Comparison between a tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery system and a tubeless, on-body sensor-augmented pump in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

This study compares the efficacy and safety of a tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery (AID) system with that of a tubeless, on-body sensor-augmented pump (SAP).

METHODS

This multicentre, parallel-group, RCT was conducted at 13 tertiary medical centres in South Korea. Adults aged 19-69 years with type 1 diabetes who had HbA1c levels of <85.8 mmol/mol (<10.0%) were eligible. The participants were assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive a tubeless, on-body AID system (intervention group) or a tubeless, on-body SAP (control group) for 12 weeks. Stratified block randomisation was conducted by an independent statistician. Blinding was not possible due to the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was the percentage of time in range (TIR), blood glucose between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/l, as measured by continuous glucose monitoring. ANCOVAs were conducted with baseline values and study centres as covariates.

RESULTS

A total of 104 participants underwent randomisation, with 53 in the intervention group and 51 in the control group. The mean (±SD) age of the participants was 40±11 years. The mean (±SD) TIR increased from 62.1±17.1% at baseline to 71.5±10.7% over the 12 week trial period in the intervention group and from 64.7±17.0% to 66.9±15.0% in the control group (difference between the adjusted means: 6.5% [95% CI 3.6%, 9.4%], p<0.001). Time below range, time above range, CV and mean glucose levels were also significantly better in the intervention group compared with the control group. HbA1c decreased from 50.9±9.9 mmol/mol (6.8±0.9%) at baseline to 45.9±7.4 mmol/mol (6.4±0.7%) after 12 weeks in the intervention group and from 48.7±9.1 mmol/mol (6.6±0.8%) to 45.7±7.5 mmol/mol (6.3±0.7%) in the control group (difference between the adjusted means: -0.7 mmol/mol [95% CI -2.0, 0.8 mmol/mol] (-0.1% [95% CI -0.2%, 0.1%]), p=0.366). No diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycaemia events occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

The use of a tubeless, on-body AID system was safe and associated with superior glycaemic profiles, including TIR, time below range, time above range and CV, than the use of a tubeless, on-body SAP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) KCT0008398 FUNDING: The study was funded by a grant from the Korea Medical Device Development Fund supported by the Ministry of Science and ICT; the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy; the Ministry of Health and Welfare; and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (grant number: RS-2020-KD000056).

Automated Insulin Delivery with Remote Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Hospitalized Patients with Diabetes: A Multicenter, Single-Arm, Feasibility Trial

Introduction: Multiple daily injection insulin therapy frequently fails to meet hospital glycemic goals and is prone to hypoglycemia. Automated insulin delivery (AID) with remote glucose monitoring offers a solution to these shortcomings. Research Design and Methods: In a single-arm multicenter pilot trial, we tested the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of the Omnipod 5 AID System with real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for up to 10 days in hospitalized patients with insulin-requiring diabetes on nonintensive care unit medical-surgical units. Primary endpoints included the proportion of time in automated mode and percent time-in-range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) among participants with >48 h of CGM data. Safety endpoints included incidence of severe hypoglycemia and diabetes-related ketoacidosis (DKA). Additional glycemic endpoints, CGM accuracy, and patient satisfaction were also explored. Results: Twenty-two participants were enrolled; 18 used the system for a total of 96 days (mean 5.3 ± 3.1 days per patient), and 16 had sufficient CGM data required for analysis. Median percent time in automated mode was 95% (interquartile range 92%-98%) for the 18 system users, and the 16 participants with >48 h of CGM data achieved an overall TIR of 68% ± 16%, with 0.17% ± 0.3% time <70 mg/dL and 0.06% ± 0.2% time <54 mg/dL. Sensor mean glucose was 167 ± 21 mg/dL. There were no DKA or severe hypoglycemic events. All participants reported satisfaction with the system at study end. Conclusions: The use of AID with a disposable tubeless patch-pump along with remote real-time CGM is feasible in the hospital setting. These results warrant further investigation in randomized trials.

Type 1 Diabetes Overview and Perioperative Management

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is an increasingly common condition. Although often more effective, treatment regimens for patients with T1D have become more variable and complex with newer insulin analogues and increasing use of diabetes technology. Both surgery and anesthesia are known to trigger a stress response that causes dramatic metabolic changes in the patient that tend to increase glucose variability. Close monitoring of glucose levels and clear algorithms for insulin administration can ameliorate these characteristic responses. As T1D treatment technology becomes more effective at maintaining glucose in target range, there should be more consideration of using this technology during hospitalization and surgery.

Extended Use of an Open-Source Automated Insulin Delivery System in Children and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: The 24-Week Continuation Phase Following the CREATE Randomized Controlled Trial

Aim: To assess long-term efficacy and safety of open-source automated insulin delivery (AID) in children and adults (7-70 years) with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Both arms of a 24-week randomized controlled trial comparing open-source AID (OpenAPS algorithm within a modified version of AndroidAPS, preproduction DANA-i™ insulin pump, Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor) with sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAPT), entered a 24-week continuation phase where the SAPT arm (termed SAPT-AID) crossed over to join the open-source AID arm (termed AID-AID). Most participants (69/94) used a preproduction YpsoPump^® insulin pump during the continuation phase. Analyses incorporated all 52 weeks of data, and combined between-group and within-subject differences to calculate an overall "treatment effect" of AID versus SAPT. Results: Mean time in range (TIR; 3.9-10 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]) was 12.2% higher with AID than SAPT (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.4 to 14.1; P < 0.001). TIR was 56.9% (95% CI 54.2 to 59.6) with SAPT and 69.1% (95% CI 67.1 to 71.1) with AID. The treatment effect did not differ by age (P = 0.39) or insulin pump type (P = 0.37). HbA1c was 5.1 mmol/mol lower [0.5%] with AID (95% CI -6.6 to -3.6; P < 0.001). There were no episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia with either treatment over the 48 weeks. Six participants (all in SAPT-AID) withdrew: three with hardware issues, two preferred SAPT, and one with infusion-site skin irritation. Conclusion: Further evaluation of the community derived automated insulin delivery (CREATE) trial to 48 weeks confirms that open-source AID is efficacious and safe with different insulin pumps, and demonstrates sustained glycemic improvements without additional safety concerns.

MiniMed 780G™ in 2- to 6-Year-Old Children: Safety and Clinical Outcomes After the First 12 Weeks

Objective: The safety and impact of the advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system on glycemic outcome in 2- to 6-year-old children with type 1 diabetes and the diabetes distress of caregivers were evaluated. Research Design and Methods: This was an open-label prospective study (n = 35) with historical controls matched by treatment unit, diabetes duration, age, gender, and baseline treatment modality. The inclusion criteria were (1) type 1 diabetes diagnosis >6 months, (2) total daily dose of insulin ≥8 U/day, (3) HbA1c <10% (85 mmol/mol), and (4) capability to use insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring. The MiniMed 780G™ AHCL in SmartGuard™ Mode was used for 12 weeks. Parental diabetes distress was evaluated with a validated Problem Areas In Diabetes-Parent, revised (PAID-PR) survey. Results: No events of diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred. Between 0 and 12 weeks, HbA1c (mean change = -2.7 mmol/mol [standard deviation 5.7], P = 0.010), mean sensor glucose value (SG) (-0.8 mmol/L [1.0], P < 0.001), and time above range (TAR) (-8.6% [9.5], P < 0.001) decreased and time in range (TIR) (8.3% [9.3], P < 0.001) increased significantly, whereas no significant change in time below range (TBR) was observed. At the same time, PAID-PR score decreased from 37.5 (18.2) to 27.5 (14.8) (P = 0.006). Conclusions: MiniMed 780G™ AHCL is a safe system and 12-week use was associated with improvements in glycemic control in 2- to 6-year-old children with type 1 diabetes. In addition, AHCL is associated with a reduction in parental diabetes distress after 12-week use. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT04949022.

Glycemic Effects and Predictors of Increased Time-in-Range After Initiating MiniMed 670G: A 12-Month Observational Study

We aimed to evaluate the glycemic effect and detect any predictors of improved time-in-range (TIR) in persons with type 1 diabetes after initiating hybrid closed-loop (HCL) treatment with MiniMed 670G in a 12-month retrospective observational study. Before starting HCL treatment, the 62 participants followed a Steno-developed training program; 7 participants (6.5%) discontinued the HCL therapy; the remaining 55 (58% female) had an age (mean ± standard deviation) of 45.6 ± 12.6 years and diabetes duration of 28.2 ± 10.9 years. After 12 months' HCL therapy, glycated hemoglobin A1c decreased from 7.4% +0.7% to 7.1% +0.5%, TIR increased from 59.3% ± 13.5% to 72% ± 9.3%, time in 54-70 mg/dL (3.0-3.9 mM) decreased from 2.4% ± 2.0% to 1.4% ± 1.0%, and time in 180-250 mg/dL (10.0-13.9 mM) decreased from 26.4% ± 8.3% to 20.8% ± 5.5%, all P < 0.001. Improvement in TIR was significantly associated with lower total daily insulin dose, higher amount of total carbohydrate, and more time spent in Auto Mode. Our findings support the promising results on glycemic outcomes seen with HCL treatment.

Diabetic Ketoacidosis After Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter Inhibitor Initiation Under Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy in Type 1 Diabetes

Sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor (SGLTi) use is not uncommon in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Not much is known about possible risks or benefits when combining SGLTi with advanced hybrid closed-loop (aHCL). This report describes in detail the daily insulin dosing by the MiniMed™ 780G algorithm in a patient with T1D after SGLTi initiation leading to diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Within a few days after start of SGLTi, the aHCL algorithm reduced autobasal and autocorrection doses, whereas meal bolus insulin doses were reduced mainly due to frequent activation of the "safe meal bolus." Taken together, there was a significant 49% reduction in total daily insulin dose after start of SGLTi, leading to insulin doses below the minimum needed to prevent ketone formation. Until more is known about the influence of SGLTi on aHCL algorithm functioning, we recommend caution with SGLTi use in people with T1D on aHCL systems to avoid increased DKA risk.

Ultrarapid Lispro Demonstrates Similar Time in Target Range to Lispro with a Hybrid Closed-Loop System

Background: Automated insulin delivery systems are associated with improved glycemic outcomes for patients with diabetes. Ultrarapid lispro (URLi), which has an accelerated pharmacokinetic profile and shows superior postprandial glucose control compared to lispro (Humalog^®), is a potential candidate for use in these systems. Methods: In this double-blind, crossover trial over two 4-week treatment periods, we evaluated URLi in a hybrid closed-loop system using the Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G system (670G). After a 2-week lead-in on lispro, 42 adults with type 1 diabetes were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment sequences of URLi and lispro delivered via the 670G. Primary endpoint was the percentage of time with glucose values within target range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL; %TIR). Results: Both treatments achieved %TIR over the 24-h period that was above the 70% minimum recommended by the International Consensus Guidance: URLi, 77.0%; lispro, 77.8%; P = 0.339. %Time <3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) was similar between treatments (URLi, 0.3%; lispro, 0.4%; P = 0.548) and %time <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) was lower with URLi (1.5%) versus lispro (2.2%); P = 0.009, while %time >10.0 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) was higher with URLi (21.5% [309.4 min] vs. 19.9% [287.2 min]; P = 0.088). Mean sensor glucose was significantly higher with URLi versus lispro with least squares mean difference of 0.17 mmol/L or 3.0 mg/dL (P = 0.011) between treatments. Insulin dose, %time in Auto Mode per week, and pump settings were similar between treatments. No serious adverse events (AEs) (including severe hypoglycemia) or discontinuations occurred, and the incidence of treatment-emergent AEs was similar between treatments. Although the overall incidence and rate of unplanned infusion set changes were similar between treatments, a significantly higher rate of unplanned infusion set changes due to infusion site reactions was seen during URLi treatment compared with lispro: 0.12 versus 0.00 events/30 days (P = 0.063). Conclusions: URLi demonstrated good glycemic control that was comparable to lispro and showed a similar safety profile to lispro with the 670G hybrid closed-loop system. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03760640.

Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems for the Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes: A Collaborative, Expert Group Position Statement for Clinical Use in Central and Eastern Europe

In both pediatric and adult populations with type 1 diabetes (T1D), technologies such as continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), or sensor-augmented pumps (SAP) can consistently improve glycemic control [measured as glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and time in range (TIR)] while reducing the risk of hypoglycemia. Use of technologies can thereby improve quality of life and reduce the burden of diabetes management compared with self-injection of multiple daily insulin doses (MDI). Novel hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems represent the latest treatment modality for T1D, combining modern glucose sensors and insulin pumps with a linked control algorithm to offer automated insulin delivery in response to blood glucose levels and trends. HCL systems have been associated with increased TIR, improved HbA1c, and fewer hypoglycemic events compared with CSII, SAP, and MDI, thereby potentially improving quality of life for people with diabetes (PwD) while reducing the costs of treating short- and long-term diabetes-related complications. However, many barriers to their use and regional inequalities remain in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Published data suggest that access to diabetes technologies is hindered by lack of funding, underdeveloped health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and guidelines, unfamiliarity with novel therapies, and inadequacies in healthcare system capacities. To optimize the use of diabetes technologies in CEE, an international meeting comprising experts in the field of diabetes was held to map the current regional access, to present the current national reimbursement guidelines, and to recommend solutions to overcome uptake barriers. Recommendations included regional and national development of HTA bodies, efficient allocation of resources, and structured education programs for healthcare professionals and PwD. The responsibility of the healthcare community to ensure that all individuals with T1D gain access to modern technologies in a timely and economically responsible manner, thereby improving health outcomes, was emphasized, particularly for interventions that are cost-effective.

New closed-loop insulin systems

Advances in diabetes technologies have enabled the development of automated closed-loop insulin delivery systems. Several hybrid closed-loop systems have been commercialised, reflecting rapid transition of this evolving technology from research into clinical practice, where it is gradually transforming the management of type 1 diabetes in children and adults. In this review we consider the supporting evidence in terms of glucose control and quality of life for presently available closed-loop systems and those in development, including dual-hormone closed-loop systems. We also comment on alternative 'do-it-yourself' closed-loop systems. We remark on issues associated with clinical adoption of these approaches, including training provision, and consider limitations of presently available closed-loop systems and areas for future enhancements to further improve outcomes and reduce the burden of diabetes management.

Managing Patients with Insulin Pumps and Continuous Glucose Monitors in the Hospital: to Wear or Not to Wear

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As the prevalence of diabetes mellitus in the USA continues to rise, so does the popularity of diabetes management devices such as continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin pumps. The use of this technology has been shown to improve outpatient glycemic outcomes and quality of life and oftentimes may be continued in the hospital setting. Our aim is to review the current guidelines and available evidence on the continuation of insulin pumps and CGMs in the inpatient setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with diabetes are at higher risk for hospitalizations and complications due to hyper- or hypoglycemia, metabolic co-morbidities, or as seen recently, more severe illness from infections such as SARS-CoV-2. The maintenance of euglycemia is important to decrease both morbidity and mortality in the hospital setting. There is consensus among experts and medical societies that inpatient use of diabetes technology in carefully selected patients with proper institutional protocols is safe and can improve inpatient glycemic outcomes and reduce hypoglycemia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, CGMs played a vital role in managing hyperglycemia in some hospitalized patients. Insulin pumps and CGMs have the potential to transform glycemic management in hospitalized patients. In order for institutions to safely and effectively incorporate these technologies on their inpatient units, hospital-based providers will need to be able to understand how to manage and utilize these devices in their practice in conjunction with diabetes experts.

Automated Insulin Delivery in Adults

Hybrid closed-loop (artificial pancreas) systems have recently been introduced into clinical practice for adults with type 1 diabetes. This reflects successful translation from research studies in highly supervised settings to evaluation of the technology in free-living home settings. We review the different closed-loop approaches and the key clinical evidence supporting adoption of hybrid closed-loop systems for adults with type 1 diabetes. We also discuss the growing evidence for automated insulin delivery in pregnant women and in hospitalized patients with hyperglycemia. We consider the psychosocial impact of closed-loop systems and the challenges and potential future advancements for automated insulin delivery.

RETRACTED: Glycemic control outcomes of adults using the MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system: A single-center study

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief. A number of individuals who fulfilled authorship requirements for the article were omitted by the sole author. Secondly, the conclusions drawn are statistically incorrect. The scientific inaccuracies include: incorrect use of available analysis sets, insufficient definition of statistical methodology (including in measurement of HbA1c), incorrect methodology, lack of statistical significance for correlations made, and data errors.

The Hybrid Closed-Loop System: Evolution and Practical Applications

Achievement of well-controlled blood glucose is essential for preventing complications in patients with type 1 diabetes. Since the inception of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, the aim has been to develop an artificial pancreas, with the ability to use an automated algorithm to deliver one or more hormones in response to blood glucose with the intent to keep blood sugar as close to a prespecified target as possible. Development and rapid improvement of continuous glucose sensor technology has recently allowed swift progress toward a fully closed-loop insulin delivery system. In 2017, Medtronic began marketing the 670G insulin pump with Guardian 3 sensor. When in auto mode, this is a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system that automatically adjusts basal insulin delivery every 5 min based on sensor glucose to maintain blood glucose levels as close to a specific target as possible. Patients receive prandial insulin by entering carbohydrate amount into the bolus calculator. Early studies show improvement in HbA1c in both adults and adolescents with this technology. Initial safety trials showed no occurrence of diabetic ketoacidosis or hypoglycemia. The utility of this device is limited by blood glucose targets of 120 and 150 mg/dL that are unacceptably high for some patients. Notwithstanding recent advances, we are far from a system that is able to replicate islet function in the form of a fully automated, multihormonal blood glucose control device.

Keeping Up with the Diabetes Technology: 2016 Endocrine Society Guidelines of Insulin Pump Therapy and Continuous Glucose Monitor Management of Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Decades after the invention of insulin pump, diabetes management has encountered a technology revolution with the introduction of continuous glucose monitoring, sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy and closed-loop/artificial pancreas systems. In this review, we discuss the significance of the 2016 Endocrine Society Guidelines for insulin pump therapy and continuous glucose monitoring and summarize findings from relevant diabetes technology studies that were conducted after the publication of the 2016 Endocrine Society Guidelines.

RECENT FINDINGS

The 2016 Endocrine Society Guidelines have been a great resource for clinicians managing diabetes in this new era of diabetes technology. There is good body of evidence indicating that using diabetes technology systems safely tightens glycemic control while managing both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The first-generation diabetes technology systems will evolve as we gain more experience and collaboratively work to improve them with an ultimate goal of keeping people with diabetes complication and burden-free until the cure for diabetes becomes a reality.