Search

Background: Automated insulin delivery is the treatment of choice in adults with type 1 diabetes. Data are needed on the efficacy and safety of automated insulin delivery for children and youth with diabetes and elevated glycated hemoglobin levels., Methods: In this multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial, we assigned patients with type 1 diabetes in a 1:1 ratio either to use an automated insulin delivery system (MiniMed 780G) or to receive usual diabetes care of multiple daily injections or non--automated pump therapy (control). The patients were children and youth (defined as 7 to 25 years of age) with elevated glycemia (glycated hemoglobin ≥8.5% with no upper limit). The primary outcome was the baseline-adjusted between-group difference in glycated hemoglobin at 13 weeks., Results: A total of 80 patients underwent randomization (37 to automated insulin delivery and 43 to control) and all patients completed the trial. At 13 weeks, the mean (±SD) glycated hemoglobin decreased from 10.5±1.9% to 8.1±1.8% in the automated insulin delivery group but remained relatively consistent in the control group, changing from 10.4±1.6% to 10.6±1.8% (baseline-adjusted between-group difference, -2.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.1 to -1.8; P<0.001). Patients in the automated insulin delivery group spent on average 8.4 hours more in the target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dl than those in the control group. One severe hypoglycemia event and two diabetic ketoacidosis events occurred in the control group, with no such events in the automated insulin delivery group., Conclusions: In this trial of 80 children and youth with elevated glycated hemoglobin, automated insulin delivery significantly reduced glycated hemoglobin compared with usual diabetes care, without resulting in severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis events. (Funded by Lions Clubs New Zealand District 202F and others; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12622001454763.).

Aim: To understand experiences of using second-generation advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) therapy in adolescents and young adults with chronically elevated glucose levels who were previously using multiple daily injections (MDI) therapy., Method: Semi-structured interviews with participants aged 13-25 years, on AHCL therapy for 3 months as part of a single-arm prospective study. Key inclusions: HbA1c ≥69 mmol/mol (8.5%); diabetes duration ≥1 year; and using MDI therapy prior to the study. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes., Results: Interviews were conducted among 14 participants with mean age 19.4 ± 4.3 years and mean baseline HbA1c 90 ± 25 mmol/mol (10.4 ± 4.5%). Three themes were identified: (1) substantially improved glucose levels improved perceptions of overall health; (2) features of AHCL aid in adoption and ongoing self-management; and (3) burden of care was reduced through automation of insulin delivery. Overall, there were positive impacts on physical, mental and social well-being. Participants were willing to overlook minor frustrations with AHCL because of the vast benefits that they had experienced. Four participants reported transient pseudo-hypoglycaemia: symptoms of hypoglycaemia when objectively measured glucose was in the clinically recommended range (3.9-10 mmol/L, 70-180 mg/dL)., Conclusion: Transition to AHCL therapy positively impacted diabetes management in adolescents and youth with chronically elevated glucose levels. It appears to create a window of opportunity in which youth may re-engage with diabetes management. Pseudo-hypoglycaemia can occur during the transition to AHCL. This could be a barrier to AHCL uptake and is likely to require individualised support., (© 2024 Diabetes UK. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims: To investigate the impact of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) on glycaemia in a predominantly indigenous (Māori) population of adults with insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes (T2D) in New Zealand., Methods: Twelve-week, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) of adults with T2D using ≥0.2 units/kg/day of insulin and elevated glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥64 mmol/mol (8.0%). Following a 2-week blinded CGM run-in phase, participants were randomised to rtCGM or control (self-monitoring blood glucose [SMBG]). The primary outcome was time in the target glucose range (3.9-10 mmol/L; TIR) during weeks 10-12, with data collected by blinded rtCGM in the control group., Results: Sixty-seven participants entered the RCT phase (54% Māori, 57% female), median age 53 (range 16-70 years), HbA1c 85 (IQR 74, 94) mmol/mol (9.9 [IQR 8.9, 10.8]%), body mass index (36.7 ± 7.7 kg/m 2 ). Mean (±SD) TIR increased from 37 (24)% to 53 (24)% [Δ 13%; 95% CI 4.2 to 22; P = 0.007] in the rtCGM group but did not change in the SMBG group [45 (21)% to 45 (25)%, Δ 2.5%, 95% CI -6.1 to 11, P = 0.84]. Baseline-adjusted between-group difference in TIR was 10.4% [95% CI -0.9 to 21.7; P = 0.070]. Mean HbA1c (±SD) decreased in both groups from 85 (18) mmol/mol (10.0 [1.7]%) to 64 (16) mmol/mol (8.0 [1.4]%) in the rtCGM arm and from 81 (12) mmol/mol (9.6 [1.1]%) to 65 (13) mmol/mol (8.1 [1.2]%) in the SMBG arm (P < 0.001 for both). There were no severe hypoglycaemic or ketoacidosis events in either group., Conclusions: Real-time CGM use in a supportive treat-to-target model of care likely improves glycaemia in a population with insulin-treated T2D and elevated HbA1c., (© 2024 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Diabetes UK.)

Background: Open-source automated insulin delivery (AID) systems are used by many patients with type 1 diabetes. Data are needed on the efficacy and safety of an open-source AID system., Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients with type 1 diabetes in a 1:1 ratio to use an open-source AID system or a sensor-augmented insulin pump (control). The patients included both children (defined as 7 to 15 years of age) and adults (defined as 16 to 70 years of age). The AID system was a modified version of AndroidAPS 2.8 (with a standard OpenAPS 0.7.0 algorithm) paired with a preproduction DANA-i insulin pump and Dexcom G6 CGM, which has an Android smartphone application as the user interface. The primary outcome was the percentage of time in the target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 10.0 mmol per liter) between days 155 and 168 (the final 2 weeks of the trial)., Results: A total of 97 patients (48 children and 49 adults) underwent randomization (44 to open-source AID and 53 to the control group). At 24 weeks, the mean (±SD) time in the target range increased from 61.2±12.3% to 71.2±12.1% in the AID group and decreased from 57.7±14.3% to 54.5±16.0% in the control group (adjusted difference, 14 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 9.2 to 18.8; P<0.001), with no treatment effect according to age (P = 0.56). Patients in the AID group spent 3 hours 21 minutes more in the target range per day than those in the control group. No severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in either group. Two patients in the AID group withdrew from the trial owing to connectivity issues., Conclusions: In children and adults with type 1 diabetes, the use of an open-source AID system resulted in a significantly higher percentage of time in the target glucose range than the use of a sensor-augmented insulin pump at 24 weeks. (Supported by the Health Research Council of New Zealand; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12620000034932.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Introduction: Manual determination of insulin dosing largely fails to optimise glucose control in type 1 diabetes. Automated insulin delivery via closed-loop systems has improved glucose control in short-term studies. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of 6 months' closed-loop compared with manually determined insulin dosing on time-in-target glucose range in adults with type 1 diabetes., Methods and Analysis: This open-label, seven-centre, randomised controlled parallel group clinical trial will compare home-based hybrid closed-loop versus standard diabetes therapy in Australia. Adults aged ≥25 years with type 1 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy (via multiple daily injections or insulin pump, total enrolment target n=120) will undertake a run-in period including diabetes and carbohydrate-counting education, clinical optimisation and baseline data collection. Participants will then be randomised 1:1 either to 26 weeks of MiniMed 670G hybrid closed-loop system therapy (Medtronic, Northridge, CA, USA) or continuation of their current diabetes therapy. The hybrid closed-loop system delivers insulin automatically to address basal requirements and correct to target glucose level, while bolus doses for meals require user initiation and carbohydrate estimation. Analysis will be intention to treat, with the primary outcome time in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) during the final 3 weeks of intervention. Secondary outcomes include: other CGM parameters, HbA 1c , severe hypoglycaemia, psychosocial well-being, sleep, cognition, electrocardiography, costs, quality of life, biomarkers of vascular health and hybrid closed-loop system performance. Semistructured interviews will assess the expectations and experiences of a subgroup of hybrid closed-loop users., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has Human Research Ethics Committee approval. The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Results will be disseminated at scientific conferences and via peer-reviewed publications., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12617000520336; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MIdB and NDC report receiving speaker honoraria from Medtronic. DJHW reports receiving speaker and advisory board honoraria from Medtronic. RWM reports receiving conference travel and accommodation support from Medtronic. JS reports that the ACBRD has received honoraria from Medtronic in relation to her speaking engagements and role in advisory boards. DNON reports receiving speaker honoraria and research grants from Medtronic., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: We compared glycemia, treatment satisfaction, sleep quality, and cognition using a nighttime Android-based hybrid closed-loop system (Android-HCLS) with sensor-augmented pump with low-glucose suspend function (SAP-LGS) in people with type 1 diabetes., Materials and Methods: An open-label, prospective, randomized crossover study of 16 adults (mean [SD] age 42.1 [9.6] years) and 12 adolescents (15.2 [1.6] years) was conducted. All participants completed four consecutive nights at home with Android-HCLS (proportional integral derivative with insulin feedback algorithm; Medtronic) and SAP-LGS., Primary Outcome: percent continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) time (00:00-08:00 h) within target range (72-144 mg/dL). Secondary endpoints: percent CGM time above target (>144 mg/dL); below target (<72 mg/dL); glycemic variability (SD); symptomatic hypoglycemia; adult treatment satisfaction; sleep quality; and cognitive function., Results: The primary outcome for all participants was not statistically different between Android-HCLS and SAP-LGS (mean [SD] 59.4 [17.9]% vs. 53.1 [18]%; p = 0.14). Adults had greater percent time within target range (57.7 [18.6]% vs. 44.5 [14.5]%; p < 0.006); less time above target (42.0 [18.7]% vs. 52.6 [16.5]%; p = 0.034); lower glycemic variability (35 [10.7] mg/dL vs. 46 [10.7] mg/dL; p = 0.003); and less (median [IQR]) time below target (0.0 [0.0-0.4]% vs. 0.80 [0.0-3.9]%; p = 0.025). In adolescents, time below target was lower with Android-HCLS vs. SAP-LGS (0.0 [0.0-0.0]% vs. 1.8 [0.1-7.9]%; p = 0.011). Nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia was less (1 vs. 10; p = 0.007) in adolescents, but not adults (5 vs. 13; p = 0.059). In adults, treatment satisfaction increased by 10 points (p < 0.02). Sleep quality and cognition did not differ., Conclusions: Android-HCLS in both adults and adolescents reduced nocturnal hypoglycemia and, in adults, improved overnight time in target range and treatment satisfaction compared with SAP-LGS.

Objective: To study the MiniMed Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) system, which includes an algorithm with individualized basal target set points, automated correction bolus function, and improved Auto Mode stability.Research Design and Methods: This dual-center, randomized, open-label, two-sequence crossover study in automated-insulin-delivery-naive participants with type 1 diabetes (aged 7-80 years) compared AHCL to sensor-augmented pump therapy with predictive low glucose management (SAP + PLGM). Each study phase was 4 weeks, preceded by a 2- to 4-week run-in and separated by a 2-week washout.Results: The study was completed by 59 of 60 people (mean age 23.3 ± 14.4 years). Time in target range (TIR) 3.9-10 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL) favored AHCL over SAP + PLGM (70.4 ± 8.1% vs. 57.9 ± 11.7%) by 12.5 ± 8.5% (P < 0.001), with greater improvement overnight (18.8 ± 12.9%, P < 0.001). All age-groups (children [7-13 years], adolescents [14-21 years], and adults [>22 years]) demonstrated improvement, with adolescents showing the largest improvement (14.4 ± 8.4%). Mean sensor glucose (SG) at run-in was 9.3 ± 0.9 mmol/L (167 ± 16.2 mg/dL) and improved with AHCL (8.5 ± 0.7 mmol/L [153 ± 12.6 mg/dL], P < 0.001), but deteriorated during PLGM (9.5 ± 1.1 mmol/L [17 ± 19.8 mg/dL], P < 0.001). TIR was optimal when the algorithm set point was 5.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) compared with 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL), 72.0 ± 7.9% vs. 64.6 ± 6.9%, respectively, with no additional hypoglycemia. Auto Mode was active 96.4 ± 4.0% of the time. The percentage of hypoglycemia at baseline (<3.9 mmol/L [70 mg/dL] and ≤3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) was 3.1 ± 2.1% and 0.5 ± 0.6%, respectively. During AHCL, the percentage time at <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) improved to 2.1 ± 1.4% (P = 0.034) and was statistically but not clinically reduced for ≤3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) (0.5 ± 0.5%; P = 0.025). There was one episode of mild diabetic ketoacidosis attributed to an infusion set failure in combination with an intercurrent illness, which occurred during the SAP + PLGM arm.Conclusions: AHCL with automated correction bolus demonstrated significant improvement in glucose control compared with SAP + PLGM. A lower algorithm SG set point during AHCL resulted in greater TIR, with no increase in hypoglycemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate glycemic and psychosocial outcomes with hybrid closed-loop (HCL) versus user-determined insulin dosing with multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump (i.e., standard therapy for most adults with type 1 diabetes).Research Design and Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes using MDI or insulin pump without continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) were randomized to 26 weeks of HCL (Medtronic 670G) or continuation of current therapy. The primary outcome was masked CGM time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL) during the final 3 weeks.Results: Participants were randomized to HCL (n = 61) or control (n = 59). Baseline mean (SD) age was 44.2 (11.7) years, HbA1c was 7.4% (0.9%) (57 [10] mmol/mol), 53% were women, and 51% used MDI. HCL TIR increased from (baseline) 55% (13%) to (26 weeks) 70% (10%) with the control group unchanged: (baseline) 55% (12%) and (26 weeks) 55% (13%) (difference 15% [95% CI 11, 19]; P < 0.0001). For HCL, HbA1c was lower (median [95% CI] difference -0.4% [-0.6, -0.2]; -4 mmol/mol [-7, -2]; P < 0.0001) and diabetes-specific positive well-being was higher (difference 1.2 [95% CI 0.4, 1.9]; P < 0.0048) without a deterioration in diabetes distress, perceived sleep quality, or cognition. Seventeen (9 device-related) versus 13 serious adverse events occurred in the HCL and control groups, respectively.Conclusions: In adults with type 1 diabetes, 26 weeks of HCL improved TIR, HbA1c, and their sense of satisfaction from managing their diabetes compared with those continuing with user-determined insulin dosing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. For most people living with type 1 diabetes globally, this trial demonstrates that HCL is feasible, acceptable, and advantageous. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This prerandomization analysis from the Australian HCL-Adult trial (registration number: ACTRN12617000520336) compared masked continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics among adults using insulin pumps versus multiple daily injections (MDIs), who were all self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG). Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes, using an insulin pump or MDIs without real-time CGM (and entering a trial of closed-loop technology), were eligible. MDI users were given an insulin dosage calculator. All participants received diabetes and carbohydrate-counting education, then wore masked CGM sensors for 3 weeks. Ethics Approval: HREC-D 088/16 Results: Adults using MDIs (n = 61) versus pump (n = 59) did not differ by age, sex, diabetes duration, insulin total daily dose, or HbA1c at baseline. After education, median (interquartile range) CGM time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was 54% (47, 62) for those using MDIs and 56% (48, 66) for those using pump (P = 0.40). All CGM metrics were equivalent for 24 h/day for MDI and pump users. Overnight, those using MDIs (vs. pump) spent more time with glucose <54 mg/dL (<3.0 mmol/L): 1.4% (0.1, 5.1) versus 0.5% (0.0, 2.0), respectively (P = 0.012). They also had more CGM hypoglycemia episodes (121 vs. 54, respectively; incidence rate ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.48 [1.51, 4.06]; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Adults with type 1 diabetes using pumps versus MDIs in conjunction with SMBG experienced less nocturnal hypoglycemia, measured by masked CGM, after equivalent diabetes and dietary education in conjunction with insulin dosage calculator provision to all. However, both groups had equivalent TIR. This observation may reflect advantages afforded by flexibility in basal insulin delivery provided by pumps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]