Insulin Pump Therapy and Adverse Skin Reactions With Focus on Allergic Contact Dermatitis in Individuals Living With Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Clinical-Based Update.

BACKGROUND: The use of insulin pumps (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]) in individuals living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) improves disease control. However, adverse skin reactions may hamper compliance. We aimed to assess the relationship of insulin pumps, particularly that of infusion set therapy, used in children and adults with T1D and dermatitis including allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, and EMBASE, of full-text studies reporting dermatitis in persons with diabetes using a CSII was conducted from 2020 to 2023. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. The inventory performed at the Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Malmö, Sweden (YMDA) was also performed highlighting the diagnostic process. RESULTS: Among the 391 screened abstracts, 21 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Seven studies included data on children only, four studies were on adults, and nine studies reported data on both children and adults. Participants were exposed to a broad range of pumps. Dermatitis was rarely specified. Up to 60% of those referred to a university hospital due to skin reactions possibly related to insulin pumps had an ACD. CONCLUSIONS: The review and our findings indicate that there is not sufficient focus on contact allergy in the primary toxicological evaluations of substances used also for insulin pump therapy products and that possible adverse skin reactions are not correctly followed up in the clinical setting.

Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes: A Narrative Review.

This narrative review assesses the use of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in managing persons with type 1 diabetes (PWD) in the pediatric population. It outlines current research, the differences between various AID systems currently on the market and the challenges faced, and discusses potential opportunities for further advancements within this field. Furthermore, the narrative review includes various expert opinions on how different AID systems can be used in the event of challenges with rapidly changing insulin requirements. These include examples, such as during illness with increased or decreased insulin requirements and during physical activity of different intensities or durations. Case descriptions give examples of scenarios with added user-initiated actions depending on the type of AID system used. The authors also discuss how another AID system could have been used in these situations.

Effects, Safety, and Treatment Experience of Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems in Clinical Practice Among Adults Living With Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: There are few studies providing a more comprehensive picture of advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) systems in clinical practice. The aim was to evaluate the effects of the AHCL systems, Tandem® t: slim X2™ with Control IQ™, and MiniMed™ 780G, on glucose control, safety, treatment satisfaction, and practical barriers for individuals with type 1 diabetes. METHOD: One hundred forty-two randomly selected adults with type 1 diabetes at six diabetes outpatient clinics in Sweden at any time treated with either the Tandem Control IQ (TCIQ) or the MiniMed 780G system were included. Glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and glucose metrics were evaluated. Treatment satisfaction and practical barriers were examined via questionnaires. RESULTS: Mean age was 42 years, median follow-up was 1.7 years, 58 (40.8%) were females, 65% used the TCIQ system. Glycated hemoglobin A1c was reduced by 0.6% (6.8 mmol/mol; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.5-0.8% [5.3-8.2 mmol/mol]; P < .001), from 7.3% to 6.7% (57-50 mmol/mol). Time in range (TIR) increased with 14.5% from 57.0% to 71.5% (95% CI = 12.2%-16.9%; P < .001). Time below range (TBR) (<70 mg/dL, <3.9 mmol/L) decreased from 3.8% to 1.6% (P < .001). The standard deviation of glucose values was reduced from 61 to 51 mg/dL (3.4-2.9 mmol/L, P < .001) and the coefficient of variation from 35% to 33% (P < .001). Treatment satisfaction increased, score 14.8 on the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) (change version ranging from -18 to 18, P < .001). Four severe hypoglycemia events were detected and no cases of ketoacidosis. Skin problems were experienced by 32.4% of the study population. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced hybrid closed-loop systems improve glucose control with a reasonable safety profile and high treatment satisfaction. Skin problems are common adverse events.

Diabetes Technology Meeting 2023.

Diabetes Technology Society hosted its annual Diabetes Technology Meeting from November 1 to November 4, 2023. Meeting topics included digital health; metrics of glycemia; the integration of glucose and insulin data into the electronic health record; technologies for insulin pumps, blood glucose monitors, and continuous glucose monitors; diabetes drugs and analytes; skin physiology; regulation of diabetes devices and drugs; and data science, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. A live demonstration of a personalized carbohydrate dispenser for people with diabetes was presented.

The Determination of Diabetes Utilities, Costs, and Effects Model: A Cost-Utility Tool Using Patient-Level Microsimulation to Evaluate Sensor-Based Glucose Monitoring Systems in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: Comparative Validation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy and validity of the Determination of Diabetes Utilities, Costs, and Effects (DEDUCE) model, a Microsoft-Excel-based tool for evaluating diabetes interventions for type 1 and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: The DEDUCE model is a patient-level microsimulation, with complications predicted based on the Sheffield and Risk Equations for Complications Of type 2 diabetes models for type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. For this tool to be useful, it must be validated to ensure that its complication predictions are accurate. Internal, external, and cross-validation was assessed by populating the DEDUCE model with the baseline characteristics and treatment effects reported in clinical trials used in the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Mount Hood Diabetes Challenges. Results from the DEDUCE model were evaluated against clinical results and previously validated models via mean absolute percentage error or percentage error. RESULTS: The DEDUCE model performed favorably, predicting key outcomes, including cardiovascular disease in type 1 diabetes and all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes. The model performed well against other models. In the Mount Hood 9 Challenge comparison, error was below the mean reported from comparator models for several outcomes, particularly for hazard ratios. CONCLUSIONS: The DEDUCE model predicts diabetes-related complications from trials and studies well when compared with previously validated models. The model may serve as a useful tool for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of diabetes technologies.

Diabetic retinopathy among the elderly with type 2 diabetes: A Nationwide longitudinal registry study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the prevalence, incidence and risk factors of DR in elderly people living with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Individuals >80 years, in the Swedish National Diabetes Register (NDR) between 2008 and 2017, were included. Prevalence and incidence were calculated and stratified by age. Estimates were assessed by longitudinal binary logistic regression models. RESULTS: One hundred forty-one thousand, one hundred fifty-eight individuals with type 2 diabetes were included, median age 83 years, 53.3% females and with a median HbA1c 52 mmol/mol. The DR prevalence was stable at 336.2 cases/1000 patients in 2008 (95% CI, 330.2-342.3), with no significant changes during the 10-year period. Crude DR incidence rate: 88.5 cases/1000 patient years (95% CI, 87.6-89.4). The incidence rate was lower at higher ages. The effect of age on incident DR varied by sex, with females having an increasingly higher risk than males from 83 years of age, OR 1.25 (1.11-1.42) at age 90 years. The risk of incident DR with longer diabetes duration increased more rapidly at worse glycaemic control. CONCLUSION: The growing population of elderly with type 2 diabetes shows a stable proportion of DR and proposes an increased need for DR screening and eye care. Established risk factors for DR, such as diabetes duration and level of glycaemic control, are also important in the elderly; however, age and sex should be considered.

Comparator Data Characteristics and Testing Procedures for the Clinical Performance Evaluation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems.

Comparing the performance of different continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems is challenging due to the lack of comprehensive guidelines for clinical study design. In particular, the absence of concise requirements for the distribution of comparator (reference) blood glucose (BG) concentrations and their rate of change (RoC) that are used to evaluate CGM performance, impairs comparability. For this article, several experts in the field of CGM performance testing have collaborated to propose characteristics of the distribution of comparator measurements that should be collected during CGM performance testing. Specifically, it is proposed that at least 7.5% of comparator BG concentrations are <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) and >300 mg/dL (16.7 mmol/L), respectively, and that at least 7.5% of BG-RoC combinations indicate fast BG changes with impending hypo- or hyperglycemia, respectively. These proposed characteristics of the comparator data can facilitate the harmonization of testing conditions across different studies and CGM systems and ensure that the most relevant scenarios representing real-life situations are established during performance testing. In addition, a study protocol and testing procedure for the manipulation of glucose levels are suggested that enable the collection of comparator data with these characteristics. This work is an important step toward establishing a future standard for the performance evaluation of CGM systems.

Automated Insulin Delivery for Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes: Where do we stand?

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems mimic an artificial pancreas via a predictive algorithm integrated with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and an insulin pump, thereby providing AID. Outside of pregnancy, AID has led to a paradigm shift in the management of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), leading to improvements in glycemic control with lower risk for hypoglycemia and improved quality of life. As the use of AID in clinical practice is increasing, the number of women of reproductive age becoming pregnant while using AID is also expected to increase. The requirement for lower glucose targets than outside of pregnancy and for frequent adjustments of insulin doses during pregnancy may impact the effectiveness and safety of AID when using algorithms for non-pregnant populations with T1D. Currently, the CamAPS® FX is the only AID approved for use in pregnancy. A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) with CamAPS® FX demonstrated a 10% increase in time in range in a pregnant population with T1D and a baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥ 48 mmol/mol (6.5%). Off-label use of AID not approved for pregnancy are currently also being evaluated in ongoing RCTs. More evidence is needed on the impact of AID on maternal and neonatal outcomes. We review the current evidence on the use of AID in pregnancy and provide an overview of the completed and ongoing RCTs evaluating AID in pregnancy. In addition, we discuss the advantages and challenges of the use of current AID in pregnancy and future directions for research.

Associations of bolus insulin injection frequency and smart pen engagement with glycaemic control in people living with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To evaluate whether both bolus insulin injection frequency and smart pen engagement were associated with changes in glycaemic control, using real-world data from adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults using a smart pen (NovoPen 6) to administer bolus insulin (fast-acting insulin aspart or insulin aspart) alongside continuous glucose monitoring were eligible for inclusion. Smart pen engagement was characterized by number of days with pen data uploads over the previous 14 days. Glycaemic control was evaluated by analysing glucose metrics. RESULTS: Overall, data from 1194 individuals were analysed. The number of daily bolus injections was significantly associated with time in range (TIR; 3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]; P < 0.0001). Individuals administering, on average, three daily bolus insulin injections had an estimated 11% chance of achieving >70% TIR. The probability of achieving >70% TIR increased with the mean number of daily bolus injections. However, the percentage of TIR was lower on days when individuals administered higher-than-average numbers of injections. The observed mean number of daily bolus injections administered across the study population was lower than the optimal number required to reach glycaemic targets (4.8 injections vs. 6-8 injections). Smart pen engagement was significantly associated with improved TIR. CONCLUSIONS: Glycaemic control was associated with daily bolus insulin injection frequency and smart pen engagement. A treatment regimen combining an optimal bolus injection strategy, and effective smart pen engagement, may improve glycaemic control among adults with T1D.