Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy Compared With Standard Insulin Therapy Intrapartum and Early Postpartum in Women With Type 1 Diabetes: A Secondary Observational Analysis From the CRISTAL Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine efficacy and safety of intrapartum and early postpartum advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) therapy compared with standard insulin therapy in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (T1D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: CRISTAL was a double-arm, open-label, randomized controlled trial performed in Belgium and the Netherlands that assigned 95 pregnant participants with T1D 1:1 to a MiniMed 780G AHCL system (n = 46) or standard insulin therapy (n = 49). This prespecified, secondary observational analysis focused on differences in glycemic control and safety outcomes between participants from the original AHCL group who continued AHCL intrapartum (n = 27) and/or early postpartum (n = 37, until hospital discharge) and those from the original standard insulin therapy group using standard insulin therapy intrapartum (n = 45) and/or early postpartum (n = 34). RESULTS: Of the 43 and 46 participants in the AHCL and standard insulin therapy groups, respectively, completing the trial, 27 (62.8%) in the AHCL group continued AHCL and 45 in the standard insulin therapy group (97.8%) continued standard insulin therapy intrapartum. Compared with standard insulin therapy, intrapartum AHCL was associated with more time in range 3.5-7.8 mmol/L (71.5 ± 17.7% vs. 63.1 ± 17.0%, P = 0.030) and numerically lower time above range >7.8 mmol/L (27.3 ± 17.4% vs. 35.3 ± 17.5%, P = 0.054), without increases in time below range <3.5 mmol/L (1.1 ± 2.4% vs. 1.5 ± 2.3%, P = 0.146). Early postpartum, 37 (86.0%) participants randomized to AHCL continued AHCL, with a median increase in insulin-to-carbohydrate ratios of 67% (interquartile range -14 to 126). Similar tight glycemic control (3.9-10.0 mmol/L: 86.8 ± 6.7% vs. 83.8 ± 8.1%, P = 0.124) was observed with AHCL versus standard insulin therapy. No severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis was reported in either group. CONCLUSIONS: AHCL is effective in maintaining tight glycemic control intrapartum and early postpartum and can be safely continued during periods of rapidly changing insulin requirements.

Comparing advanced hybrid closed loop therapy and standard insulin therapy in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (CRISTAL): a parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) therapy can improve glycaemic control in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. However, data are needed on the efficacy and safety of AHCL systems as these systems, such as the MiniMed 780G, are not currently approved for use in pregnant women. We aimed to investigate whether the MiniMed 780G can improve glycaemic control with less hypoglycaemia in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: CRISTAL was a double-arm, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial conducted in secondary and tertiary care specialist endocrinology centres at 12 hospitals (11 in Belgium and one in the Netherlands). Pregnant women aged 18-45 years with type 1 diabetes were randomly assigned (1:1) to AHCL therapy (MiniMed 780G) or standard insulin therapy (standard of care) at a median of 10·1 (IQR 8·6-11·6) weeks of gestation. Randomisation was done centrally with minimisation dependent on baseline HbA1c, insulin administration method, and centre. Participants and study teams were not masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was proportion of time spent in the pregnancy-specific target glucose range (3·5-7·8 mmol/L), measured by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) at 14-17 weeks, 20-23 weeks, 26-29 weeks, and 33-36 weeks. Key secondary outcomes were overnight time in target range, and time below glucose range (<3·5 mmol/L) overall and overnight. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04520971). FINDINGS: Between Jan 15, 2021 and Sept 30, 2022, 101 participants were screened, and 95 were randomly assigned to AHCL therapy (n=46) or standard insulin therapy (n=49). 43 patients assigned to AHCL therapy and 46 assigned to standard insulin therapy completed the study. At baseline, 91 (95·8%) participants used insulin pumps, and the mean HbA1c was 6·5% (SD 0·6). The mean proportion of time spent in the target range (averaged over four time periods) was 66·5% (SD 10·0) in the AHCL therapy group compared with 63·2% (12·4) in the standard insulin therapy group (adjusted mean difference 1·88 percentage points [95% CI -0·82 to 4·58], p=0·17). Overnight time in the target range was higher (adjusted mean difference 6·58 percentage points [95% CI 2·31 to 10·85], p=0·0026), and time below range overall (adjusted mean difference -1·34 percentage points [95% CI, -2·19 to -0·49], p=0·0020) and overnight (adjusted mean difference -1·86 percentage points [95% CI -2·90 to -0·81], p=0·0005) were lower with AHCL therapy than with standard insulin therapy. Participants assigned to AHCL therapy reported higher treatment satisfaction. No unanticipated safety events occurred with AHCL therapy. INTERPRETATION: In pregnant women starting with tighter glycaemic control, AHCL therapy did not improve overall time in target range but improved overnight time in target range, reduced time below range, and improved treatment satisfaction. These data suggest that the MiniMed 780G can be safely used in pregnancy and provides some additional benefits compared with standard insulin therapy; however, it will be important to refine the algorithm to better align with pregnancy requirements. FUNDING: Diabetes Liga Research Fund and Medtronic.

Cost-utility analysis of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus FreeStyle Libre 1 intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) with alert functionality compared with FreeStyle Libre 1 intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) without alerts in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium. METHODS: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. Input data for the simulated baseline cohort were sourced from the randomised ALERTT1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov. REGISTRATION NO: NCT03772600). The age of the participants was 42.9 ± 14.1 years (mean ± SD), and the baseline HbA1c was 57.8 ± 9.5 mmol/mol (7.4 ± 0.9%). Participants using rtCGM showed a reduction in HbA1c of 3.6 mmol/mol (0.36 percentage points) based on the 6-month mean between-group difference. In the base case, both rtCGM and isCGM were priced at €3.92/day (excluding value-added tax [VAT]) according to the Belgian reimbursement system. The analysis was performed from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective over a lifetime time horizon. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life years. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were used to account for parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base case, rtCGM dominated isCGM, resulting in lower diabetes-related complication costs and better health outcomes. The associated main drivers favouring rtCGM were lower HbA1c, fewer severe hypoglycaemic events and reduced fear of hypoglycaemia. The results were robust under a wide range of one-way sensitivity analyses. In models where the price of rtCGM is €5.11/day (a price increase of 30.4%) or €12.34/day (a price increase of 214.8%), rtCGM was cost-neutral or reached an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: When priced similarly, Dexcom G6 rtCGM with alert functionality has both economic and clinical benefits compared with FreeStyle Libre 1 isCGM without alerts in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium, and appears to be a cost-effective glucose monitoring modality. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03772600.

Closed-loop insulin delivery in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (CRISTAL): a multicentre randomized controlled trial - study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII, insulin pumps) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) in pregnancy, achieving recommended pregnancy glycaemic targets (3.5-7.8 mmol/L or 63-140 mg/dL) remains challenging. Consequently, the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes remains high. Outside pregnancy, hybrid closed-loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems have led to a paradigm shift in the management of T1D, with 12% higher time in glucose target range (TIR) compared to conventional CSII. However, most commercially available HCL systems are currently not approved for use in pregnancy. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of the MiniMed™ 780G HCL system (Medtronic) in T1D in pregnancy. METHODS: In this international, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT), we will compare the MiniMed™ 780G HCL system to standard of care (SoC) in T1D in pregnancy. Women aged 18-45 years with T1D diagnosis of at least one year, HbA1c ≤ 86 mmol/mol (≤ 10%), and confirmed singleton pregnancy up to 11 weeks 6 days will be eligible. After providing written informed consent, all participants will wear a similar CGM system (Guardian™ 3 or Guardian™ 4 CGM) during a 10-day run-in phase. After the run-in phase, participants will be randomised 1:1 to 780G HCL (intervention) or SoC [control, continuation of current T1D treatment with multiple daily injections (MDI) or CSII and any type of CGM] stratified according to centre, baseline HbA1c (< 53 vs. ≥ 53 mmol/mol or < 7 vs. ≥ 7%), and method of insulin delivery (MDI or CSII). The primary outcome will be the time spent within the pregnancy glucose target range, as measured by the CGM at four time points in pregnancy: 14-17, 20-23, 26-29, and 33-36 weeks. Prespecified secondary outcomes will be overnight TIR, time below range (TBR: <3.5 mmol/L or < 63 mg/dL), and overnight TBR. Other outcomes will be exploratory. The planned sample size is 92 participants. The study will end after postpartum discharge from hospital. Analyses will be performed according to intention-to-treat as well as per protocol. DISCUSSION: This large RCT will evaluate a widely used commercially available HCL system in T1D in pregnancy. Recruitment began in January 2021 and was completed in October 2022. Study completion is expected in May 2023. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04520971. Registration date: August 20, 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04520971.

Effect of switching from intermittently scanned to real-time continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes: 24-month results from the randomised ALERTT1 trial.

BACKGROUND: Comparing Continuous With Flash Glucose Monitoring In Adults With Type 1 Diabetes (ALERTT1) examined whether switching from first-generation intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) without alerts to real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) with alert functionality offers additional benefits to adults with type 1 diabetes. The extension of the randomised ALERTT1 trial assessed the effect of switching from isCGM to rtCGM up to 24 months. METHODS: In this 6-month, double-arm, parallel-group, non-masked, randomised, controlled trial, done across six hospitals in Belgium, 254 adults aged 18 years or older with type 1 diabetes previously using isCGM were randomly assigned (1:1) to rtCGM with alerts (intervention; n=127) or isCGM without alerts (control; n=127). Upon completion of the 6-month trial, the control group switched to rtCGM (is-rtCGM group), and the intervention group continued rtCGM (rt-rtCGM group). The extension focused on within-group changes in time in range (TIR; 3·9-10·0 mmol/L; primary outcome), HbA1c, time in clinically significant hypoglycaemia (<3·0 mmol/L), and Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey worry (HFS-worry) score (all prespecified key secondary outcomes). Mean within-group change versus the start of rtCGM is reported, with a positive value referring to a lower value at start of rtCGM. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03772600). FINDINGS: 119 participants were assigned to the is-rtCGM group of whom 112 (94%) completed the 24-month trial, and 123 participants were assigned to the rt-rtCGM group of whom 117 (95%) completed the 24-month trial. TIR increased from 51·8% (95% CI 49·1-54·5) at start of rtCGM (month 6) to 63·5% (60·7-66·3) at month 12 in the is-rtCGM group, and remained stable up to month 24 (change 11·7 percentage points [pp] [9·4-14·0; p<0·0001). In the rt-rtCGM group, TIR increased from 52·5% (95% CI 49·8-55·1) at start of rtCGM (month 0) to 63·0% (60·3-65·8) at month 12, also remaining stable up to month 24 (change 10·5 pp [8·2-12·8]; p<0·0001). HbA1c decreased from 7·4% (57 mmol/mol; month 6) to 6·9% (52 mmol/mol) at month 24 (change -0·54 pp [95% CI -0·64 to -0·44]; -5 mmol/mol [95% CI -6 to -4]; p<0·0001) in the is-rtCGM group, and from 7·4% (57 mmol/mol; month 0) to 7·0% (53 mmol/mol) at month 24 (change -0·43 pp [95% CI -0·53 to -0·33]; -4 mmol/mol [95% CI -5 to -3]; p<0·0001) in the rt-rtCGM group. The change in HFS-worry score was -2·67 (month 24 vs month 6; p=0·0008) in the is-rtCGM group and -5·17 points (month 24 vs month 0; p<0·0001) in the rt-rtCGM group. Time in clinically significant hypoglycaemia was unchanged in both groups after month 12. Severe hypoglycaemia decreased from 31·0 to 3·3 per 100 patient-years after switching to rtCGM. INTERPRETATION: Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia worry improved significantly up to 24 months after switching from isCGM without alerts to rtCGM with alerts, supporting the use of rtCGM in the care of adults with type 1 diabetes. FUNDING: Dexcom.

The Impact of Baseline User Characteristics on the Benefits of Real-Time Versus Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Moderator Analyses of the ALERTT1 Trial.

BACKGROUND: ALERTT1 showed that switching from intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) without alerts to real-time CGM (rtCGM) with alert functionality improved time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), time <54 mg/dL, and Hypoglycemia Fear Survey version II worry subscale (HFS-worry) score after six months in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Moderator analyses aimed to identify certain subgroups that would benefit more from switching to rtCGM than others. METHODS: Post hoc analyses of ALERTT1 evaluated the impact of 14 baseline characteristics on the difference (delta) in mean TIR, HbA1c, time <54 mg/dL, and HFS-worry score at six months between rtCGM and isCGM. Therefore, the delta was allowed to depend on each of these variables by including interactions in the moderator analysis model. Analyses were performed separately for each variable; variables with P < .10 in the univariable analysis were combined into a single model. RESULTS: Univariable analyses showed no dependency of delta TIR, HbA1c, or time <54 mg/dL on variables other than CGM type. Only delta HFS-worry score depended on baseline HbA1c (P = .0059), indicating less worries with rtCGM in people with baseline HbA1c <6.5% or ≥8%. Given P < .10 for dependency of delta TIR on insulin therapy type (favoring multiple daily injections), baseline HbA1c, and baseline TIR, these variables were combined into a multivariable analysis; interactions were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Except for HFS-worry score, no interactions between 14 baseline characteristics and the six-month intervention effect of rtCGM on TIR, HbA1c, or time <54 mg/dL were observed, supporting the conclusion of ALERTT1 that switching from isCGM without alerts to rtCGM with alert functionality is beneficial for a wide range of people with T1D.

Lipohypertrophy Monitoring Study (LIMO): Effect of single use of 4 mm pen needles combined with education on injection site rotation on glycaemic control: Confirmation of an unpleasant truth.

AIMS: To investigate whether single use of 4 mm needles combined with education about injection technique and lipohypertrophy affects HbA1c, hypoglycaemia and glucose variability. METHODS: Insulin-injecting people with diabetes recruited from nine Belgian diabetes centres were prospectively followed for 6 months. They were provided 4 mm pen needles and education concerning injection technique using an online platform (BD and Me™) based on the international Forum for Injection Technique & Therapy Recommendations focused on avoidance of lipohypertrophy zones and reduction of needle reuse. RESULTS: A total of 171 people with diabetes were included of which 146 completed the study. At baseline, lipohypertrophy was present in 63.0% of those who completed the study, with 51.4% injecting in zones of lipohypertrophy, 37.0% incorrectly rotating and 95.9% reusing needles. After the intervention, 7.5% still injected in a lipohypertrophy zone, 4.1% rotated incorrectly and needle reuse decreased to 21.2%. The number of participants with severe hypoglycaemias (from 15.8% to 4.1%, p < 0.001), unexplained hypoglycaemias (from 46.6% to 16.4%, p < 0.001) and high glucose variability (from 64.4% to 29.5%, p < 0.001) was significantly reduced. HbA1c and total daily insulin dose remained stable. CONCLUSION: The combination of 4 mm pen needles and online education on injection techniques significantly reduced the number of people with severe hypoglycaemic episodes, unexplained hypoglycaemia and high glucose variability but did not improve HbA1c control nor lower insulin needs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04659330.

Comparing real-time and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes (ALERTT1): a 6-month, prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: People with type 1 diabetes can continuously monitor their glucose levels on demand (intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring [isCGM]), or in real time (real-time continuous glucose monitoring [rtCGM]). However, it is unclear whether switching from isCGM to rtCGM with alert functionality offers additional benefits. Therefore, we did a trial comparing rtCGM and isCGM in adults with type 1 diabetes (ALERTT1). METHODS: We did a prospective, double-arm, parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial in six hospitals in Belgium. Adults with type 1 diabetes who previously used isCGM were randomly assigned (1:1) to rtCGM (intervention) or isCGM (control). Randomisation was done centrally using minimisation dependent on study centre, age, gender, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), time in range (sensor glucose 3·9-10·0 mmol/L), insulin administration method, and hypoglycaemia awareness. Participants, investigators, and study teams were not masked to group allocation. Primary endpoint was mean between-group difference in time in range after 6 months assessed in the intention-to-treat sample. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03772600. FINDINGS: Between Jan 29 and Jul 30, 2019, 269 participants were recruited, of whom 254 were randomly assigned to rtCGM (n=127) or isCGM (n=127); 124 and 122 participants completed the study, respectively. After 6 months, time in range was higher with rtCGM than with isCGM (59·6% vs 51·9%; mean difference 6·85 percentage points [95% CI 4·36-9·34]; p<0·0001). After 6 months HbA1c was lower (7·1% vs 7·4%; p<0·0001), as was time <3·0 mmol/L (0·47% vs 0·84%; p=0·0070), and Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey version II worry subscale score (15·4 vs 18·0; p=0·0071). Fewer participants on rtCGM experienced severe hypoglycaemia (n=3 vs n=13; p=0·0082). Skin reaction was more frequently observed with isCGM and bleeding after sensor insertion was more frequently reported by rtCGM users. INTERPRETATION: In an unselected adult type 1 diabetes population, switching from isCGM to rtCGM significantly improved time in range after 6 months of treatment, implying that clinicians should consider rtCGM instead of isCGM to improve the health and quality of life of people with type 1 diabetes. FUNDING: Dexcom.

Follicular carcinoma of the thyroid with poorly differentiated component presenting with an ileal osteoblastic metastasis.

A 4-year old history of left hip pain brought a 41-year-old women to the surgery clinic where an osteoblastic tumor in the ileum and a thyroid nodule were diagnosed. Incisional biopsy of the ileal lesion showed a metastatic carcinoma, possibly with neuroendocrine differentiation. The thyroid nodule was a follicular carcinoma with progression to insular carcinoma. In retrospect the histologic aspect of the ileal metastasis was identical to that of the insular areas in the thyroid carcinoma. In summary, a patient is described with an osteoblastic metastasis, derived from the insular component of a dedifferentiated follicular carcinoma of the thyroid.