Carbohydrate Tolerance Threshold for Unannounced Snacks in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes Using an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System

Education Practices of Dietitians Across Australia and New Zealand Around the Glycaemic Management of Dietary Fat and Protein in Type 1 Diabetes and the Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Survey Evaluation

Background/Objectives: International guidelines recommend that all children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) receive education on the glycaemic impact of fat and protein from diagnosis. In addition, the insulin strategy should be adjusted to compensate for fat and protein excursions. Data from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) can guide insulin adjustment. This study sought to determine whether the current practices of dietitians in Australia and New Zealand align with guidelines. Methods: An anonymous, online survey of paediatric T1D dietitians working in tertiary centres (n = 20; Australia, n = 14, New Zealand, n = 6) was undertaken from February to March 2023. The Australian and New Zealand Society for Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes (ANZSPED) disseminated the survey link. The questionnaire covered three content domains: demographic information about the clinic and practitioner, the health professionals' education practices regarding fat and protein, and the use of CGM. Results: This pilot study had a 100% response rate, with a dietitian representative from all eligible centres responding on behalf of the diabetes team. Only 10% (n = 2) of respondents both (i) provided education on the glycaemic impact of fat and protein to all families at diagnosis and (ii) always provided insulin strategies to manage fat and protein where it impacted glycemia, as per guidelines. Barriers to education included a lack of procedure (47%, n = 7), consumer resources (40%, n = 6), and time (33%, n = 5). Reasons for not recommending strategies to manage fat and protein were perceptions that the family was overwhelmed (100%, n = 10) or not interested (60%, n = 6), and uncertainty of the best strategy (40%, n = 4). CGM was used by "almost all" respondents to educate and adjust the insulin strategy (90%, n = 18). Conclusions: Most dietitians surveyed were not consistently providing fat and protein education and management strategies to children with T1D in line with guidelines. CGM is a key tool routinely used by dietitians in nutrition education to help guide insulin adjustment. Dietitians need greater support through educational resources for families and training in evidence-based strategies to manage deglycation from dietary fat and protein to align with guidelines.

Simplified meal announcement study (SMASH) using hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in youth and young adults with type 1 diabetes: a randomised controlled two-centre crossover trial

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The majority of hybrid closed-loop systems still require carbohydrate counting (CC) but the evidence for its justification remains limited. Here, we evaluated glucose control with simplified meal announcement (SMA) vs CC in youth and young adults with type 1 diabetes using the mylife CamAPS FX system.

METHODS

We conducted a two-centre, randomised crossover, non-inferiority trial in two University Hospitals in Switzerland in 46 participants (aged 12-20 years) with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections (n=35), sensor-augmented pump (n=4) or hybrid closed-loop (n=7) therapy before enrolment. Participants underwent two 3 month periods with the mylife CamAPS FX system (YpsoPump, Dexcom G6) to compare SMA (individualised carbohydrate meal sizes) with CC, in a randomly assigned order using computer-generated sequences. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time glucose was in target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/l) with a non-inferiority margin of 5 percentage points. Secondary endpoints were other sensor glucose and insulin metrics, usability and safety endpoints.

RESULTS

Forty-three participants (18 women and girls) completed the trial. In the intention-to-treat analysis, time in range (mean±SD) was 69.9±12.4% with SMA and 70.7±13.0% with CC (estimated mean difference -0.6 percentage points [95% CI -2.4, 1.1], demonstrating non-inferiority). Time <3.9 mmol/l (median [IQR] 1.8 [1.2-2.2]% vs 1.9 [1.6-2.5]%) and >10.0 mmol/l (28.2±12.6% vs 27.2±13.4%) was similar between periods. Total daily insulin dose was higher with SMA (54.0±14.7 U vs 51.7±12.1 U, p=0.037). Three participants experienced serious adverse events, none of which were intervention-related.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Glucose control using the CamAPS FX algorithm with SMA was non-inferior to its use with CC in youth and young adults with type 1 diabetes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05481034.

FUNDING

The study was supported by the Swiss Diabetes Foundation and by a YTCR grant from the Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation and the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences. Dexcom and Ypsomed provided product support.

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.

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.

Impact of Missed and Late Meal Boluses on Glycemic Outcomes in Automated Insulin Delivery-Treated Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: A Two-Center, Population-Based Cohort Study

Objective: To evaluate the impact of missed or late meal boluses (MLBs) on glycemic outcomes in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. Research Design and Methods: AID-treated (Tandem Control-IQ or Medtronic MiniMed 780G) children and adolescents (aged 6-21 years) from Stanford Medical Center and Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen with ≥10 days of data were included in this two-center, binational, population-based, retrospective, 1-month cohort study. The primary outcome was the association between the number of algorithm-detected MLBs and time in target glucose range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL). Results: The study included 189 children and adolescents (48% females with a mean ± standard deviation age of 13 ± 4 years). Overall, the mean number of MLBs per day in the cohort was 2.2 ± 0.9. For each additional MLB per day, TIR decreased by 9.7% points (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.3; 8.1), and compared with the quartile with fewest MLBs (Q1), the quartile with most (Q4) had 22.9% less TIR (95% CI: 27.2; 18.6). The age-, sex-, and treatment modality-adjusted probability of achieving a TIR of >70% in Q4 was 1.4% compared with 74.8% in Q1 (P < 0.001). Conclusions: MLBs significantly impacted glycemic outcomes in AID-treated children and adolescents. The results emphasize the importance of maintaining a focus on bolus behavior to achieve a higher TIR and support the need for further research in technological or behavioral support tools to handle MLBs.

Automated insulin delivery systems in the treatment of diabetes: Benefits, challenges, and practical considerations in pediatric patients

At present, the majority of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus do not achieve the recommended glycemic control goals to reduce the risk of acute and chronic complications. Hybrid closed-loop systems or automated insulin infusion systems emerged as an opportunity to improve metabolic control, quality of life and reduce the psychosocial impact of type 1 diabetes. This article analyzes the evidence regarding their effectiveness and safety, the challenges they pose and best practices to optimize results when implemented in clinical practice.

Simple meal announcements and pramlintide delivery versus carbohydrate counting in type 1 diabetes with automated fast-acting insulin aspart delivery: a randomised crossover trial in Montreal, Canada

BACKGROUND

In type 1 diabetes, carbohydrate counting is the standard of care to determine prandial insulin needs, but it can negatively affect quality of life. We developed a novel insulin-and-pramlintide closed-loop system that replaces carbohydrate counting with simple meal announcements.

METHODS

We performed a randomised crossover trial assessing 14 days of (1) insulin-and-pramlintide closed-loop system with simple meal announcements, (2) insulin-and-placebo closed-loop system with carbohydrate counting, and (3) insulin-and-placebo closed-loop system with simple meal announcements. Participants were recruited at McGill University Health Centre (Montreal, QC, Canada). Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) and adolescents (aged 12-17 years) with type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio to a sequence of the three interventions, with faster insulin aspart used in all interventions. Each intervention was separated by a 14-45-day wash-out period, during which participants reverted to their usual insulin. During simple meal announcement interventions, participants triggered a prandial bolus at mealtimes based on a programmed fixed meal size, whereas during carbohydrate counting interventions, participants manually entered the carbohydrate content of the meal and an algorithm calculated the prandial bolus based on insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio. Two primary comparisons were predefined: the percentage of time in range (glucose 3·9-10·0 mmol/L) with a non-inferiority margin of 6·25% (non-inferiority comparison); and the mean Emotional Burden subscale score of the Diabetes Distress Scale (superiority comparison), comparing the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting minus the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements. Analyses were performed on a modified intention-to-treat basis, excluding participants who did not complete all interventions. Serious adverse events were assessed in all participants. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04163874.

FINDINGS

32 participants were enrolled between Feb 14, 2020, and Oct 5, 2021; two participants withdrew before study completion. 30 participants were analysed, including 15 adults (nine female, mean age 39·4 years [SD 13·8]) and 15 adolescents (eight female, mean age 15·7 years [1·3]). Non-inferiority of the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements relative to the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting was reached (difference -5% [95% CI -9·0 to -0·7], non-inferiority p<0·0001). No statistically significant difference was found in the mean Emotional Burden score between the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements and the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting (difference 0·01 [SD 0·82], p=0·93). With the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements, 14 (47%) participants reported mild gastrointestinal symptoms and two (7%) reported moderate symptoms, compared with two (7%) participants reporting mild gastrointestinal symptoms on the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting. No serious adverse events occurred.

INTERPRETATION

The insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements alleviated carbohydrate counting without degrading glucose control, although quality of life as measured by the Emotional Burden score was not improved. Longer and larger studies with this novel approach are warranted.

FUNDING

Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

Disordered Eating Behaviors Among Adolescents and Young Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Treated with Insulin Pumps and Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems

Background and Aims: Disordered eating behaviors (DEB) are more common among individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) compared to those without, and for insulin pump users may be associated with higher hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We investigated DEB risk factors among insulin pump-treated individuals with T1D and clinical characteristics of hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems' users by DEB level. Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study of 167 insulin pump-treated individuals with T1D, 13-21 years of age. Data were obtained from patients' medical charts with additional self-reported questionnaires, including assessment of DEB. Results: DEB were found in 71 (42.5%) individuals, and positively associated with female sex (β = 2.98 [standard error (SE) = 1.31], P = 0.025), body mass index (BMI)-Z-score (β = 2.12 [SE = 0.64], P = 0.001), HbA1c (β = 1.40 [SE = 0.45], P = 0.02), and higher rate of pump discontinuation (β = 4.48 [SE = 1.99], P = 0.026). The use of HCL systems compared to insulin pumps was associated with higher BMI-Z-score (odds ratio [OR]: 3.46 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.52-7.87], P = 0.003) and tendency to lower HbA1c level (OR: 0.44 [95% CI: 0.18-1.09], P = 0.078) among individuals without DEB, and with lower HbA1c level (OR: 0.29 [95% CI: 0.10-0.83], P = 0.022) and higher socioeconomic status (OR: 1.73 [95% CI: 1.09-2.74], P = 0.020) among individuals with DEB. Conclusions: DEB are common among individuals with T1D treated with insulin pumps and are associated with higher HbA1c levels. Among T1D individuals with DEB, HCL system use is associated with lower HbA1c compared to insulin pump treatment. Our findings highlight the importance of regular screening for DEB and its risk factors to improve pump treatment and diabetes management. Moreover, individuals with DEB using HCL systems may benefit from reduced HbA1c levels.

Carbohydrate counting knowledge and ambulatory glucose profile in persons living with type 1 diabetes

CONTEXT

The amount of consumed carbohydrates is the strongest factor influencing glucose levels during the four hours following a meal. Our aim was to evaluate the association between carbohydrate counting knowledge and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) parameters in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using different insulin regimens.

METHOD

In this multicenter prospective study, the GluciQuizz questionnaire was used to evaluate carbohydrate knowledge. CGM data for the 14 days preceding completion of the questionnaire were analyzed. The primary endpoint was evaluation of the correlation between the GluciQuizz total score and time in range (TIR) in the study population.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 170 participants was 40.7 ± 14.8 years and duration of T1D 18.8 ± 12.1 years. The mean GluciQuizz total score for all participants was 66 ± 13 %. Mean TIR was 58.6 ± 18.7 %. GluciQuizz total score positively correlated with TIR (r = 0.3001; p < 0.0001). This correlation was observed in CSII users (r = 0.2526; p < 0.05) but not in MDI (r = 0.2510; p = 0.1134) and HCL users (r = -0.1065; p = 0.4914). TIR was also negatively correlated with the mean carb count error in all study participants (r = -0.2317; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, as the Gluciquizz score was associated with metabolic control, this easy-to-use self-administered questionnaire could be used widely on a routine basis to assess the carbohydrate knowledge of T1D patients and to offer them targeted education tailored to their needs.

Decreasing the Burden of Carbohydrate Counting and Meal Announcement with Automated Insulin Delivery, Meal Recognition, and Autocorrection Doses: A Case Study

The use of automated insulin delivery (AID) has led to a decrease in the burden of diabetes, allowing for better sleep, decreased anxiety about hypoglycemia, and automatic corrections doses, and meal recognition algorithms have provided "forgiveness" for imprecise carbohydrate (CHO) entries and missed or late meal boluses. We provide a case report and review of the current literature assessing the effect of AID on the burden of meal bolus. The case also demonstrates how sensor and pump data provide insight into insulin bolus behavior, and access to integrated cloud-based data has allowed for virtual patient visits. Glucose sensor metrics provides time in range and time below range, and the sensor-derived glucose management indicator provides an assessment of the long-term risk of complications when a laboratory glycated hemoglobin is not available.

Twelve-Month Follow-up from a Randomized Controlled Trial of Simplified Meal Announcement Versus Precise Carbohydrate Counting in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Using the MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System

Background and Aims: Carbohydrate counting is a well-established tool for self-management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and can improve glycemic control and potentially reduce long-term complication risk. However, it can also be burdensome, error-prone, and complicated for the patient. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate glycemic control with carbohydrate counting ("flex") versus simplified meal announcement ("fix") in adolescents with T1D using the MiniMed™ 780G system. The present study reports follow-up data to 12 months. Methods: Adolescents with T1D were randomly assigned 1:1 to use the MiniMed™ 780G system alongside the flex versus fix approaches. Participants were followed for 12 months with outcomes recorded at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was the difference in time-in-range (TIR), and secondary endpoints included glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and other glucose and insulin metrics. Results: At 12 months, TIR (proportion of time with sensor glucose 70-180 mg/dL) was significantly lower in the fix versus flex group (72.9% vs. 80.1%, respectively; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in HbA1c between the fix (6.8% ± 0.5%) and flex groups (6.5% ± 0.5%) at 12 months (P = 0.092), and mean HbA1c was below 7% at all time points in both arms. Conclusions: Glycemic control with simplified meal announcement was maintained over 12 months. On average, the international consensus targets were met in both arms for all time points. The simplified approach represents a viable alternative to carbohydrate counting, particularly in people who find the latter burdensome; however, carbohydrate counting resulted in superior TIR. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT05069727.

Glycemic control in children with type 1 diabetes treated with the advanced hybrid closed loop system 2-year prospective, observational, two-center study

Background and aims

MiniMed 780G is the first Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop (AHCL) system in Poland, approved in the EU in 2020. To date, observations of glycemic control up to 12 months have been published. This study aimed to analyze glycemic control and anthropometric parameters in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) after two years of using the AHCL system.

Materials and methods

We prospectively collected anthropometric data, pump, and continuous glucose records of fifty T1D children (9.9 ± 2.4 years, 24 (48%) boys, T1D for 3.9 ± 2.56 years) using an AHCL system. We compared the two-week AHCL records obtained after AHCL enrollment with data 6, 12, and 24 months after starting AHCL.

Results

Time in range (70-180 mg/dl) and BMI z-score did not change during the 2 years of observation (p>0.05). The percentage of autocorrection in total daily insulin increased significantly (p<0.005).

Conclusion

Glycemic control in the investigated group of children with T1D treated with the AHCL system for 2 years remained stable. Children in this group maintained weight and optimal metabolic control, most likely due to autocorrection boluses.

Postprandial glucose metabolism in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus: potential targets for improvement

The main goal of therapeutic management of type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) is to maintain optimal glycemic control to prevent acute and long-term diabetes complications and to enable a good quality of life. Postprandial glycemia makes a substantial contribution to overall glycemic control and variability in diabetes and, despite technological advancements in insulin treatments, optimal postprandial glycemia is difficult to achieve. Several factors influence postprandial blood glucose levels in children and adolescents with T1DM, including nutritional habits and adjustment of insulin doses according to meal composition. Additionally, hormone secretion, enteroendocrine axis dysfunction, altered gastrointestinal digestion and absorption, and physical activity play important roles. Meal-time routines, intake of appropriate ratios of macronutrients, and correct adjustment of the insulin dose for the meal composition have positive impacts on postprandial glycemic variability and long-term cardiometabolic health of the individual with T1DM. Further knowledge in the field is necessary for management of all these factors to be part of routine pediatric diabetes education and clinical practice. Thus, the aim of this report is to review the main factors that influence postprandial blood glucose levels and metabolism, focusing on macronutrients and other nutritional and lifestyle factors, to suggest potential targets for improving postprandial glycemia in the management of children and adolescents with T1DM.

Glycemic Control, Basal/Bolus Distribution, BMI and Meal Management in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes and Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop

Evidence about the impact of advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) on body mass index (BMI) and eating habits in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is lacking. This real-world study aimed at evaluating glycemic control, BMI, meals and basal/bolus distribution in young subjects with T1D treated by AHCL. Glycemic metrics, HbA1c, basal/bolus distribution, meals/day, BMI, total daily dose (TDD), and carbohydrates/kg (CHO/kg) have been evaluated in 83 subjects, aged 13 ± 4.5 years, in manual mode, 3 and 6 months after auto-mode. Time in range (TIR) increased after 3 months, exceeding the target of 70% and was maintained at 6 months. While coefficient of variation (CV) did not change, the glucose management indicator (GMI) decreased in auto-mode (6.7 ± 0.3 vs. 7.1 ± 0.5%; p < 0.001), as well as HbA1c. Basal proportion decreased in favor of boluses (38.3 ± 7.3 vs. 43.6 ± 10.9%; p < 0.001). Meals increased at 3 and 6 months (4.4 ± 1.2 vs. 5.0 ± 1.5, p 0.002 and 5.1 ± 1.7, p < 0.001), as well as TDD/kg, without changes in BMI and CHO consumed. No differences in meal composition have arisen from food diaries. In conclusion, AHCL ensured the achievement and maintenance of target TIR in young T1D subjects. The number of meals, TDD, and insulin bolus proportion increased over time, but BMI remained stable.

Unannounced Meal Challenges 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 outcomes. We aimed to compare the performance of the MiniMed™ 780G AHCL algorithm with and without meal announcement. Methods: In a single-arm study involving 14 adults with type 1 diabetes, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of AHCL when meals were not announced. Participants stayed at a supervised environment for 5 days, during which the outcomes of not announcing meals (≤80 g of carbohydrate) were assessed. Next, participants entered a 90-day at-home "unannounced" phase, during which all meals (≤80 g of carbohydrate) were unannounced, followed by a 90-day at-home phase in which all meals were announced. Results: Time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was lower in the unannounced versus announced periods (67.5% ± 12.5% vs. 77.7% ± 9.5%; P < 0.01, respectively), with more time spent in hyperglycemia range 180-250 mg/dL (22.7% ± 7.7% vs. 15.7% ± 7.2%) and >250 mg/dL (7.9% ± 6.4% vs. 3.6% ± 2.7%), but less time in hypoglycemia range 54-70 mg/dL (1.6% ± 1% vs. 2.8% ± 1.8%) and <54 mg/dL (0.3% ± 0.4% vs. 0.7% ± 0.9%). Not announcing meals containing up to 60 g of carbohydrate did not lead to increase in postprandial extreme dysglycemia >250 mg/dL, and up to 20 g of unannounced carbohydrates did not significantly change the TIR 70-180 mg/dL compared with full announcement. Conclusion: The AHCL system is optimized for use with meal announcement. While not announcing meals of ≤80 g carbohydrates appears to be safe, it results in suboptimal postprandial glycemic control, especially with high-carbohydrate meals. Not announcing small meals (≤20 g carbohydrate) does not deteriorate glycemic control. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04479826.

Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) Systems: Use and Efficacy in Children and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes and Other Forms of Diabetes in Europe in Early 2023

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients' lifestyle and prognosis has remarkably changed over the years, especially after the introduction of insulin pumps, in particular advanced hybrid closed loop systems (AHCL). Emerging data in literature continuously confirm the improvement of glycemic control thanks to the technological evolution taking place in this disease. As stated in previous literature, T1D patients are seen to be more satisfied thanks to the use of these devices that ameliorate not only their health but their daily life routine as well. Limited findings regarding the use of new devices in different age groups and types of patients is their major limit. This review aims to highlight the main characteristics of each Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) system available for patients affected by Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus. Our main goal was to particularly focus on these systems' efficacy and use in different age groups and populations (i.e., children, pregnant women). Recent studies are emerging that demonstrate their efficacy and safety in younger patients and other forms of diabetes.

Simplified Meal Announcement Versus Precise Carbohydrate Counting in Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes Using the MiniMed 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop System: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Glucose Control

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare glucose control in adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using the MiniMed 780G system who used simplified meal announcement with those who used precise carbohydrate counting.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This randomized controlled trial included 34 participants (age 12-18 years) with T1D who were on multiple daily injections or insulin pump and were scheduled to start using the MiniMed 780G system at Sidra Medicine in Qatar. After a 7-day run-in period, participants were randomly assigned to the fix group (simplified meal announcement by preset of three personalized fixed carbohydrate amounts) or the flex group (precise carbohydrate counting) and followed for 12 weeks. Between-group difference in time in range (TIR) was the primary end point. Secondary end points included HbA1c and other glycometrics.

RESULTS

During the 12-week study phase, TIR was 73.5 ± 6.7% in the fix and 80.3 ± 7.4% in the flex group, with a between-group difference of 6.8% in favor of flex (P = 0.043). Time >250 mg/dL was better in the flex group (P = 0.012), whereas HbA1c (P = 0.168), time below range (P = 0.283), and time between 180 and 250 mg/dL (P = 0.114) did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Adolescents using the MiniMed 780G system with a preset of three personalized fixed carbohydrate amounts can reach international targets of glycemic control. Therefore, it may be a valuable alternative to precise carbohydrate counting in users who are challenged by precise carbohydrate counting. Because carbohydrate counting further improves outcomes, these skills remain important for MiniMed 780G users.