Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: In persons with type 1 diabetes and high glycated hemoglobin levels, the benefits of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring with optional alarms for high and low blood glucose levels are uncertain. METHODS: In a parallel-group, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving participants with type 1 diabetes and glycated hemoglobin levels between 7.5% and 11.0%, we investigated the efficacy of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring as compared with participant monitoring of blood glucose levels with fingerstick testing. The primary outcome was the glycated hemoglobin level at 24 weeks, analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary outcomes included sensor data, participant-reported outcome measures, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 156 participants were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (the intervention group, 78 participants) or to monitor their own blood glucose levels with fingerstick testing (the usual-care group, 78 participants). At baseline, the mean (±SD) age of the participants was 44±15 years, and the mean duration of diabetes was 21±13 years; 44% of the participants were women. The mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 8.7±0.9% in the intervention group and 8.5±0.8% in the usual-care group; these levels decreased to 7.9±0.8% and 8.3±0.9%, respectively, at 24 weeks (adjusted mean between-group difference, -0.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.7 to -0.3; P<0.001). The time per day that the glucose level was in the target range was 9.0 percentage points (95% CI, 4.7 to 13.3) higher or 130 minutes (95% CI, 68 to 192) longer in the intervention group than in the usual-care group, and the time spent in a hypoglycemic state (blood glucose level, <70 mg per deciliter [<3.9 mmol per liter]) was 3.0 percentage points (95% CI, 1.4 to 4.5) lower or 43 minutes (95% CI, 20 to 65) shorter in the intervention group. Two participants in the usual-care group had an episode of severe hypoglycemia, and 1 participant in the intervention group had a skin reaction to the sensor. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with type 1 diabetes and high glycated hemoglobin levels, the use of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring with optional alarms for high and low blood glucose levels resulted in significantly lower glycated hemoglobin levels than levels monitored by fingerstick testing. (Funded by Diabetes UK and others; FLASH-UK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03815006.).

The use of technology in type 2 diabetes and prediabetes: a narrative review.

The increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes, which represents 90% of diabetes cases globally, is a major public health concern. Improved glucose management reduces the risk of vascular complications and mortality; however, only a small proportion of the type 2 diabetes population have blood glucose levels within the recommended treatment targets. In recent years, diabetes technologies have revolutionised the care of people with type 1 diabetes, and it is becoming increasingly evident that people with type 2 diabetes can also benefit from these advances. In this review, we describe the current knowledge regarding the role of technologies for people living with type 2 diabetes and the evidence supporting their use in clinical practice. We conclude that continuous glucose monitoring systems deliver glycaemic benefits for individuals with type 2 diabetes, whether treated with insulin or non-insulin therapy; further data are required to evaluate the role of these systems in those with prediabetes (defined as impaired glucose tolerance and/or impaired fasting glucose and/or HbA1c levels between 39 mmol/mol [5.7%] and 47 mmol/mol [6.4%]). The use of insulin pumps seems to be safe and effective in people with type 2 diabetes, especially in those with an HbA1c significantly above target. Initial results from studies exploring the impact of closed-loop systems in type 2 diabetes are promising. We discuss directions for future research to fully understand the potential benefits of integrating evidence-based technology into care for people living with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes.

Estimating the cost-effectiveness of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes in England.

OBJECTIVE: We previously showed that intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) reduces HbA1c at 24 weeks compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose with finger pricking (SMBG) in adults with type 1 diabetes and high HbA1c levels (58-97 mmol/mol [7.5%-11%]). We aim to assess the economic impact of isCGM compared with SMBG. METHODS: Participant-level baseline and follow-up health status (EQ-5D-5L) and within-trial healthcare resource-use data were collected. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived at 24 weeks, adjusting for baseline EQ-5D-5L. Participant-level costs were generated. Using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, economic analysis was performed from the National Health Service perspective over a lifetime horizon, discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: Within-trial EQ-5D-5L showed non-significant adjusted incremental QALY gain of 0.006 (95% CI: -0.007 to 0.019) for isCGM compared with SMBG and an adjusted cost increase of £548 (95% CI: 381-714) per participant. The lifetime projected incremental cost (95% CI) of isCGM was £1954 (-5108 to 8904) with an incremental QALY (95% CI) gain of 0.436 (0.195-0.652) resulting in an incremental cost-per-QALY of £4477. In all subgroups, isCGM had an incremental cost-per-QALY better than £20,000 compared with SMBG; for people with baseline HbA1c >75 mmol/mol (9.0%), it was cost-saving. Sensitivity analysis suggested that isCGM remains cost-effective if its effectiveness lasts for at least 7 years. CONCLUSION: While isCGM is associated with increased short-term costs, compared with SMBG, its benefits in lowering HbA1c will lead to sufficient long-term health-gains and cost-savings to justify costs, so long as the effect lasts into the medium term.

Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes: A subgroup analysis from the FLASH-UK study.

AIMS: The FLASH-UK trial showed lower HbA1c with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM), as compared with self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), in adults with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c ≥58 mmol/mol (≥7.5%). Here, we present results from the pre-specified subgroup analysis for the 24-week HbA1c (primary outcome) and selected sensor-based secondary outcomes. METHODS: This was a multi-centre, parallel-design, randomised controlled trial. The difference in treatment effect between subgroups (baseline HbA1c [≤75 vs. >75 mmol/mol] [≤9.0 vs >9.0%], treatment modality [pump vs injections], prior participation in structured education, age, educational level, impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia, deprivation index quintile sex, ethnic group and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] detected depression category) were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-six participants (females 44%, mean [SD] baseline HbA1c 71 [9] mmol/mol 8.6 [0.8%], age 44 [15]) were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio to isCGM (n = 78) or SMBG (n = 78). The mean (SD) baseline HbA1c (%) was 8.7 (0.9) in the isCGM group and 8.5 (0.8) in the SMBG group, lowering to 7.9 (0.8) versus 8.3 (0.9), respectively, at 24 weeks (adjusted mean difference -0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.7 to -0.3; p < 0.001]. For HbA1c, there was no impact of treatment modality, prior participation in structured education, deprivation index quintile, sex or baseline depression category. The between-group difference in HbA1c was larger for younger people (a reduction of 2.7 [95% CI 0.3-5.0; p = 0.028] mmol/mol for every additional 15 years of age). Those with HbA1c 76-97 mmol/mol (>9.0%-11.0%) had a marginally non-significant higher reduction in HbA1c of 8.4 mmol/mol (3.3-13.5) compared to 3.1 (0.3-6.0) in those with HbA1c 58-75 mmol/mol (p = 0.08). For 'Time in range' (% 3.9-10 mmol/L), the difference was larger for those with at least a bachelor's degree. For 'Time below range' (% <3.9 mmol/L), the difference was larger for those using injections, older people and those with less than bachelor's degree. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring is generally effective across a range of baseline characteristics.

CGM accuracy: Contrasting CE marking with the governmental controls of the USA (FDA) and Australia (TGA): A narrative review.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence updated guidance for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in 2022, recommending that CGM be available to all people living with type 1 diabetes. Manufacturers can trade in the UK with Conformité Européenne (CE) marking without an initial national assessment. The regulatory process for CGM CE marking, in contrast to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) process, is described. Manufacturers operating in the UK provided clinical accuracy studies submitted for CE marking. Critical appraisal of the studies shows several CGM devices have CE marking for wide-ranging indications beyond available data, unlike FDA and TGA approval. The FDA and TGA use tighter controls, requiring comprehensive product-specific clinical data evaluation. In 2018, the FDA published the integrated CGM (iCGM) criteria permitting interoperability. Applying the iCGM criteria to clinical data provided by manufacturers trading in the UK identified several study protocols that minimized glucose variability, thereby improving CGM accuracy on all metrics. These results do not translate into real-life performance. Furthermore, for many CGM devices available in the UK, accuracy reported in the hypoglycaemic range is below iCGM standards, or measurement is absent. We offer a framework to evaluate CGM accuracy studies critically. The review concludes that FDA- and TGA-approved indications match the available clinical data, whereas CE marking indications can have discrepancies. The UK can bolster regulation with UK Conformity Assessed marking from January 2025. However, balanced regulation is needed to ensure innovation and timely technological access are not hindered.

Automated insulin dosing systems: Advances after a century of insulin.

The daily complexities of insulin therapy and glucose variability in type 1 diabetes still pose significant challenges, despite advancements in modern insulin analogues. Minimising hypoglycaemia and optimising time spent within target glucose range are recommended to reduce the risk of diabetes-related complications and distress. Access to structured education and adjuvant diabetes technologies, such as insulin pumps and glucose sensors, are recommended by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to enable people with type 1 diabetes achieve their glycaemic goals. One hundred years after the discovery of insulin, automated insulin dosing (AID, a.k.a. closed loop or artificial pancreas) systems are a reality with a number of systems available and being used in usual clinical practice. Evidence from randomised clinical trials and real-world prospective studies support efficacy, effectiveness and safety of AID systems. Qualitative evaluations reveal treatment satisfaction and positive effects on quality of life. Current insulin-only AID systems still require carbohydrate and activity announcement (hybrid closed loop) due to the inherent pharmacokinetic limitations of rapid-acting insulin analogies. Ultra-rapid acting insulin and adjunctive use of other therapies (e.g. glucagon, pramlitide) are being evaluated to achieve full closed loop. Open-source AID (OS-AID) systems have been developed by the diabetes community, driven by a desire for safety and to accelerate technological advancement. In addition to effectiveness and safety, real-world prospective studies suggest that OS-AID systems fulfil unmet needs of commercially approved systems. The development, ongoing challenges and expectations of AID are outlined in this review.

Hybrid closed-loop therapy: Where are we in 2021?

Hybrid closed-loop systems are characterized by the coexistence of algorithm-driven automated insulin delivery combined with manual mealtime boluses. Used correctly, these insulin delivery systems offer better glucose control and reduced risk of hypoglycaemia and represent the most advanced form of insulin delivery available for people with type 1 diabetes. The aim of this paper was to compare the currently available commercial hybrid closed-loop systems in the UK: the Medtronic 670G/780G, Tandem t:slim X2 Control IQ and CamAPS FX systems. The Medtronic 670G/780G systems use Guardian 3 sensor (7-day use, two to four calibrations per day), while Tandem and CamAPS systems use the calibration-free Dexcom G6 sensor (10 days). The CamAPS system is available as an android app, whereas the other two systems have the algorithm embedded in the insulin pump. During pivotal studies, depending on the study population and baseline glycated haemoglobin level, these systems achieve a time spent in the target range 3.9 to 10 mmol/L (70 to 180 mg/dL) of 65% to 76% with low burden of hypoglycaemia. All three systems allow a higher glucose target for announced exercise, while the Tandem system offers an additional night-time tighter target. The CamAPS system offers fully customizable glucose targets and is the only system licensed for use during pregnancy. Additional education is required for both users and healthcare professionals to harness the best performance from these systems as well as to troubleshoot when "automode exits" occur. We provide consensus recommendations to develop pragmatic pathways to guide patients, clinicians and commissioners in making informed decisions on the appropriate use of the diabetes technology.

Hybrid closed-loop glucose control with faster insulin aspart compared with standard insulin aspart in adults with type 1 diabetes: A double-blind, multicentre, multinational, randomized, crossover study.

AIM: To evaluate the use of hybrid closed-loop glucose control with faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a double-blind, multinational, randomized, crossover study, 25 adults with T1D using insulin pump therapy (mean ± SD, age 38 ± 9 years, HbA1c 7.4% ± 0.8% [57 ± 8 mmol/mol]) underwent two 8-week periods of unrestricted living comparing hybrid closed-loop with Fiasp and hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin aspart in random order. During both interventions the CamAPS FX closed-loop system incorporating the Cambridge model predictive control algorithm was used. RESULTS: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time sensor glucose was in the target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L; primary endpoint) was not different between interventions (75% ± 8% vs. 75% ± 8% for hybrid closed-loop with Fiasp vs. hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin aspart; mean-adjusted difference -0.6% [95% CI -1.8% to 0.7%]; p < .001 for non-inferiority [non-inferiority margin 5%]). The proportion of time with sensor glucose less than 3.9 mmol/L (median [IQR] 2.4% [1.2%-3.2%] vs. 2.9% [1.7%-4.0%]; p = .01) and less than 3.0 mmol/L (median [IQR] 0.4% [0.2%-0.7%] vs. 0.7% [0.2%-0.9%]; p = .03) was reduced with Fiasp versus standard insulin aspart. There was no difference in mean glucose (8.1 ± 0.8 vs. 8.0 ± 0.8 mmol/L; p = .13) or glucose variability (SD of sensor glucose 2.9 ± 0.5 vs. 2.9 ± 0.5 mmol/L; p = .90). Total daily insulin requirements did not differ (49 ± 15 vs. 49 ± 15 units/day; p = .45). No severe hypoglycaemia or ketoacidosis occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Fiasp in the CamAPS FX closed-loop system may reduce hypoglycaemia without compromising glucose control compared with standard insulin aspart in adults with T1D.

Glucose management for exercise using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) systems in type 1 diabetes: position statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) endorsed by JDRF and supported by the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

Physical exercise is an important component in the management of type 1 diabetes across the lifespan. Yet, acute exercise increases the risk of dysglycaemia, and the direction of glycaemic excursions depends, to some extent, on the intensity and duration of the type of exercise. Understandably, fear of hypoglycaemia is one of the strongest barriers to incorporating exercise into daily life. Risk of hypoglycaemia during and after exercise can be lowered when insulin-dose adjustments are made and/or additional carbohydrates are consumed. Glycaemic management during exercise has been made easier with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) systems; however, because of the complexity of CGM and isCGM systems, both individuals with type 1 diabetes and their healthcare professionals may struggle with the interpretation of given information to maximise the technological potential for effective use around exercise (i.e. before, during and after). This position statement highlights the recent advancements in CGM and isCGM technology, with a focus on the evidence base for their efficacy to sense glucose around exercise and adaptations in the use of these emerging tools, and updates the guidance for exercise in adults, children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Graphical abstract.

Glucose management for exercise using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) systems in type 1 diabetes: position statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) endorsed by JDRF and supported by the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

Physical exercise is an important component in the management of type 1 diabetes across the lifespan. Yet, acute exercise increases the risk of dysglycaemia, and the direction of glycaemic excursions depends, to some extent, on the intensity and duration of the type of exercise. Understandably, fear of hypoglycaemia is one of the strongest barriers to incorporating exercise into daily life. Risk of hypoglycaemia during and after exercise can be lowered when insulin-dose adjustments are made and/or additional carbohydrates are consumed. Glycaemic management during exercise has been made easier with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) systems; however, because of the complexity of CGM and isCGM systems, both individuals with type 1 diabetes and their healthcare professionals may struggle with the interpretation of given information to maximise the technological potential for effective use around exercise (ie, before, during and after). This position statement highlights the recent advancements in CGM and isCGM technology, with a focus on the evidence base for their efficacy to sense glucose around exercise and adaptations in the use of these emerging tools, and updates the guidance for exercise in adults, children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

Closed-loop insulin delivery in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, 12-week randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The achievement of glycaemic control remains challenging for patients with type 1 diabetes. We assessed the effectiveness of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in people with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, multinational, single-period, parallel randomised controlled trial, participants were recruited from diabetes outpatient clinics at four hospitals in the UK and two centres in the USA. We randomly assigned participants with type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older treated with insulin pump and with suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·5-10·0%) to receive either hybrid closed-loop therapy or sensor-augmented pump therapy over 12 weeks of free living. Training on study insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring took place over a 4-week run-in period. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned using central randomisation software. Allocation to the two study groups was unblinded, and randomisation was stratified within centre by low (<8·5%) or high (≥8·5%) HbA1c. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range of 3·9-10·0 mmol/L at 12 weeks post randomisation. Analyses of primary outcome and safety measures were done in all randomised patients. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02523131, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: From May 12, 2016, to Nov 17, 2017, 114 individuals were screened, and 86 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive hybrid closed-loop therapy (n=46) or sensor-augmented pump therapy (n=40; control group). The proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range was significantly higher in the closed-loop group (65%, SD 8) compared with the control group (54%, SD 9; mean difference in change 10·8 percentage points, 95% CI 8·2 to 13·5; p<0·0001). In the closed-loop group, HbA1c was reduced from a screening value of 8·3% (SD 0·6) to 8·0% (SD 0·6) after the 4-week run-in, and to 7·4% (SD 0·6) after the 12-week intervention period. In the control group, the HbA1c values were 8·2% (SD 0·5) at screening, 7·8% (SD 0·6) after run-in, and 7·7% (SD 0·5) after intervention; reductions in HbA1c percentages were significantly greater in the closed-loop group compared with the control group (mean difference in change 0·36%, 95% CI 0·19 to 0·53; p<0·0001). The time spent with glucose concentrations below 3·9 mmol/L (mean difference in change -0·83 percentage points, -1·40 to -0·16; p=0·0013) and above 10·0 mmol/L (mean difference in change -10·3 percentage points, -13·2 to -7·5; p<0·0001) was shorter in the closed-loop group than the control group. The coefficient of variation of sensor-measured glucose was not different between interventions (mean difference in change -0·4%, 95% CI -1·4% to 0·7%; p=0·50). Similarly, total daily insulin dose was not different (mean difference in change 0·031 U/kg per day, 95% CI -0·005 to 0·067; p=0·09) and bodyweight did not differ (mean difference in change 0·68 kg, 95% CI -0·34 to 1·69; p=0·19). No severe hypoglycaemia occurred. One diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group due to infusion set failure. Two participants in each study group had significant hyperglycaemia, and there were 13 other adverse events in the closed-loop group and three in the control group. INTERPRETATION: Hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery improves glucose control while reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia across a wide age range in patients with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes. FUNDING: JDRF, NIHR, and Wellcome Trust.

Glycaemic variability: The under-recognized therapeutic target in type 1 diabetes care.

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) remains one of the most challenging long-term conditions to manage. Despite robust evidence to demonstrate that near normoglycaemia minimizes, but does not completely eliminate, the risk of complications, its achievement has proved almost impossible in a real-world setting. HbA1c to date has been used as the gold standard marker of glucose control and has been shown to reflect directly the risk of diabetes complications. However, it has been recognized that HbA1c is a crude marker of glucose control. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides the ability to measure and observe inter- and intraday glycaemic variability (GV), a more meaningful measure of glycaemic control, more relevant to daily living for those with T1DM. This paper reviews the relationship between GV and hypoglycaemia, and micro- and macrovascular complications. It also explores the impact on GV of CGM, insulin pumps, closed-loop technologies, and newer insulins and adjunctive therapies. Looking to the future, there is an argument that GV should become a key determinant of therapeutic success. Further studies are required to investigate the pathological and psychological benefits of reducing GV.

Hypoglycaemia incidence and recovery during home use of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes.

Glucose excursion was assessed prior to and post hypoglycaemia to increase understanding of hypoglycaemia incidence and recovery during hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery. We retrospectively analysed data from 60 adults with type 1 diabetes who received, in a crossover randomized design, day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery and insulin pump therapy, the latter with or without real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Over 4-week study periods, we identified hypoglycaemic episodes, defined as sensor glucose <3.0 mmol/L, and analysed sensor glucose relative to the onset of hypoglycaemia. We identified 377 hypoglycaemic episodes during hybrid closed-loop intervention vs 662 during control intervention (P < .001), with a predominant reduction of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. The slope of sensor glucose prior to hypoglycaemia was steeper during closed-loop intervention than during control intervention (P < .01), while insulin delivery was reduced (P < .01). During both day and night, participants recovered from hypoglycaemia faster when treated by closed-loop intervention. At 120 minutes post hypoglycaemia, sensor glucose levels were higher during closed-loop intervention compared to the control period (P < .05). In conclusion, closed-loop intervention reduces the risk of hypoglycaemia, particularly overnight, with swift recovery from hypoglycaemia leading to higher 2-hour post-hypoglycaemia glucose levels.

Faster insulin action is associated with improved glycaemic outcomes during closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes.

We aimed to evaluate the relationship between insulin pharmacodynamics and glycaemic outcomes during closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy. We retrospectively analysed data from a multicentre randomized control trial involving 32 adults with type 1 diabetes receiving day-and-night closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy over 12 weeks. We estimated time-to-peak insulin action (t max,IA ) and insulin sensitivity ( S I ) during both interventions, and correlated these with demographic factors and glycaemic outcomes. During both interventions, t max,IA was positively correlated with pre- and post-intervention HbA1c (r = 0.50-0.52, P < .01) and mean glucose (r = 0.45-0.62, P < .05), and inversely correlated with time sensor glucose, which was in target range 3.9 to 10 mmol/L (r = -0.64 to -0.47, P < .05). Increased body mass index was associated with higher t max,I and lower S I (both P < .05). During closed-loop insulin delivery, t max,IA was positively correlated with glucose variability ( P < .05). Faster insulin action is associated with improved glycaemic control during closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy.