Comparison of the Sensor-Augmented Pump System with the Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Delivery System: Quality of Life, Diabetes Distress, and Glycaemic Outcomes in a Real-Life Context

BACKGROUND

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) is a chronic disease that requires exogenous insulin administration and intensive management to prevent any complications. Recent innovations in T1D management technologies include the Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop delivery system (AHCL). The pioneer AHCL system provides automated basal and automated bolus corrections when needed.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) system and the Sensor-Augmented Pump (SAP) with Predictive Low Glucose Management (PLGM) system, in relation to glycaemic outcomes, general and diabetes-related Quality of Life (QoL), and diabetes distress.

METHODS

General and diabetes-related QoL were assessed with the Diabetes Quality of Life Brief Clinical Inventory (DQOL-BCI) and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF), respectively. Diabetes distress was assessed with the Diabetes Distress Scale for Type 1 diabetes (T1-DDS).

RESULTS

Eighty-nine T1D adults participated in the study, mostly females (65.2%), with a mean age of 39.8 (± 11.5 years). They had on average 23 years of diabetes (± 10.7) and they were on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy. Significant differences favoring the AHCL over the SAP + PLGM system were demonstrated by lower mean glucose levels, less time above range, lower scores on DQOL-BCI, T1-DDS, and higher scores on WHOQOL-BREF. Finally, the linear regression models revealed the association of time in range in most of the above aspects.

CONCLUSION

This study highlighted the advantages of the AHCL system over the SAP + PLGM system in the real-world setting in relation to general and diabetes-related QoL, diabetes distress, and glycaemic outcomes.

Results From a Virtual Clinic for the Follow-up of Patients Using the Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System

BACKGROUND

Evidence regarding the implementation of medium-term strategies in advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system users is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the efficacy and safety of the AHCL system in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) on a six-month follow-up in a virtual diabetes clinic (VDC).

METHOD

A prospective cohort of adult patients with T1D treated using the AHCL system (Mini Med 780G; Medtronic, Northridge, California) in a VDC follow-up. Standardized training and follow-up were conducted virtually. Clinical data and metabolic control outcomes were reported at baseline, and at three and six months.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients (mean age = 42 ± 14.6 years, 65% men, 54% with graduate education) were included. Percentage time in range (%TIR) increased significantly regardless of prior therapy with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring + multiple daily injections and sensor-augmented pump therapy with predictive low-glucose management after starting AHCL and persisted during the follow-up period with no hypoglycemic events. The %TIR 70 to 180 mg/dL according to socioeconomic strata was 73.4% ± 5.3%, 78.1% ± 8.1%, and 84.2% ± 7.5% for the lower, middle, and upper strata, respectively. The sensor was used more frequently in the population with a higher education level. Adherence to sensor use and SmartGuard retention were higher in patients who underwent the VDC follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Medium-term follow-up of users of AHCL systems in a VDC contributes to safely achieving %TIR goals. Virtual diabetes clinic follow-up favored adherence to sensor use and continuous SmartGuard use. Socioeconomic strata were associated with a better glycemic profile and education level was associated with better adherence to sensor use.

Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes: Is Age at Onset a Determining Factor in Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Therapy?

BACKGROUND

The integration of continuous glucose monitoring systems with insulin infusion pumps has shown improved glycemic control, with improvements in hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, Hb1Ac, and greater autonomy in daily life. These have been most studied in adults and there are currently not many articles published in the pediatric population that establish their correlation with age of debut.

METHODS

Prospective, single-study. A total of 28 patients (mean age 12 ± 2.43 years, 57% male, duration of diabetes 7.84 ± 2.46 years) were included and divided into two groups according to age at T1D onset (≤4 years and >4 years). Follow-up for 3 months, with glucometric variables extracted at different cut-off points after the start of the closed-loop (baseline, 1 month, 3 months).

RESULTS

Significant improvement was evidenced at 1 month and 3 months after closed-loop system implantation, with better glycemic control in the older age group at baseline at TIR (74.06% ± 6.37% vs. 80.33% ± 7.49% at 1 month, p < 0.003; 71.87% ± 6.58% vs. 78.75% ± 5.94% at 3 months, p < 0.009), TAR1 (18.25% ± 4.54% vs. 14.33% ± 5.74% at 1 month, p < 0.006; 19.87% ± 5.15% vs. 14.67% ± 4. 36% at 3 months, p < 0.009) and TAR2 (4.75% ± 2.67% vs. 2.75% ± 1.96% at 1 month, p = 0.0307; 5.40% ± 2.85% vs. 3% ± 2.45% at 3 months, p < 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

the use of automated systems such as the MiniMedTM780G system brings glucometric results closer to those recommended by consensus, especially in age at T1D onset >4 years. However, the management in pediatrics continues to be a challenge even after the implementation of these systems, especially in terms of hyperglycemia and glycemic variability.

Safety and efficacy of the structured onboarding steps and initiation protocol for MiniMed™ 780G system among an Egyptian cohort of young people living with type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of initiation protocol for MiniMed ™ 780G system among an Egyptian cohort of young people living with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

A prospective single-arm study including 72 participants with T1D. Five days of structured education and training were provided to all users and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was initiated on the first day of the training. Users initiated the pump initially in manual mode, with suspend before low feature, for 3 days before shifting to Auto Mode.

RESULTS

The mean HbA1c decreased from 8.72 ± 2.01 % to 6.7 ± 0.4 % (p<0.01). Time in range (70-180 mg/dL) substantially improved from 55.24 % ± 10.35 to 81.7 % ± 5.12 % after spending 84 days in auto mode (p<0.001) with 2.03 % of the time spent below 70 mg/dL. Regarding AHCL compatibility, users spent at least 90 % of time in auto mode.

CONCLUSIONS

Young people with T1D successfully initiated the AHCL system, using a tailored structured on-boarding protocol. Structured stepwise initiation protocol and onboarding steps are important prerequisite for participants' adherence and engagement with the system. Patient education together with optimized pump settings are important predictors of glycemic outcomes.

Impact on glucometric variables and quality of life of the advanced hybrid closed-loop system in pediatric and adolescent type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND

In recent years, technological advances in the field of diabetes have revolutionized the management, prognosis, and quality of life of diabetes patients and their environment. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of implementing the MiniMed 780G closed-loop system in a pediatric and adolescent population previously treated with a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump and intermittent glucose monitoring.

METHODS

Data were collected from 28 patients with type 1 diabetes aged 6 to 17 years, with a follow-up of 6 months. We included both glucometric and quality of life variables, as well as quality of life in primary caregivers. Metabolic control variables were assessed at baseline (before system change) and at different cutoff points after initiation of the closed-loop system (48 hours, 7 days, 14 days, 21 days, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months).

RESULTS

Time in range 70-180 mg/dL increased from 59.44% at baseline to 74.29% in the first 48 hours after automation of the new system, and this improvement was maintained at the other cutoff points, as was time in hyperglycemia 180-250 mg/dL (24.44% at baseline to 18.96% at 48 hours) and >250 mg/dL (11.71% at baseline to 3.82% at 48 hours).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed an improvement in time in range and in all time spent in hyperglycemia from the first 48 hours after the automation of the system, which was maintained at 6 months.

Real-World Performance of First- Versus Second-Generation Automated Insulin Delivery Systems on a Pediatric Population With Type 1 Diabetes: A One-Year Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this single-center observational study was to assess the real-world performance of first- and second-generation automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in a cohort of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes over a one-year follow-up.

METHODS

Demographic, anamnestic, and clinical data of the study cohort were collected at the start of automatic mode. Data on continuous glucose monitoring metrics, system settings, insulin requirements, and anthropometric parameters at three different time points (start period, six months, 12 months) were retrospectively gathered and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty-four individuals (55.6% of females) aged 7 to 18 years switching to AID therapy were included in the analysis. Two weeks after starting automatic mode, subjects using advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) showed a better response than hybrid closed-loop (HCL) users in terms of time in range (P = .016), time above range 180 to 250 mg/dl (P = .022), sensor mean glucose (P = .047), and glycemia risk index (P = .012). After 12 months, AHCL group maintained better mean sensor glucose (P = .021) and glucose management indicator (P = .027). Noteworthy, both HCL and AHCL users achieved the recommended clinical targets over the entire study period. The second-generation AID system registered longer time spent with automatic mode activated and fewer shifts to manual mode at every time point (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both systems showed sustained and successful glycemic outcomes in the first year of use. However, AHCL users achieved tighter glycemic targets, without an increase of hypoglycemia risk. Improved usability of the device may also have contributed to optimal glycemic outcomes by ensuring better continuity of the automatic mode activation.

Performance of a dual-hormone closed-loop system versus insulin-only closed-loop system in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. A single-blind, randomized, controlled, crossover trial

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of a dual-hormone (DH [insulin and glucagon]) closed-loop system compared to a single-hormone (SH [insulin only]) closed-loop system in adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

Methods

This was a 26-hour, two-period, randomized, crossover, inpatient study involving 11 adolescents with type 1 diabetes (nine males [82%], mean ± SD age 14.8 ± 1.4 years, diabetes duration 5.7 ± 2.3 years). Except for the treatment configuration of the DiaCon Artificial Pancreas: DH or SH, experimental visits were identical consisting of: an overnight stay (10:00 pm until 7:30 am), several meals/snacks, and a 45-minute bout of moderate intensity continuous exercise. The primary endpoint was percentage of time spent with sensor glucose values below range (TBR [<3.9 mmol/L]) during closed-loop control over the 26-h period (5:00 pm, day 1 to 7:00 pm, day 2).

Results

Overall, there were no differences between DH and SH for the following glycemic outcomes (median [IQR]): TBR 1.6 [0.0, 2.4] vs. 1.28 [0.16, 3.19]%, p=1.00; time in range (TIR [3.9-10.0 mmol/L]) 68.4 [48.7, 76.8] vs. 75.7 [69.8, 87.1]%, p=0.08; and time above range (TAR [>10.0 mmol/L]) 28.1 [18.1, 49.8] vs. 23.3 [12.3, 27.2]%, p=0.10. Mean ( ± SD) glucose was higher during DH than SH (8.7 ( ± 3.2) vs. 8.1 ( ± 3.0) mmol/L, p<0.001) but coefficient of variation was similar (34.8 ( ± 6.8) vs. 37.3 ( ± 8.6)%, p=0.20). The average amount of rescue carbohydrates was similar between DH and SH (6.8 ( ± 12.3) vs. 9.5 ( ± 15.4) grams/participant/visit, p=0.78). Overnight, TIR was higher, TAR was lower during the SH visit compared to DH. During and after exercise (4:30 pm until 7 pm) the SH configuration produced higher TIR, but similar TAR and TBR compared to the DH configuration.

Conclusions

DH and SH performed similarly in adolescents with type 1 diabetes during a 26-hour inpatient monitoring period involving several metabolic challenges including feeding and exercise. However, during the night and around exercise, the SH configuration outperformed DH.

Patient reported outcome measures in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes using advanced hybrid closed loop insulin delivery

PURPOSE

To determine the impact of advanced hybrid closed - loop (AHCL) insulin delivery on quality of life, metabolic control and time in range (TIR) in youth with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

METHODS

Twenty-four children and adolescents with T1DM (14 female) aged of 10 to 18 years participated in the study. Mixed methods study design was implemented. Quantitative part of the study was conducted as a longitudinal crossover study with data collection before and at the end of AHCL use. Qualitative data were obtained with modeled interviews of four focus groups before and the end of the period. Clinical data were collected from the electronic medical records.

RESULTS

The use of AHCL significantly improved the quality of life in terms of decreased fear of hypoglycemia (p<0.001), decrease in diabetes-related emotional distress (p<0.001), and increased wellbeing (p=0.003). The mean A1C decreased from 8.55 ± 1.34% (69.9 ± 12.3 mmol/mol) to 7.73 ± 0.42 (61.1 ± 2.2 mmol/mol) (p=0.002) at the end of the study. Mean TIR was 68.22% (± 13.89) before and 78.26 (± 6.29) % (p<0.001) at the end of the study.

CONCLUSION

The use of advanced hybrid closed loop significantly improved the quality of life and metabolic control in children and adolescents with T1DM.