their day-to-day experiences with these technologies.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine young people's and their caregivers' experiences with diabetes technologies in an exploratory way and relate the findings to the existing technology acceptance and technology design theories. On the basis of this procedure, we aimed to develop device characteristics that meet young people's needs.

METHODS

Overall, 16 in-person and web-based face-to-face interviews were conducted with 7 female and 9 male young people with T1DM (aged between 12 and 17 years) and their parents between December 2019 and July 2020. The participants were recruited through a pediatric diabetes clinic based at Canberra Hospital. Data-driven thematic analysis was performed before theory-driven analysis to incorporate empirical data results into the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) and value-sensitive design (VSD). We used the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist for reporting our research procedure and findings. In this paper, we summarize the key device characteristics that meet young people's needs.

RESULTS

Summarized interview themes from the data-driven analysis included aspects of self-management, device use, technological characteristics, and feelings associated with device types. In the subsequent theory-driven analysis, the interview themes aligned with all UTAUT and VSD factors except for one (privacy). Privacy concerns or related aspects were not reported throughout the interviews, and none of the participants made any mention of data privacy. Discussions around ideal device characteristics focused on reliability, flexibility, and automated closed loop systems that enable young people with T1DM to lead an independent life and alleviate parental anxiety. However, in line with a previous systematic review by Brew-Sam et al, the analysis showed that reality deviated from these expectations, with inaccuracy problems reported in continuous glucose monitoring devices and technical failures occurring in both continuous glucose monitoring devices and insulin pumps.

CONCLUSIONS

Our research highlights the benefits of the transdisciplinary use of exploratory and theory-informed methods for designing improved technologies. Technologies for diabetes self-management require continual advancement to meet the needs and expectations of young people with T1DM and their caregivers. The UTAUT and VSD approaches were found useful as a combined foundation for structuring the findings of our study.

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

AIMS

To explore parents' experiences of using a hybrid closed-loop system (CamAPS FX) when caring for a very young child (aged 1-7 years) with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

Interviews with n = 33 parents of 30 children who used the system during a randomised controlled trial. Data analysis used a descriptive thematic approach.

RESULTS

While some parents were initially reticent about handing control to the system, all reported clinical benefits to using the technology, having to do less diabetes-related work and needing less clinical input over time. Parents welcomed opportunities to enhance the system's efficacy (using Ease-off and Boost functions) as required. Parents described how the system's automated glucose control facilitated more normality, including sleeping better, worrying less about their child, and feeling more confident and able to outsource care. Parents also described more normality for the child (alongside better sleep, mood and concentration, and lessened distress) and siblings. Parents liked being able to administer insulin using a smartphone, but suggested refinements to device size and functionality.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a hybrid closed-loop system in very young children can facilitate greater normality and may result in a lessened demand for health professionals' input. Systems may need to be customised for very young children.

Youth and parent preferences for an ideal AP system: It is all about reducing burden

BACKGROUND

As new diabetes technologies improve to better manage glucose levels, users' priorities for future technologies may shift to prioritize burden reduction and ease of use. We used qualitative methods to explore youth and parent desired features of an "ideal" artificial pancreas (AP) system.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 39 youth, ages 10-25 years, and 44 parents. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Youth (79% female, 82% non-Hispanic white) were (M ± SD) ages 17.0 ± 4.7 years, with diabetes for 9.4 ± 4.9 years, and HbA1c of 8.4 ± 1.1%; 79% were pump-treated and 82% used CGM. Of parents, 91% were mothers and 86% were non-Hispanic white. Participants suggested various ways in which an ideal AP system could reduce physical and emotional burdens of diabetes. Physical burdens could be reduced by lessening user responsibilities to manage glucose for food and exercise, and wear or carry devices. Emotional burden could be reduced by mitigating negative emotional reactions to sound and frequency of alerts, while increasing feelings of normalcy. Youth and parents differed in their suggestions to reduce emotional burden. Participants suggested features that would improve glycemia, but nearly always in the context of how the feature would directly reduce their diabetes-specific burden.

CONCLUSIONS

Although participants expressed interest in improving glucose levels, the pervasive desire among suggested features of an ideal AP system was to minimize the burden of diabetes. Understanding and addressing users' priorities to reduce physical and emotional burden will be necessary to enhance uptake and maintain use of future AP systems.

Innovative features and functionalities of an artificial pancreas system: What do youth and parents want?

AIMS

Participant-driven solutions may help youth and families better engage and maintain use of diabetes technologies. We explored innovative features and functionalities of an ideal artificial pancreas (AP) system suggested by youth with type 1 diabetes and parents.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 39 youth, ages 10-25 years, and 44 parents. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Youth (72% female, 82% non-Hispanic white) were (M ± SD) ages 17.0 ± 4.7 years, with diabetes for 9.4 ± 4.9 years, and HbA_1c of 68 ± 11 mmol/mol (8.4 ± 1.1%); 79% were pump-treated and 82% were continuous glucose monitor users. Of parents, 91% were mothers and 86% were non-Hispanic white, with a child 10.6 ± 4.5 years old. Youth and parents suggested a variety of innovative features and functionalities for an ideal AP system related to (1) enhancing the appeal of user interface, (2) increasing automation of new glucose management functionalities, and (3) innovative and commercial add-ons for greater convenience. Youth and parents offered many similar suggestions, including integration of ketone testing, voice activation, and location-tracking into the system. Youth seemed more driven by increasing convenience and normalcy while parents expressed more concerns with safety.

CONCLUSIONS

Youth and parents expressed creative solutions for an ideal AP system to increase ease of use, enhance normalcy, and reduce burden of management. Designers of AP systems will likely benefit from incorporating the desired preferences by end users to optimize acceptance and usability by young persons with diabetes.

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.

Real-World Patient Experience of Long-Term Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Pump Use

OBJECTIVES

Understanding of patient experiences and adaptations to hybrid closed-loop (HCL) pumps beyond the confines of short-term clinical trials is needed to inform best practices surrounding this emerging technology. We investigated long-term, real-world patient experiences with HCL technology.

METHODS

In semistructured interviews, 21 adults with type 1 diabetes at a single Canadian tertiary diabetes centre discussed their transition to use of Medtronic MiniMed 670G auto-mode. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed iteratively to identify emerging themes.

RESULTS

Participants' mean age was 50±13 years, 12 of the 21 participants were female, baseline glycated hemoglobin (A1C) was 7.9±1.0% and auto-mode duration was 9.3±4.6 months. Three had discontinued auto-mode. Most participants praised auto-mode for reducing hypoglycemia, stabilizing glucose overnight and improving A1C, while also reporting frustration with frequency of alarms and user input, sensor quality and inadequate response to hyperglycemia. Participants with the highest baseline A1Cs (8.8% to 9.8%) tended to report immense satisfaction and trust in auto-mode, meeting their primary expectations of improved glycemic control. In contrast, participants with controlled diabetes (A1C <7.5%) had hoped to offload active management, but experienced significant cognitive and emotional labour associated with relinquishing control during suboptimal auto-mode performance. Participants were commonly aware of workarounds to "trick" the pump, and almost all participants with A1C <7.5% tried at least 1 workaround.

CONCLUSIONS

In the real-world setting, patients' goals and satisfaction with auto-mode appeared to vary considerably with their baseline diabetes control. Patients with the most suboptimal glycemic control described the greatest benefits and easiest adaptation process, challenging commonly held assumptions for patient selection for pump therapy.

Comparison Between Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery System (the Artificial Pancreas) and Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy: A Randomized-Controlled Crossover Trial

Objective: Several studies have shown that closed-loop automated insulin delivery (the artificial pancreas) improves glucose control compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy. We aimed to confirm these findings using our automated insulin delivery system based on the iPancreas platform. Research Design and Methods: We conducted a two-center, randomized crossover trial comparing automated insulin delivery with sensor-augmented pump therapy in 36 adults with type 1 diabetes. Each intervention lasted 12 days in outpatient free-living conditions with no remote monitoring. The automated insulin delivery system used a model predictive control algorithm that was a less aggressive version of our earlier dosing algorithm to emphasize safety. The primary outcome was time in the range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L. Results: The automated insulin delivery system was operational 90.2% of the time. Compared with the sensor-augmented pump therapy, automated insulin delivery increased time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) from 61% (interquartile range 53-74) to 69% (60-73; P = 0.006) and increased time in tight target range (3.9-7.8 mmol/L) from 37% (30-49) to 45% (35-51; P = 0.011). Automated insulin delivery also reduced time spent below 3.9 and 3.3 mmol/L from 3.5% (0.8-5.4) to 1.6% (1.1-2.7; P = 0.0021) and from 0.9% (0.2-2.1) to 0.5% (0.2-1.1; P = 0.0122), respectively. Time spent below 2.8 mmol/L was 0.2% (0.0-0.6) with sensor-augmented pump therapy and 0.1% (0.0-0.4; P = 0.155) with automated insulin delivery. Conclusions: Our study confirms findings that automated insulin delivery improves glucose control compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT02846831.

Perceptions and expectations of adults with type 1 diabetes for the use of artificial pancreas systems with and without glucagon addition: Results of an online survey

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The first hybrid artificial pancreas (AP) systems with insulin only (mono-hormonal) have recently reached the market while next generations systems are under development including those with glucagon addition (bi-hormonal). Understanding the expectations and impressions of future potential users about AP systems is important for optimal use of this clinically effective emerging technology.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An online survey about AP systems which consisted of 50 questions was addressed to people with type 1 diabetes in the province of Quebec, Canada. Surveys were completed by 123 respondents with type 1 diabetes (54% women, mean (SD) age 40.2 (14.4) y.o., diabetes duration 23.7 (14.1) years, 58% insulin pump users and 43% glucose sensor users). Of the respondents, 91% understood how AP systems work, 79% trusted them with correct insulin dosing, 73% were willing to replace their current treatment with AP and 80% expected improvement in quality of life. Anxiety about letting an algorithm control their glucose levels was expressed by 18% while the option of ignoring or modifying AP instructions was favoured by 88%. As for bi-hormonal AP systems, 83% of respondents thought they would be useful to further reduce hypoglycemic risks.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, respondents expressed positive views about AP systems use and high expectations for a better quality of life, glycemic control and hypoglycemia reduction. Data from this survey could be useful to health care professionals and developers of AP systems.