Glycemia Around Exercise in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Using Automated and Nonautomated Insulin Delivery Pumps: A Switch Pilot Trial

In an in-patient switch study, 10 adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) performed 45 min of moderate-intensity exercise on 2 occasions: (1) when using their usual insulin pump (UP) and (2) after transitioning to automated insulin delivery (AID) treatment (MiniMed™ 780G). Consensus glucose management guidelines for performing exercise were applied. Plasma glucose concentrations measured over a 3-h monitoring period were stratified into time below range (TBR, <3.9 mmol/L), time in range (TIR, 3.9-10.0 mmol/L), and time above range (TAR, >10.0 mmol/L). Overall, TBR (UP: 11 ± 21 vs. AID: 3% ± 10%, P = 0.413), TIR (UP: 53 ± 27 vs. AID: 66% ± 39%, P = 0.320), and TAR (UP: 37 ± 34 vs. AID: 31% ± 41%, P = 0.604) were similar between arms. A proportionately low number of people experienced exercise-induced hypoglycemia (UP: n = 2 vs. AID: n = 1, P = 1.00). In conclusion, switching to AID therapy did not alter patterns of glycemia around sustained moderate-intensity exercise in adults with T1D. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT05133765.

Efficacy and safety of closed-loop insulin delivery versus sensor-augmented pump in the treatment of adults with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Controversy remains regarding whether closed-loop (CL) insulin delivery or insulin sensor-augmented pump (SAP) delivery is more efficient for clinical treatment. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of CL insulin delivery systems versus insulin SAP delivery for adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and other databases were searched for related articles, and we analyzed the average blood glucose (BG), time in range (TIR), and adverse effects (AEs) as primary endpoints to evaluate efficacy and safety.

RESULTS

Of 1616 articles, 12 randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the final analysis. Regarding BG control efficacy, CL insulin delivery resulted better outcomes than SAP therapy with regard to the average BG value, which was detected and recorded by continuous glucose monitoring (mean difference [MD][mmol/L]:  - 0.25 95% confidence interval [CI]  - 0.42 to - 0.08, p = 0.003); TIR 3.9-10 mmol/L (MD [%]: 7.91 95% CI 4.45-11.37, p < 0.00001). Similar results were observed for the secondary outcomes including low blood glucose index (LBGI) (MD:  - 0.41 95% CI - 0.55 to - 0.26, p < 0.00001), high blood glucose index (HBGI) (MD:  - 2.56 95% CI - 3.38 to - 1.74, p < 0.00001), and standard deviation (SD) of glucose variability (MD [mmol/L]: -0.25 95% CI - 0.44 to - 0.06, p = 0.01). Furthermore, SAP therapy was associated with more adverse effects (risk ratio: 0.20 95% CI 0.07-0.52, p = 0.001) than CL insulin delivery, and one of the most common adverse effects was hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

CL insulin delivery appears to be a better treatment method than SAP therapy for adults with T1D because of its increased BG control efficacy and decreased number of hypoglycemic events.

Medical Devices; Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology Devices; Classification of the Insulin Therapy Adjustment Device. Final order

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is classifying the insulin therapy adjustment device into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the insulin therapy adjustment device's classification. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II (special controls) will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.

Psychosocial aspects of closed- and open-loop insulin delivery: closing the loop in adults with Type 1 diabetes in the home setting

AIMS

To explore the psychosocial experiences of closed-loop technology and to compare ratings of closed- and open-loop technology for adults with Type 1 diabetes taking part in a randomized crossover study.

METHODS

Adults (aged > 18 years) on insulin pump therapy were recruited to receive a first phase of either real-time continuous glucose monitoring with overnight closed-loop or real-time continuous glucose monitoring alone (open-loop) followed by a second phase of the alternative treatment in random order, at home for 4 weeks, unsupervised. Participants were invited to share their views in semi-structured interviews. The impact of the closed-loop technology, positive and negative aspects of living with the device overnight, along with the hopes and anxieties of the participants, were explored.

RESULTS

The participants in the trial were 24 adults with a mean (sd) age of 43 (12) years, of whom 54% were men. The mean (range) interview duration was 26 (12-46) min. Content and thematic analysis showed the following key positive themes: improved blood glucose control (n = 16); reassurance/reduced worry (n = 16); improved overnight control leading to improved daily functioning and diabetes control (n = 16); and improved sleep (n = 8). The key negative themes were: technical difficulties (n = 24); intrusiveness of alarms (n = 13); and size of equipment (n = 7). Of the 24 participant, 20 would recommend the closed-loop technology.

CONCLUSIONS

Closed-loop therapy has positive effects when it works in freeing participants from the demands of self-management. The downside was technical difficulties, particularly concerning the pump and 'connectivity', which it is hoped will improve. Future research should continue to explore the acceptability of the closed-loop system as a realistic therapy option, taking account of user concerns as new systems are designed. Failure to do this may reduce the eventual utility of new systems.

Classification of distinct baseline insulin infusion patterns in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized systematic differences in the patterns of programmed basal insulin infusion rates in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). We aimed at classification of basal insulin infusion rate regimens and comparing patients' underlying clinical characteristics.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The German/Austrian diabetes data acquisition system for prospective surveillance database for quality control and scientific surveys in pediatric diabetology served as the primary data source. Latest (September 2004) basal insulin infusion rates of all 1,248 patients with type 1 diabetes on CSII (0.38-18 years) were analyzed (dataset 1). Basal insulin infusion rates per hour were expressed relative to mean basal insulin infusion rates per 24 h. Unsupervised clustering was used to classify basal insulin infusion rate patterns. Clinical characteristics of patients falling into distinct basal insulin infusion rate clusters were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test. Changes of basal insulin infusion rates in 64 patients were followed from initial settings before CSII to latest programming in an independent dataset 2.

RESULTS

Seven different basal insulin infusion rate patterns occurred in dataset 1. A dawn-dusk pattern was used in 708 patients (14.9 +/- 2.4 years) with the peak basal insulin infusion rate at 5 a.m. Additional patterns showed only one basal insulin infusion rate oscillation per 24 h with a backshift of peak basal insulin infusion rates in younger children (P < 0.000001) (1 A.M.: n = 152, 12.4 years and 9 P.M.: n = 117, 8.9 years). All but two patients in dataset 2 were initially set on dawn-dusk patterns but showed a comparable diversification of basal insulin infusion rates during follow-up with backshift of peak basal insulin infusion rates in younger children (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric diabetologists shape distinct basal insulin infusion rate profiles during treatment of CSII patients, mainly reflecting differences in age. Our data strongly suggest that age-dependent endocrine changes during childhood (e.g., puberty) affect circadian distribution of insulin needs in CSII, which should be kept in mind when considering basal insulin infusion rate strategies in children and adolescents.

Resource guide 2004. Insulin delivery

Syringes...pumps...jet infectors...pens...infusers...they all do the same basic thing--deliver insulin. These items carry insulin through the outermost layer of skin and into fatty tissue so it can be used by the body. This section will also cover injection aids, products designed to make infecting easier.

New insulin replacement technologies: overcoming barriers to tight glycemic control

New insulin analogues act more quickly, allowing better postprandial glycemic control and making intensive control easier. New methods of delivering insulin, notably inhaled insulin, will soon provide alternatives to painful injections. Improved glucose sensors may eventually make an artificial pancreas possible.