Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart Versus Insulin Aspart Using a Second-Generation Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized, Open-Label, Crossover Trial

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.

Postprandial glucose-management strategies in type 1 diabetes: Current approaches and prospects with precision medicine and artificial intelligence

Postprandial glucose control can be challenging for individuals with type 1 diabetes, and this can be attributed to many factors, including suboptimal therapy parameters (carbohydrate ratios, correction factors, basal doses) because of physiological changes, meal macronutrients and engagement in postprandial physical activity. This narrative review aims to examine the current postprandial glucose-management strategies tested in clinical trials, including adjusting therapy settings, bolusing for meal macronutrients, adjusting pre-exercise and postexercise meal boluses for postprandial physical activity, and other therapeutic options, for individuals on open-loop and closed-loop therapies. Then we discuss their challenges and future avenues. Despite advancements in insulin delivery devices such as closed-loop systems and decision-support systems, many individuals with type 1 diabetes still struggle to manage their glucose levels. The main challenge is the lack of personalized recommendations, causing suboptimal postprandial glucose control. We suggest that postprandial glucose control can be improved by (i) providing personalized recommendations for meal macronutrients and postprandial activity; (ii) including behavioural recommendations; (iii) using other personalized therapeutic approaches (e.g. glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, sodium-glucose co-transporter inhibitors, amylin analogues, inhaled insulin) in addition to insulin therapy; and (iv) integrating an interpretability report to explain to individuals about changes in treatment therapy and behavioural recommendations. In addition, we suggest a future avenue to implement precision recommendations for individuals with type 1 diabetes utilizing the potential of deep reinforcement learning and foundation models (such as GPT and BERT), employing different modalities of data including diabetes-related and external background factors (i.e. behavioural, environmental, biological and abnormal events).

Exercising Safely with the MiniMed™ 780G Automated Insulin Delivery System

The physical and psychological benefits of exercise are particularly pertinent to people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). The variability in subcutaneous insulin absorption and the delay in offset and onset in glucose lowering action impose limitations, given the rapidly varying insulin requirements with exercise. Simultaneously, there are challenges to glucose monitoring. Consequently, those with T1D are less likely to exercise because of concerns regarding glucose instability. While glucose control with exercise can be enhanced using automated insulin delivery (AID), all commercially available AID systems remain limited by the pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous insulin delivery. Although glycemic responses may vary with exercises of differing intensities and durations, the principles providing the foundation for guidelines include minimization of insulin on board before exercise commencement, judicious and timely carbohydrate supplementation, and when possible, a reduction in insulin delivered in anticipation of planned exercise. There is an increasing body of evidence in support of superior glucose control with AID over manual insulin dosing in people in T1D who wish to exercise. The MiniMed™ 780G AID system varies basal insulin delivery with superimposed automated correction boluses. It incorporates a temporary (elevated glucose) target of 8.3 mmol/L (150 mg/dL) and when it is functioning, the autocorrection boluses are stopped. As the device has recently become commercially available, there are limited data assessing glucose control with the MiniMed™ 780G under exercise conditions. Importantly, when exercise was planned and implemented within consensus guidelines, %time in range and %time below range targets were met. A practical approach to exercising with the device is provided with illustrative case studies. While there are limitations to spontaneity imposed on any AID device due to the pharmacokinetics associated with the subcutaneous delivery of current insulin formulations, the MiniMed™ 780G system provides people with T1D an excellent option for exercising safely if the appropriate strategies are implemented.

Study protocol for a randomised open-label clinical trial examining the safety and efficacy of the Android Artificial Pancreas System (AAPS) with advanced bolus-free features in adults with type 1 diabetes: the 'CLOSE IT' (Closed Loop Open SourcE In Type 1 diabetes) trial

INTRODUCTION

Multiple automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have become commercially available following randomised controlled trials demonstrating benefits in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, their real-world utility may be undermined by user-associated burdens, including the need to carbohydrate count and deliver manual insulin boluses. There is an important need for a 'fully automated closed loop' (FCL) AID system, without manual mealtime boluses. The (Closed Loop Open SourcE In Type 1 diabetes) trial is a randomised trial comparing an FCL AID system to the same system used as a hybrid closed loop (HCL) in people with T1D, in an outpatient setting over an extended time frame.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Randomised, open-label, parallel, non-inferiority trial comparing the Android Artificial Pancreas System (AAPS) AID algorithm used as FCL to the same algorithm used as HCL. Seventy-five participants aged 18-70 will be randomised (1:1) to one of two treatment arms for 12 weeks: (a) FCL-participants will be advised not to bolus for meals and (b) HCL-participants will use the AAPS AID algorithm as HCL with announced meals. The primary outcome is the percentage of time in target sensor glucose range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L). Secondary outcomes include other glycaemic metrics, safety, psychosocial factors, platform performance and user dietary factors. Twenty FCL arm participants will participate in a 4-week extension phase comparing glycaemic and dietary outcomes using NovoRapid (insulin aspart) to Fiasp (insulin aspart and niacinamide).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approvals are by the Alfred Health Ethics Committee (615/22) (Australia) and Health and Disability Ethics Committees (2022 FULL 13832) (New Zealand). Each participant will provide written informed consent. Data protection and confidentiality will be ensured. Study results will be disseminated by publications, conferences and patient advocacy groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

ACTRN12622001400752 and ACTRN12622001401741.

The Role of Ultra-Rapid-Acting Insulin Analogs in Diabetes: An Expert Consensus

Ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogs (URAA) are a further development and refinement of rapid-acting insulin analogs. Because of their adapted formulation, URAA provide an even faster pharmacokinetics and thus an accelerated onset of insulin action than conventional rapid-acting insulin analogs, allowing for a more physiologic delivery of exogenously applied insulin. Clinical trials have confirmed the superiority of URAA in controlling postprandial glucose excursions, with a safety profile that is comparable to the rapid-acting insulins. Consequently, many individuals with diabetes mellitus may benefit from URAA in terms of prandial glycemic control. Unfortunately, there are only few available recommendations from authoritative sources for use of URAA in clinical practice. Therefore, this expert consensus report aims to define populations of people with diabetes mellitus for whom URAA may be beneficial and to provide health care professionals with concrete, practical recommendations on how best to use URAA in this context.

Fully Closed-Loop Glucose Control Compared With Insulin Pump Therapy With Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes and Suboptimal Glycemic Control: A Single-Center, Randomized, Crossover Study

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control compared with insulin pump therapy with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This single-center, randomized, crossover study enrolled 26 adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin pump therapy with suboptimal glycemic control (mean ± SD, age 41 ± 12 years, HbA1c 9.2 ± 1.1% [77 ± 12 mmol/mol]). Participants underwent two 8-week periods of unrestricted living to compare fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro (CamAPS HX system) with insulin pump therapy with CGM in random order.

RESULTS

In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time glucose was in range (primary end point 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was higher during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD 50.0 ± 9.6% vs. 36.2 ± 12.2%, mean difference 13.2 percentage points [95% CI 9.5, 16.9], P < 0.001). Time with glucose >10.0 mmol/L and mean glucose were lower during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD time >10.0 mmol/L: 49.0 ± 9.9 vs. 62.9 ± 12.6%, mean difference -13.3 percentage points [95% CI -17.2, -9.5], P < 0.001; mean ± SD glucose 10.7 ± 1.1 vs. 12.0 ± 1.6 mmol/L, mean difference -1.2 mmol/L [95% CI -1.8, -0.7], P < 0.001). The proportion of time with glucose <3.9 mmol/L was similar between periods (median [interquartile range (IQR)] closed-loop 0.88% [0.51-1.55] vs. pump with CGM 0.64% [0.28-1.10], P = 0.102). Total daily insulin requirements did not differ (median [IQR] closed-loop 51.9 units/day [35.7-91.2] vs. pump with CGM 50.7 units/day [34.0-70.0], P = 0.704). No severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Fully closed-loop insulin delivery with CamAPS HX improved glucose control compared with insulin pump therapy with CGM in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control.

Assessment of Meal Anticipation for Improving Fully Automated Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Meals are a consistent challenge to glycemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Our objective was to assess the glycemic impact of meal anticipation within a fully automated insulin delivery (AID) system among adults with T1D.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We report the results of a randomized crossover clinical trial comparing three modalities of AID systems: hybrid closed loop (HCL), full closed loop (FCL), and full closed loop with meal anticipation (FCL+). Modalities were tested during three supervised 24-h admissions, where breakfast, lunch, and dinner were consumed per participant's home schedule, at a fixed time, and with a 1.5-h delay, respectively. Primary outcome was the percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) during the breakfast postprandial period for FCL+ versus FCL.

RESULTS

Thirty-five adults with T1D (age 44.5 ± 15.4 years; HbA1c 6.7 ± 0.9%; n = 23 women and n = 12 men) were randomly assigned. TIR for the 5-h period after breakfast was 75 ± 23%, 58 ± 21%, and 63 ± 19% for HCL, FCL, and FCL+, respectively, with no significant difference between FCL+ and FCL. For the 2 h before dinner, time below range (TBR) was similar for FCL and FCL+. For the 5-h period after dinner, TIR was similar for FCL+ and FCL (71 ± 34% vs. 72 ± 29%; P = 1.0), whereas TBR was reduced in FCL+ (median 0% [0-0%] vs. 0% [0-0.8%]; P = 0.03). Overall, 24-h control for HCL, FCL, and FCL+ was 86 ± 10%, 77 ± 11%, and 77 ± 12%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although postprandial control remained optimal with hybrid AID, both fully AID solutions offered overall TIR >70% with similar or lower exposure to hypoglycemia. Anticipation did not significantly improve postprandial control in AID systems but also did not increase hypoglycemic risk when meals were delayed.

New therapies towards a better glycemic control in youths with type 1 diabetes

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is the most frequent form of diabetes in pediatric age, affecting more than 1.5 million people younger than age 20 years worldwide. Early and intensive control of diabetes provides continued protection against both microvascular and macrovascular complications, enhances growth, and ensures normal pubertal development. In the absence of definitive reversal therapy for this disease, achieving and maintaining the recommended glycemic targets is crucial. In the last 30 years, enormous progress has been made using technology to better treat T1D. In spite of this progress, the majority of children, adolescents and young adults do not reach the recommended targets for glycemic control and assume a considerable burden each day. The development of promising new therapeutic advances, such as more physiologic insulin analogues, pioneering diabetes technology including continuous glucose monitoring and closed loop systems as well as new adjuvant drugs, anticipate a new paradigm in T1D management over the next few years. This review presents insights into current management of T1D in youths.

Automated glycemic control with a bionic pancreas for type 1 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of a bionic pancreas with automated insulin delivery systems to prevent complications of diabetes mellitus shows conflicting results. We aimed to comprehensively discuss the potential use of a bionic pancreas in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

A systematic database search was conducted on October 24, 2022, for articles investigating the use of a bionic pancreas in patients with T1D. The hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level, mean glucose level, glucose coefficient of variability, time-in-range (TIR), and adverse events were investigated.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in this review. The data from these studies suggested that the use of a bionic pancreas could reduce the HbA1c (mean difference [MD] = -0.40% [95% confidence interval {CI} = -0.59 to -0.21], I2 = 0%, p < 0.0001) and mean glucose levels (MD = -21.06 [95% CI = -24.66 to -17.46], I2 = 45%, p < 0.00001) and improve the TIR (MD = 14.41% [95% CI = 10.99 to 17.83], I2 = 60%, p < 0.00001). The most common adverse events reported were nausea and vomiting.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a bionic pancreas shows potential in preventing complications of T1D by improving the TIR and decreasing the HbA1c and mean glucose levels. Furthermore, serious adverse events with the use of a bionic pancreas and standard of care show insignificant results, suggesting a good safety profile.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusions: Closing the loop

CONTEXT

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusions (CSIIs) and continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) have revolutionized the management of diabetes mellitus (DM). Over the last two decades the development of advanced, small, and user-friendly technology has progressed substantially, essentially closing the loop in the fasting and post-absorptive state, nearing the promise of an artificial pancreas. The momentum was mostly driven by the diabetes community itself, to improve its health and quality of life.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Literature regarding CSII and CGM was reviewed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Management of DM aims to regulate blood glucose to prevent long term micro and macrovascular complications. CSIIs combined with CGMs provide an integrated system to maintain tight glycemic control in a safe and uninterrupted fashion, while minimizing hypoglycemic events. Recent advances have allowed to 'close the loop' by better mimicking endogenous insulin secretion and glucose level regulation. Evidence supports sustained improvement in glycemic control with reduced episodes of hypoglycemia using these systems, while improving quality of life. Ongoing work in delivery algorithms with or without counterregulatory hormones will allow for further layers of regulation of the artificial pancreas.

CONCLUSION

Ongoing efforts to develop an artificial pancreas have created effective tools to improve the management of DM. CSIIs and CGMs are useful in diverse populations ranging from children to the elderly, as well as in various clinical contexts. Individually and more so together, these have had a tremendous impact in the management of DM, while avoiding treatment fatigue. However, cost and accessibility are still a hindrance to its wider application.

Comparative assessment of modern parameters of glycemic control in children with type 1 diabetes after switching to fast-acting insulin aspart using Flash Glucose Monitoring in real clinical practice

BACKGROUND: Postprandial hyperglycaemia contributes significantly to the lack of glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM1). At least a quarter of patients forget to inject insulin before meals once a week, and more than 40% of them inject bolus insulin immediately before meals, which does not correspond to the pharmacokinetic effects of ultrashort insulins and determines the need to use insulins with better imitations of physiological insulin secretion.

AIM: To assess the effect of fast acting insulin aspart (FIAsp) on the current parameters of glycaemic control in children with DM1 after switching from insulin Asp (iAsp) using continuous glucose monitoring.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter observational 12-week prospective open-label uncontrolled comparative study was initiated. A group of insufficiently controlled patients were identified (n = 48) including a group on multiple insulin injections therapy (MII) (insulin degludec and IAsp) and a group on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) of iAsp. Three 14-day flash glucose monitoring (FMG) were performed: before transferring patients to FiAsp and after 2 and 12 weeks of the transfer. Key endpoints: HbA1c after 2 and 12 weeks on FiAsp relative to baseline, analysis of 5 FMG target glucose ranges, presented as an ambulatory glycemic profile. Additional indicators: dynamics of insulin daily dose, frequency of glucose self- monitoring, the number of severe hypoglycemia, adverse events that occurred during treatment.

RESULTS: 2 weeks after the transfer from IAsp to FIAsp, TIR increased in the entire group of patients: from 53% [44.3; 66.5] to 57% [47.4; 71.0] (p-value = 0.010) and TAR decreased from 38% [24.8; 50.2] to 30.5% [22.0; 45, 0] (p-value = 0.0124). Maintaining and increase time spent in the target glucose ranges during a 12-week observation period, in parallel with a significant decrease in hypoglycemic episodes <3.9 mmol / L per week, on FIAsp therapy naturally leads to an improvement in diabetes control: a decrease in HbA1c from 8.15% up to 7.75% (p-value = 0.0224), more pronounced in the group of patients on CSII — from 7.9% to 7.5% (p-value = 0.028).

CONCLUSION: Switching from IAsp to BDIAsp in routine clinical practice in the MII and CSII regimen in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes allows achieving better glycemic control compared to the previous generation prandial insulin analog Iasp. The better diabetes control is associated with an increase or a trend towards an increase in TIR and a decrease or a trend towards a decrease in TAR and TBR, as well as a significant decrease in episodes of hypoglycemia.

A Multicenter Randomized Trial Evaluating Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart in the Bionic Pancreas in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Objective: To evaluate the insulin-only configuration of the iLet® bionic pancreas (BP) using fast-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp®) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Research Design and Methods: In this multicenter, randomized trial, 275 adults with T1D (18-83 years old, baseline HbA1c 5.3%-14.9%) were randomly assigned 2:2:1 to use the BP with fast-acting insulin aspart (BP-F group, N = 114), BP with aspart or lispro (BP-A/L group, N = 107), or a control group using their standard-care insulin delivery (SC group, N = 54) plus real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The primary outcome was HbA1c at 13 weeks. The BP-F versus SC comparison was considered primary and BP-F versus BP-A/L secondary. Results: Mean ± standard deviation (SD) HbA1c decreased from 7.8% ± 1.2% at baseline to 7.1% ± 0.6% at 13 weeks with BP-F versus 7.6% ± 1.2% to 7.5% ± 0.9% with SC (adjusted difference = -0.5%, 95% CI -0.7 to -0.3, P < 0.001). CGM-measured percent time <54 mg/dL over 13 weeks with BP-F was noninferior to SC (adjusted difference = 0.00%, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.05, P < 0.001 for noninferiority based on a prespecified noninferiority limit of 1%). Over 13 weeks, mean time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) increased by 14% (3.4 h/day) and mean CGM glucose was reduced by 18 mg/dL with BP-F compared with SC (P < 0.001). Analyses of time >180 mg/dL, time >250 mg/dL, and the SD of CGM glucose all favored BP-F compared with SC (P < 0.001). Differences between BP-F and BP-A/L were minimal, with no difference in HbA1c at 13 weeks (adjusted difference = -0.0%, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.1, P = 0.67) or mean glucose (adjusted difference = -2.0 mg/dL, 95% CI -4.3 to 0.4, P = 0.10). Mean TIR was 2% greater with BP-F than BP-A/L (95% CI 1 to 4, P = 0.005), but the percentages of participants improving TIR by ≥5% were not significantly different (P = 0.49) and there were no significant differences comparing BP-F versus BP-A/L across nine patient-reported outcome surveys. The rate of severe hypoglycemia events did not differ among the three groups. Conclusions: In adults with T1D, HbA1c was improved with the BP using fast-acting insulin aspart compared with standard care without increasing CGM-measured hypoglycemia. However, the effect was no better than the reduction observed with the BP using aspart or lispro. Clinical Trial Registry: clinicaltrials.gov; NCT04200313.

A Comparison of Postprandial Glucose Control in the Medtronic Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Versus 670G

Background: We recently reported that use of an "advanced" hybrid closed-loop system reduced hyperglycemia without increasing hypoglycemia compared to a first-generation system. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate whether this improved performance was specifically related to better mealtime glycemic control. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of postprandial glycemic control in an open-label, multinational, randomized crossover trial of 112 participants with type 1 diabetes, aged 14-29, of the Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed-loop system (670G) versus the Medtronic advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system, for 12 weeks each. We compared glycemic and insulin delivery metrics over a 3 h horizon across all meals to assess system performance and outcomes. Results: Overall meal size and premeal insulin on board were similar during run-in and between 670G and AHCL arms. Compared with 670G arm, premeal, peak, and mean glucose levels were numerically lower in the AHCL arm (167 ± 23, 231 ± 23, and 177 ± 20 mg/dL vs. 175 ± 23, 235 ± 23, and 180 ± 19 mg/dL, respectively), with a trend to lower hyperglycemia level 2 in AHCL arm. Adjusting for premeal glucose level, all postmeal outcomes between 670G and AHCL were statistically similar. Prandial insulin delivery also was similar in both treatment arms (21 ± 9 vs. 23 ± 10 U), with a shift in basal/bolus ratio from 28%/71% in 670G arm to 20%/80% in AHCL arm. Conclusions: Reduced hyperglycemia with AHCL compared to 670G was not related to early postprandial glycemic excursions after adjusting for premeal glucose level (<3 h after meal), but likely to later (>3 h) postprandial or overnight improvements. Further refinements to mealtime bolus algorithms and strategies may more optimally control prandial glycemic excursions.

Rapid-acting insulin analogues: Theory and best clinical practice in type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago, insulin preparations have improved significantly. Starting from purified animal insulins, evolving to human insulins produced by genetically modified organisms, and ultimately to insulin analogues, all in an attempt to mimic physiological insulin action profiles seen in individuals without diabetes. Achieving strict glucose control without hypoglycaemia and preventing chronic complications of diabetes while preserving quality of life remains a challenging goal, but the advent of newer ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogues may enable intensive insulin therapy without being too disruptive to daily life. Ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogues can be administered shortly before meals and give better coverage of mealtime-induced glucose excursions than conventional insulin preparations. They also increase convenience with timing of bolus dosing. In this review, we focus on the progress that has been made in rapid-acting insulins. We summarize pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, clinical trial data supporting the use of these new formulations as part of a basal-bolus regimen and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, and provide a clinical perspective to help guide healthcare professionals when and for whom to use ultra-fast-acting insulins.