Cambridge Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes Reduces Caregivers' Fear of Hypoglycemia and Improves Their Well-Being

Using Time in Tight Glucose Range as a Health-Promoting Strategy in Preschoolers With Type 1 Diabetes

Children who develop diabetes in their first years of life risk being exposed to many decades of hyperglycemia, hence having a high risk of early complications and premature death. An additional age-dependent risk is that dysglycemia, especially hyperglycemia, negatively affects the developing brain. In evaluating the outcome of insulin treatment at an individual and group level, cutoff thresholds for glucose values are needed. Time in tight range (TITR) was defined as a measurement of time spent in a state of normoglycemia. The International Society of Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes recommended that for preschoolers with type 1 diabetes (T1D), either >70% of time with glucose in range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10 mmol/L) or >50% of time in a tighter range 70-140 mg/dL (TITR) can be used as continuous glucose monitoring targets. In Sweden, over the past two decades, pediatric diabetes teams set glycemic targets to 70-140 mg/dL (3.9-7.8 mmol/L). Swedish registry data show that >50% of children <7 years old have >50% TITR. The purpose of this review is to share and discuss international knowledge and experiences of working with TITR as a health-promoting strategy in preschoolers with T1D on a structural and individual level. We conclude that as insulin treatment improves, a reasonable goal is to strive for as much time in a state of normoglycemia as possible, and this can easily be explained to families of children with diabetes. For children with access to an experienced health care team and diabetes technologies a currently realistic target can be at least half of the time in normoglycemic range, i.e., TITR >50%.

Psychosocial outcomes with the Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System in caregivers of very young children with type 1 diabetes

AIM

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have demonstrated improved glycaemic outcomes in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), yet limited data exist on these systems in very young children and their impact on caregivers. We evaluated psychosocial outcomes following use of the tubeless Omnipod® 5 AID System in caregivers of very young children.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This 3-month single-arm, multicentre, pivotal clinical trial enrolled 80 children aged 2.0-5.9 years with T1D to use the Omnipod 5 AID System. Caregivers completed questionnaires assessing psychosocial outcomes-diabetes distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes), hypoglycaemia confidence (Hypoglycemia Confidence Scale), well-being (World Health Organization 5 Well-Being Index), sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), insulin delivery satisfaction (Insulin Delivery Satisfaction Survey) and system usability (System Usability Scale) at baseline with standard therapy and after 3 months of AID use.

RESULTS

Following 3 months of Omnipod 5 use, caregivers experienced significant improvements across all measures, including diabetes-related psychosocial outcomes (Problem Areas in Diabetes; p < 0.0001, Hypoglycemia Confidence Scale; p < 0.01), well-being (World Health Organization 5 Well-Being Index; p < 0.0001) and perceived system usability (System Usability Scale; p < 0.0001). Significant improvements were seen in the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index total score and the overall sleep quality, sleep duration and efficiency subscales (all p < 0.05). Insulin Delivery Satisfaction Survey scores improved on all subscales (greater satisfaction, reduced burden and reduced inconvenience; all p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Caregivers face unique challenges when managing T1D in very young children. While glycaemic metrics have unquestioned importance, these results evaluating psychosocial outcomes reveal additional meaningful benefits and suggest that the Omnipod 5 AID System alleviates some of the burdens caregivers face with diabetes management.

Use of diabetes technology in children

Children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers face numerous challenges navigating the unpredictability of this complex disease. Although the burden of managing diabetes remains significant, new technology has eased some of the load and allowed children with type 1 diabetes to achieve tighter glycaemic management without fear of excess hypoglycaemia. Continuous glucose monitor use alone improves outcomes and is considered standard of care for paediatric type 1 diabetes management. Similarly, automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have proven to be safe and effective for children as young as 2 years of age. AID use improves not only blood glucose levels but also quality of life for children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers and should be strongly considered for all youth with type 1 diabetes if available and affordable. Here, we review key data on the use of diabetes technology in the paediatric population and discuss management issues unique to children and adolescents.

Effect of automated insulin delivery systems on person-reported outcomes in people with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Conclusive evidence on the benefits of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems on person-reported outcomes (PROs) is missing.

Methods

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, four databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and GoogleScholar) were searched from inception up to August 7th, 2024. All types of studies were included if studies reported on PROs in people with diabetes using an AID system. All types of control groups in randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included. Summary data were extracted by three reviewers. Main outcomes focused on diabetes distress, fear of hypoglycaemia and quality of life. Meta-analyses were conducted for RCTs and observational studies separately. When five or more studies could be pooled, random-effects meta-analysis was used, otherwise common-effects meta-analysis was used. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane tools. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022352502.

Findings

A total of 62 studies (n = 9253) were included reporting on 45 different questionnaires. Twenty-seven studies were RCTs and 25 were observational studies. RCT meta-analyses showed reduced diabetes distress (standardised mean difference [95% CI]: -0.159 [-0.309, -0.010], I2 = 23.0%), reduced fear of hypoglycaemia (-0.339 [-0.566, -0.111], I2 = 42.6%), and improved hypoglycaemia unawareness (-0.231 [-0.424, -0.037], I2 = 0.0%), quality of life in adults (0.347 [0.134, 0.560], I2 = 0.0%) and children/adolescents (0.249 [0.050, 0.448], I2 = 0.0%). Observational meta-analyses corroborated improvements in diabetes distress (-0.217 [-0.403, -0.031], I2 = 68.5%), fear of hypoglycaemia (-0.445 [-0.540, -0.349], I2 = 0.0%), hypoglycaemia unawareness (-0.212 [-0.419, -0.004], I2 = 0.0%), and showed improved sleep quality (-0.158 [-0.255, -0.061], I2 = 0.0%).

Interpretation

We found low to moderate effect sizes indicating that AID therapy is associated with reduced burden and improved well-being in people with diabetes. Evidence comes from both RCTs and observational studies. However, for some PROs only a limited number of studies could be pooled with a large heterogeneity in questionnaires used. More research is needed with a more uniformed assessment of PROs to demonstrate the added value of AID therapy on psychosocial outcomes.

Funding

None.

During an 18-month course of automated insulin delivery treatment, children aged 2 to 6 years achieve and maintain a higher time in tight range

AIMS

To investigate whether the positive effects on glycaemic outcomes of 3-month automated insulin delivery (AID) achieved in 2- to 6-year-old children endure over an extended duration and how AID treatment affects time in tight range (TITR), defined as 3.9-7.8 mmol/L.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We analysed 18 months of follow-up data from a non-randomized, prospective, single-arm clinical trial (n = 35) conducted between 2021 and 2023. The main outcome measures were changes in time in range (TIR), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), time above range (TAR), TITR, and mean sensor glucose (SG) value during follow-up visits (at 0, 6, 12 and 18 months). The MiniMed 780G AID system in SmartGuard Mode was used for 18 months. Parental diabetes distress was evaluated at 3 and 18 months with the validated Problem Areas in Diabetes-Parent, revised (PAID-PR) survey.

RESULTS

Between 0 and 6 months, TIR and TITR increased, and HbA1c, mean SG value and TAR decreased significantly (p < 0.001); the favourable effect persisted through 18 months of follow-up. Between 3 and 18 months, PAID-PR score declined significantly (0 months: mean score 37.5; 3 months: mean score 28.6 [p = 0.06]; 18 months: mean score 24.6 [p < 0.001]).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with AID significantly increased TITR and TIR in young children. The positive effect of AID on glycaemic control observed after 6 months persisted throughout the 18 months of follow-up. Similarly, parental diabetes distress remained reduced during 18 months follow-up. These findings are reassuring and suggest that AID treatment improves glycaemic control and reduces parental diabetes distress in young children over an extended 18-month follow-up.

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.

Impact of 6-months of an advanced hybrid closed-loop system on sleep and psychosocial outcomes in youth with type 1 diabetes and their parents

INTRODUCTION

Youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and parents experience reduced quality of life and sleep quality due to nocturnal monitoring, hypoglycemia fear, and diabetes-related disruptions. This study examined the sleep and quality of life impact of advanced technology.

METHODS

Thirty-nine youth with T1D, aged 2-17 years, starting an advanced hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system and a parent participated in an observational study. Surveys, actigraphy, sleep diaries, and glycemic data (youth) were captured prior to HCL, at one week, 3 months, and 6 months. Outcomes were modeled using linear mixed effects models with random intercepts to account for within-subject correlation, with least-squares means at each timepoint compared to baseline.

RESULTS

Parents and youth reported improvements in health-related quality of life and fear of hypoglycemia after HCL initiation. Concurrently, nocturnal glycemia improved. Actigraphy-derived sleep outcomes showed improved 6 month adolescent efficiency and 3 and 6 month parent wake after sleep onset. Additionally, parents reported improved subjective sleep quality and child sleep-related impairment at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

With nocturnal glycemic improvements in youth using HCL technology, some aspects of parent and youth sleep and quality of life improved. This may reflect decreased parental monitoring and worry and highlights benefits for youth beyond glycemia.

A Systematic Review of Commercial Hybrid Closed-Loop Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

INTRODUCTION

Several different forms of automated insulin delivery systems (AID systems) have recently been developed and are now licensed for type 1 diabetes (T1D). We undertook a systematic review of reported trials and real-world studies for commercial hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems.

METHODS

Pivotal, phase III and real-world studies using commercial HCL systems that are currently approved for use in type 1 diabetes were reviewed with a devised protocol using the Medline database.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies were included in the systematic review (19 for 670G; 8 for 780G; 11 for Control-IQ; 14 for CamAPS FX; 4 for Diabeloop; and 3 for Omnipod 5). Twenty were real-world studies, and 39 were trials or sub-analyses. Twenty-three studies, including 17 additional studies, related to psychosocial outcomes and were analysed separately.

CONCLUSIONS

These studies highlighted that HCL systems improve time In range (TIR) and arouse minimal concerns around severe hypoglycaemia. HCL systems are an effective and safe option for improving diabetes care. Real-world comparisons between systems and their effects on psychological outcomes require further study.

Control-IQ Technology Positively Impacts Patient Reported Outcome Measures and Glycemic Control in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes in a Real-World Setting

Objective

To determine the impact of the t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology on the quality of life and glycemic control in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and their parents in a real-world setting. Research Design and Methods. We conducted a single-center, prospective study on pediatric patients (6-18 years old) with T1D using a Tandem t:slim X2 pump and initiating Control-IQ technology as part of routine care. Youth (≥8 years) and parents completed validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline and the end of the study (16 weeks). Glycemic control measures were recorded at baseline and every 4 weeks until the end of the study.

Results

Fifty-nine youth participated; the median (IQR) age was 13.8 (11.1, 15.7) years, and T1D duration was 6.3 (3.1, 8.4) years. INSPIRE scores (evaluating expectations (baseline) and impact (post) of Control-IQ technology) were favorable, unchanged at the end of the study for youth, and lower for parents (p = 0.04). Other PROM scores improved by the end of the study with mean (95% CI) differences for youth and parents, respectively, as follows: Diabetes Impact and Device Satisfaction (DIDS) Scale Diabetes Impact -1.08 (-1.51, -0.64) (p < 0.001) and -1.41 (-1.96, -0.87) (p < 0.001); DIDS Scale Device Satisfaction +0.43 (0.11, 0.74) (p = 0.01) and +0.58 (0.31, 0.85) (p < 0.001); Hypoglycemia Fear Survey -4.41 (-7.65, -1.17) (p = 0.01) and -7.64 (-11.66, -3.62) (p < 0.001); and WHO-5 Well-Being Index +5.10 (-1.40, 11.6) (p = 0.12) and +9.60 (3.40, 15.8) (p = 0.003). The mean time in range increased from 52.6% at baseline to 62.6% (p < 0.001) at 4 weeks, sustained to 16 weeks.

Conclusions

Initiation of Control-IQ technology in a real-world setting significantly reduced the impact of diabetes on daily life while simultaneously improving glycemic control. Trial Registration. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04838561 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04838561?term=Control-IQ&cond=Type+1+Diabetes&cntry=CA&draw=2&rank=1).