Applying technologies to simplify strategies for exercise in type 1 diabetes.

Challenges and fears related to managing glucose levels around planned and spontaneous exercise affect outcomes and quality of life in people living with type 1 diabetes. Advances in technology, including continuous glucose monitoring, open-loop insulin pump therapy and hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems for exercise management in type 1 diabetes, address some of these challenges. In this review, three research or clinical experts, each living with type 1 diabetes, leverage published literature and clinical and personal experiences to translate research findings into simplified, patient-centred strategies. With an understanding of limitations in insulin pharmacokinetics, variable intra-individual responses to aerobic and anaerobic exercise, and the features of the technologies, six steps are proposed to guide clinicians in efficiently communicating simplified actions more effectively to individuals with type 1 diabetes. Fundamentally, the six steps centre on two aspects. First, regardless of insulin therapy type, and especially needed for spontaneous exercise, we provide an estimate of glucose disposal into active muscle meant to be consumed as extra carbohydrates for exercise ('ExCarbs'; a common example is 0.5 g/kg body mass per hour for adults and 1.0 g/kg body mass per hour for youth). Second, for planned exercise using open-loop pump therapy or HCL systems, we additionally recommend pre-emptive basal insulin reduction or using HCL exercise modes initiated 90 min (1-2 h) before the start of exercise until the end of exercise. Modifications for aerobic- and anaerobic-type exercise are discussed. The burden of pre-emptive basal insulin reductions and consumption of ExCarbs are the limitations of HCL systems, which may be overcome by future innovations but are unquestionably required for currently available systems.

Comparison between a tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery system and a tubeless, on-body sensor-augmented pump in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This study compares the efficacy and safety of a tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery (AID) system with that of a tubeless, on-body sensor-augmented pump (SAP). METHODS: This multicentre, parallel-group, RCT was conducted at 13 tertiary medical centres in South Korea. Adults aged 19-69 years with type 1 diabetes who had HbA1c levels of <85.8 mmol/mol (<10.0%) were eligible. The participants were assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive a tubeless, on-body AID system (intervention group) or a tubeless, on-body SAP (control group) for 12 weeks. Stratified block randomisation was conducted by an independent statistician. Blinding was not possible due to the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was the percentage of time in range (TIR), blood glucose between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/l, as measured by continuous glucose monitoring. ANCOVAs were conducted with baseline values and study centres as covariates. RESULTS: A total of 104 participants underwent randomisation, with 53 in the intervention group and 51 in the control group. The mean (±SD) age of the participants was 40±11 years. The mean (±SD) TIR increased from 62.1±17.1% at baseline to 71.5±10.7% over the 12 week trial period in the intervention group and from 64.7±17.0% to 66.9±15.0% in the control group (difference between the adjusted means: 6.5% [95% CI 3.6%, 9.4%], p<0.001). Time below range, time above range, CV and mean glucose levels were also significantly better in the intervention group compared with the control group. HbA1c decreased from 50.9±9.9 mmol/mol (6.8±0.9%) at baseline to 45.9±7.4 mmol/mol (6.4±0.7%) after 12 weeks in the intervention group and from 48.7±9.1 mmol/mol (6.6±0.8%) to 45.7±7.5 mmol/mol (6.3±0.7%) in the control group (difference between the adjusted means: -0.7 mmol/mol [95% CI -2.0, 0.8 mmol/mol] (-0.1% [95% CI -0.2%, 0.1%]), p=0.366). No diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycaemia events occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The use of a tubeless, on-body AID system was safe and associated with superior glycaemic profiles, including TIR, time below range, time above range and CV, than the use of a tubeless, on-body SAP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) KCT0008398 FUNDING: The study was funded by a grant from the Korea Medical Device Development Fund supported by the Ministry of Science and ICT; the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy; the Ministry of Health and Welfare; and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (grant number: RS-2020-KD000056).

Efficacy and Safety of Different Hybrid Closed Loop Systems for Automated Insulin Delivery in People With Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of different hybrid closed loop (HCL) systems in people with diabetes through a network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PubMed for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling children, adolescents and/or adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, evaluating Minimed 670G, Minimed 780G, Control-IQ, CamAPS Fx, DBLG-1, DBLHU, and Omnipod 5 HCL systems against other types of insulin therapy, and reporting time in target range (TIR) as outcome. RESULTS: A total of 28 RCTs, all enrolling people with type 1 diabetes, were included. HCL systems significantly increased TIR compared with subcutaneous insulin therapy without continuous glucose monitoring (SIT). Minimed 780G achieved the highest TIR ahead of Control IQ (mean difference (MD) 5.1%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) [0.68; 9.52], low certainty), Minimed 670G (MD 7.48%, 95% CI [4.27; 10.7], moderate certainty), CamAPS Fx (MD 8.94%, 95% CI [4.35; 13.54], low certainty), and DBLG1 (MD 10.69%, 95% CI [5.73; 15.65], low certainty). All HCL systems decreased time below target range, with DBLG1 (MD -3.69%, 95% CI [-5.2; -2.19], high certainty), Minimed 670G (MD -2.9%, 95% CI [-3.77; -2.04], moderate certainty) and Minimed 780G (MD -2.79%, 95% CI [-3.94; -1.64], high certainty) exhibiting the largest reductions compared to SIT. The risk of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis was similar to other types of insulin therapy. CONCLUSIONS: We show a hierarchy of efficacy among the different HCL systems in people with type 1 diabetes, thus providing support to clinical decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023453717.

Assessing the feasibility of time in tight range (TITR) targets with advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) use in children and adolescents: A single-centre real-world study.

AIMS: Time in Tight Range (TITR) is a novel glycaemic metric in monitoring type 1 diabetes (T1D) management. The aim of this study was to assess the attainability of the TITR target in children and adolescents using the advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL). METHODS: The 2128-day CGM data from 56 children and adolescents with T1D using AHCL (Minimed-780G) were analysed. Time in Range (TIR) (3.9-10 mmol/L), TITR (3.9-7.7 mmol/L), and other glycaemic parameters were separately analysed in terms of whole day, daytime (06.00-23:59), and nighttime (00.00-05.59) results. The participants were divided into two groups by autocorrection rate where Group 1 had a rate of <30% and Group 2 had a rate of ≥30. RESULTS: All glycaemic parameters indicated a better glycaemic outcome in the nighttime with higher TIR and TITR values compared with daytime (for TIR 87.5 ± 9.5% vs. 78.8 ± 8%, p < 0.001, and TITR 68.2 ± 13.5% vs. 57.5 ± 8.8%, p < 0.001). The rates of TITR >50% and >60% were 87% and 52%, respectively. When those with TITR >60% (n: 29) and those without (n: 27) were evaluated in terms of hypoglycaemia, no statistically significant difference was found in time below range (TBR) 3-3.9 mmol/L (0.3% vs. 2.1%, p: 0.084) and TBR < 3 mmol/L (0.47% vs. 0.3%, p: 0.298). Group 1 had a significantly higher TIR and TITR compared to Group 2 (82.6 ± 6.1% vs. 75.6 ± 8.6%, p: 0.008 and 62.1 ± 7.5% vs. 53.8 ± 7.5%, p: 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Most children and adolescents on AHCL achieved the 50% target for TITR whereas more than half achieved the >60% target. A target of >50% for TITR seems realistic in children with T1D using AHCL.

Should people with type 2 diabetes treated by multiple daily insulin injections with home health care support be switched to hybrid closed-loop? The CLOSE AP+ randomized controlled trial.

AIM: The study aim was to evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of automated insulin delivery (AID) assisted by home health care (HHC) services in people with type 2 diabetes unable to manage multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) at home on their own. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an open label, multicentre, randomized, parallel group trial. In total, 30 adults with type 2 diabetes using MDI and requiring nursing support were randomly allocated to AID or kept their usual therapy over a 12-week period. Both treatments were managed with the support of HHC services. The primary outcome was the percentage time in the target glucose range of 70-180 mg/dl (TIR). Secondary outcomes included other continuous glucose monitoring metrics, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, daily insulin doses, body weight, and of quality of life scores, fear of hypoglycaemia and satisfaction questionnaires. RESULTS: Age (69.7 vs. 69.3 years) and HbA1c (9.25 vs. 9.0) did not differ in MDI and AID at baseline. Compared with MDI, AID resulted in a significant increase in TIR by 27.4% [95% CI (15.0-39.8); p < .001], a decrease in time above range by 27.7% and an unchanged time below range of <1%. A between-group difference in HbA1c was 1.3% favouring AID. Neither severe hypoglycaemia nor ketoacidosis occurred in either group. Patient and caregiver satisfaction with AID was high. CONCLUSIONS: AID combined with tailored HHC services significantly improved glycaemic control with no safety issues in people with type 2 diabetes previously under an MDI regimen with HHC. AID should be considered a safe option in these people when lacking acceptable glucose control.

Systematic review of disparities in continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump utilization in the United States: Key themes and evidentiary gaps.

AIM: This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of real-world evidence pertaining to disparities in the utilization of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs)/insulin pumps to highlight potential evidentiary gaps and discern emerging themes from the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of published manuscripts and abstracts was conducted from: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Nursing and Allied Health, Web of Science and CINHAL. Attributes related to patients, outcomes, interventions (CGMs/pumps/both) and study type were captured. In addition, factors associated with disparities in device utilization were examined. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were included in the final analysis; the studies predominantly focused on people living with type 1 diabetes. Only two studies included individuals with type 2 diabetes. Almost two-thirds of the studies reported outcomes associated with disparities (e.g. glycated haemoglobin, diabetic ketoacidosis, resource utilization). Most studies highlighted disparities across race, ethnicity and insurance type. Evidentiary gaps were identified, particularly in the evidence for people with type 2 diabetes, the continuation of CGM/pump use and limited studies addressing disparities among Native Americans/American Indians. CONCLUSION: This study reveals critical disparities in diabetes technology use across race, ethnicity and insurance type, particularly among people with type 1 diabetes. Evidentiary gaps assessing disparities in diabetes technology use persist, particularly concerning people with type 2 diabetes, Native American/American Indian and LGBTQ+ populations, and in outcomes related to continuation of use. Social and digital determinants of health, such as income, transportation, residential location and technological literacy, are crucial to achieving equitable access. Future research should focus on the patient journey to identify opportunities for equitable access to diabetes technology as its use grows.

Performance of the MiniMed 780G system on mitigating menstrual cycle-dependent glycaemic variability.

AIM: To map the glycaemic variabilities and insulin requirements across different phases of the menstrual cycle and assess the efficacy and performance of the MiniMed 780G system on mitigating glycaemic variabilities during phases of the menstrual cycle. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pilot study recruiting 15 adolescent and young adult females with type 1 diabetes was conducted. Only females with regular spontaneous menstruation were enrolled in the current study. Phases of each menstrual cycle were determined as either follicular phase or luteal phase. The study analysed continuous glucose monitoring metrics during two study periods: the open loop period (OLP) and the advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) period; each period lasted 3 consecutive months. RESULTS: During the OLP, the mean time in range (TIR) significantly decreased during the luteal phase compared with the follicular phase (65.13% ± 3.07% vs. 70.73% ± 2.05%) (P < .01). The mean time above range significantly increased from 21.07% ± 2.58% during the follicular phase to 24.87% ± 2.97% during the luteal phase (P < .01). After initiating the AHCL period, TIR was comparable during both phases of the menstrual cycle (P = .72), without increasing the time spent below 70 mg/dL (P > .05). Regarding insulin delivery during the AHCL period, the percentage of Auto basal and Auto correction delivered by the algorithm increased by 13.55% and 30.6%, respectively (P < .01), during the luteal phase. CONCLUSIONS: The fully automated adaptive algorithm of the MiniMed 780G system mitigated menstrual cycle-dependent glycaemic variability, successfully attaining the recommended glycaemic outcomes with a TIR greater than 70% throughout the entire menstrual cycle.

During an 18-month course of automated insulin delivery treatment, children aged 2 to 6 years achieve and maintain a higher time in tight range.

AIMS: To investigate whether the positive effects on glycaemic outcomes of 3-month automated insulin delivery (AID) achieved in 2- to 6-year-old children endure over an extended duration and how AID treatment affects time in tight range (TITR), defined as 3.9-7.8 mmol/L. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We analysed 18 months of follow-up data from a non-randomized, prospective, single-arm clinical trial (n = 35) conducted between 2021 and 2023. The main outcome measures were changes in time in range (TIR), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), time above range (TAR), TITR, and mean sensor glucose (SG) value during follow-up visits (at 0, 6, 12 and 18 months). The MiniMed 780G AID system in SmartGuard Mode was used for 18 months. Parental diabetes distress was evaluated at 3 and 18 months with the validated Problem Areas in Diabetes-Parent, revised (PAID-PR) survey. RESULTS: Between 0 and 6 months, TIR and TITR increased, and HbA1c, mean SG value and TAR decreased significantly (p < 0.001); the favourable effect persisted through 18 months of follow-up. Between 3 and 18 months, PAID-PR score declined significantly (0 months: mean score 37.5; 3 months: mean score 28.6 [p = 0.06]; 18 months: mean score 24.6 [p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with AID significantly increased TITR and TIR in young children. The positive effect of AID on glycaemic control observed after 6 months persisted throughout the 18 months of follow-up. Similarly, parental diabetes distress remained reduced during 18 months follow-up. These findings are reassuring and suggest that AID treatment improves glycaemic control and reduces parental diabetes distress in young children over an extended 18-month follow-up.

The psychosocial outcomes of advanced hybrid closed-loop system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

The study was carried out to determine the psychosocial outcomes of advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) systems in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Single-center and cohort study with a duration 6 months consisted of 60 children and adolescents with T1D. Standard clinical procedures, including both glycemic indicators, e.g., sensor-measured time within the 70-180 mg/dL range and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, and psychosocial metrics were used for data collection. The psychosocial metrics included the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 3.0 Diabetes Module for both children (8-12 years) and parents; the Quality of Life for Youth scale for adolescents (13-18 years); the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ); the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey for Children (HFS-C); the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale (R-CADS); and AHCLS-specific DTSEQ satisfaction and expectation survey. These metrics were evaluated at the baseline and after 6 months of AHCL use. Of the 60 children and adolescents with T1D for whom the AHCL system was utilized, 41 of them, 23 female and 18 male, completed the surveys. The mean age of the 41 children and adolescents was 12.5 ± 3.2 (min. 6.7, max. 18) years. The time spent within the target glycemic range, i.e., time-in-range (TIR), improved from 76.9 ± 9% at the baseline to 80.4 ± 5% after 6 months of AHCL system use (p = 0.03). Additionally, HbA1c levels reduced from 7.1% ± 0.7% at the baseline to 6.8% ± 0.8% after 6 months of AHCL system use (p = 0.03). The most notable decline in HbA1c was observed in participants with higher baseline HbA1c levels. All patients' HFS-C and AHCL system-specific DTSEQ satisfaction and expectation survey scores were within the normal range at the baseline and remained unchanged during the follow-up period. No significant difference was found in the R-CADS scores of children and adolescents between baseline and after 6 months of AHCL system use. However, there was a significant decrease in the R-CADS scores of the parents. Patients' PedsQL scores were high both at the baseline and after 6 months. The SDQ scores were high at baseline, and there was no significant improvement at the end of 6 months.  Conclusion: This is the first study to investigate in detail the psychosocial outcomes of AHCL system use in T1D patients and their parents. Although state-of-the-art technologies such as AHCL provide patients with more flexibility in their daily lives and information about glucose fluctuations, the AHCL resulted in a TIR above the recommended target range without a change in QOL, HFS-C, SDQ, and R-CADS scores. The scores obtained from the R-CADS conducted by the parents of the children indicated that the use of pumps caused a psychological improvement in the long term, with a significant decrease in the R-CADS scores of the children and adolescents with T1D. What is Known: • Previous studies focused on clinical outcomes of AHCL systems in pediatric T1D patients, showing glycemic control improvements. • Limited attention given to psychosocial outcomes of AHCL systems in children and adolescents with T1D. • Crucial psychosocial factors like quality of life, emotional well-being, and fear of hypoglycemia underexplored in AHCL system context. What is New: • First study to comprehensively examine psychosocial outcomes of AHCL systems in pediatric T1D patients. • Study's robust methodology sets new standard for diabetes technology research and its impact on qualiy of life.

Real-world use of Control-IQ™ technology automated insulin delivery in pregnancy: A case series with qualitative interviews.

BACKGROUND: Most commercially available automated insulin delivery (AID) systems are not approved for pregnancy use. Information regarding use of the Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ™ technology in pregnancy is lacking. AIMS: This case series aimed to explore glycaemic and qualitative experiences of four early adopters of Control-IQ technology in pregnancy. METHODS: Participants used Control-IQ technology in pregnancy and postpartum and consented to analysis of glycaemic data and semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Case 1 began Control-IQ technology at 10 weeks gestation. Her pregnancy glucose time-in-range (3.5-7.8 mmol/L [63-140 mg/dL]) increased from 58.7% to 73.3% by third trimester. Cases 2-4 began using Control-IQ technology 0-2 months preconception. Pregnancy time-in-range glucose increased from 73.4% to 78.7%, 78% to 83.6%, and 46.5% to 71.9% between first and third trimesters, respectively. A mid-pregnancy decline in time-in-range glucose was observed in two of the four participants related to suboptimal pump setting adjustments and delays in sensor and infusion set replacement. No diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycaemia occurred. All participants reported reduced diabetes management burden and improved sleep with Control-IQ technology use. CONCLUSIONS: Early adopters of Control-IQ technology safely used this system off-label in pregnancy and reported reduced diabetes management burden and improved sleep. The largest glycaemic improvements were observed among those with the lowest pregnancy time-in-range glucose at the beginning of pregnancy. Participants with low pregnancy glucose time-in-range increased their time-in-range with Control-IQ technology use and participants with high pregnancy glucose time-in-range maintained and increased their time-in-range with less diabetes management burden.

UK's Association of British Clinical Diabetologist's Diabetes Technology Network (ABCD-DTN): Best practice guide for hybrid closed-loop therapy.

This best practice guide is written with the aim of providing an overview of current hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems in use within the United Kingdom's (UK) National Health Service (NHS) and to provide education and advice for their management on both an individual and clinical service level. The environment of diabetes technology, and particularly HCL systems, is rapidly evolving. The past decade has seen unprecedented advances in the development of HCL systems. These systems improve glycaemic outcomes and reduce the burden of treatment for people with type 1 diabetes (pwT1D). It is anticipated that access to these systems will increase in England as a result of updates in National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance providing broader support for the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for pwT1D. NICE is currently undertaking multiple-technology appraisal into HCL systems. Based on experience from centres involved in supporting advanced technologies as well as from the recent NHS England HCL pilot, this guide is intended to provide healthcare professionals with UK expert consensus on the best practice for initiation, optimisation and ongoing management of HCL therapy.

Safety, metabolic and psychological outcomes of Medtronic MiniMed 670G in children, adolescents and young adults: a systematic review.

Hybrid closed loop (HCL) systems are the combination of a pump for insulin delivery and a glucose sensor for continuous glucose monitoring. These systems are managed by an algorithm, which delivers insulin on the basis of the interstitial glucose levels. The MiniMed™ 670G system was the first HCL system available for clinical purpose. In this paper, we reviewed the literature about metabolic and psychological outcomes in children, adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes treated with MiniMed™ 670G. Only 30 papers responded to the inclusion criteria and thus were considered. All the papers show that the system is safe and effective in managing glucose control. Metabolic outcomes are available up to 12 months of follow-up; longer study period are lacking. This HCL system may improve HbA1c up to 7.1% and time in range up to 73%. The time spent in hypoglycaemia is almost neglectable. Better improvement in blood glucose control is observed in patients with higher HbA1c at HCL system start and larger daily use of auto-mode functionality.     Conclusion: The Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G is safe and well accepted, without any increase in the burden for patients. Some papers report an improvement in the psychological outcomes, but other papers do not confirm this finding. So far, it significantly improves the management of diabetes mellitus in children, adolescents and young adults. Proper training and support by the diabetes team are mandatory. Studies for a period longer than 1 year would be appreciated to better understand the potentiality of this system. What is Known: • The Medtronic MiniMedTM 670G is a hybrid closed loop system which combines a continuous glucose monitoring sensor with an insulin pump. • It has been the first hybrid closed loop system available for clinical purpose. Adequate training and patients support play a key role in diabetes management. What is New: • The Medtronic MiniMedTM 670G may improve HbA1c and CGM metrics up to 1-year of follow-up, but the improvement appears lower than advanced hybrid closed loop systems. This system is effective to prevent hypoglycaemia. • The psychosocial effects remain less understood in terms of improvement of psychosocial outcomes. The system has been considered to provide flexibility and independence by the patients and their caregivers. The workload required to use this system is perceived as a burden by the patients who decrease the use of auto-mode functionality over time.

Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Pump Technology Can Be Safely Used in the Inpatient Setting.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems, also known as automated insulin delivery systems, are a rapidly growing technology in diabetes management. Because more patients are using these systems in the outpatient setting, it is important to also assess inpatient safety to determine whether HCL use can be continued when those patients become hospitalized. METHODS: The records of patients using HCL technology on admission to our hospital between June 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021, were analyzed. RESULTS: The final analysis included 71 patients divided into 3 categories based on their pump use as an inpatient: (1) HCL users; (2) manual pump users; and (3) pump removed. All cohorts were similar in age, sex, race, hemoglobin A1C at admission, and in Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group. Pairwise comparisons indicated that patient-stay mean glucose levels, frequency of patient-specific hyperglycemic measurements, and frequency of hypoglycemic events were similar between all groups. No adverse events, particularly occurrences of diabetic ketoacidosis, pump site complications or infection, or equipment malfunction, were reported. CONCLUSION: This preliminary case series review indicates that continued use of HCL technology in the hospital is safe. Moreover, glycemic control in HCL users was comparable with that in those using insulin pump with manual settings and those converted to basal-bolus insulin therapy.

The Evolution of Diabetes Technology - Options Toward Personalized Care.

OBJECTIVE: Advances in diabetes technology, especially in the last few decades, have transformed our ability to deliver care to persons with diabetes (PWDs). Developments in glucose monitoring, especially continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, have revolutionized diabetes care and empowered our patients to manage their disease. CGM has also played an integral role in advancing automated insulin delivery systems. OBSERVATIONS: Currently available and upcoming advanced hybrid closed-loop systems aim to decrease patient involvement and are approaching the functionality of a fully automated artificial pancreas. Other advances, such as smart insulin pens and daily patch pumps, offer more options for patients and require less complicated and costly technology. Evidence to support the role of diabetes technology is growing, and PWD and clinicians must choose the right type of technology with a personalized strategy to manage diabetes effectively. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Here, we review currently available diabetes technologies, summarize their individual features, and highlight key patient factors to consider when creating a personalized treatment plan. We also address current challenges and barriers to the adoption of diabetes technologies.

Dietary determinants of postprandial blood glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes on a hybrid closed-loop system.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this work was to assess the relationship between meal nutrients and postprandial blood glucose response (PGR) in individuals with type 1 diabetes on a hybrid closed-loop system (HCLS). METHODS: The dietary composition of 1264 meals (398 breakfasts, 441 lunches and 425 dinners) was assessed by 7-day food records completed by 25 individuals with type 1 diabetes on HCLSs (12 men/13 women, mean ± SD age 40 ± 12 years, mean ± SD HbA1c 51 ± 10 mmol/mol [6.9 ± 0.2%]). For each meal, PGR (continuous glucose monitoring metrics, glucose incremental AUCs) and insulin doses (pre-meal boluses, post-meal microboluses automatically delivered by the pump and adjustment boluses) over 6 h were evaluated. RESULTS: Breakfast, lunch and dinner significantly differed with respect to energy and nutrient intake and insulin doses. The blood glucose postprandial profile showed an earlier peak after breakfast and a slow increase until 4 h after lunch and dinner (p < 0.001). Mean ± SD postprandial time in range (TIR) was better at breakfast (79.3 ± 22.2%) than at lunch (71.3 ± 23.9%) or dinner (70.0 ± 25.9%) (p < 0.001). Significant negative predictors of TIR at breakfast were total energy intake, per cent intake of total protein and monounsaturated fatty acids, glycaemic load and absolute amounts of cholesterol, carbohydrates and simple sugars consumed (p < 0.05 for all). No significant predictors were detected for TIR at lunch. For TIR at dinner, a significant positive predictor was the per cent intake of plant proteins, while negative predictors were glycaemic load and intake amounts of simple sugars and carbohydrate (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: This study shows that nutritional factors other than the amount of carbohydrate significantly influence postprandial blood glucose control. These nutritional determinants vary between breakfast, lunch and dinner, with differing effects on postprandial blood glucose profile and insulin requirements, thus remaining a challenge to HCLSs.

Real-world prospective observational single-centre study: Hybrid closed loop improves HbA1c, time-in-range and quality of life for children, young people and their carers.

Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems are characterised by integrating continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with insulin pumps which automate insulin delivery via specific algorithms and user-initiated insulin delivery. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of HCLs on Hba1c, time-in-range (TIR), time in hypoglycaemia, fear of hypoglycaemia, sleep and quality of life measure in children and young people (CYP) with T1D and their carers. Data on HbA1c, TIR and hypoglycaemia frequency were reviewed at baseline prior to starting HCL and 3 months after commencement. As part of clinical care, all patients and carers were provided with key education on the use of the HCL system by trained diabetes healthcare professionals. CYP aged 12 years and above independently completed the validated Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey (HFS). Parents of patients <12 were asked to complete a modified version of the HFS-Parent (HFS-P) survey. There were 39 CYP (22 men) with T1D included with a mean age of 11.8 ± 4.4 at commencement of HCL. Median duration of diabetes was 3.8 years (interquartile range 1.3-6.0). There were 55% of patients who were prepubertal at the time of HCL commencement. 91% were on the Control-IQ system and 9% on the CamAPS FX system. HCL use demonstrated significant improvements at 3 months in the following: HbA1c in mmol/mol (63.0 vs. 56.6, p = 0.03), TIR (50.5 vs. 67.0, p = 0.001) and time in hypoglycaemia (4.3% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.004). HFS scores showed improved behaviour (34.0 vs. 27.5.9, p = 0.02) and worry (40.2 vs. 31.6, p = 0.03), and HFS-P scores also showed improved behaviour (p < 0.001) and worry (p = 0.01). Our study shows that HCL at 3 months improves glucose control, diabetes management and quality of life measures such as fear and worry of hypoglycaemia for CYP and carers.

Errors of commission or omission: The net risk safety analysis conversation we should be having around automated insulin delivery systems.

The question of safety often arises when discussing automated insulin delivery systems, but discussion of safety is often anchored on a comparison to the risk to a person without diabetes, overlooking the risks of living with insulin-requiring diabetes. We should use a net risk safety perspective for evaluating diabetes technology that takes into account the ongoing risks of insulin management for people living with diabetes.

'We're all on the same team'. Perspectives on the future of artificial pancreas systems by adults in Australia with type 1 diabetes using open-source technologies: A qualitative study.

AIMS: An emerging group of people with type 1 diabetes are not waiting for commercial solutions, choosing to manage their condition with open-source artificial pancreas systems (APS). Our aim was to explore their perspectives on the future of APS. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted (in Australia, October 2018 to January 2019) with 23 adults with type 1 diabetes currently using open-source APS. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Participants described five key features of open-source APS they value: compatibility, user-led design, customisability, ability to evolve faster and community-driven. They attributed the success of the open-source APS movement to benefits they derive from these features: choice, solutions that meet their needs, ownership, staying one step ahead and real-time support. They expressed hope that future commercial products and healthcare would benefit from their learnings and from collaboration with the open-source APS community. CONCLUSIONS: Participants believed that there will always be a place for the open-source community. It will continue to build on and advance commercial products, respond to user needs, offering a higher degree of control and customisation than afforded by commercial products and generating optimism for the future. Participants desired that future commercial diabetes technologies would be inspired by the open-source community and developed collaboratively with people with diabetes.

Friend or Foe: a Narrative Review of the Impact of Diabetes Technology on Sleep.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to present a review of sleep science, the relationship between sleep and type 1 diabetes, and highlight the current literature on sleep outcomes in adult and pediatric diabetes technology research. RECENT FINDINGS: Sleep quality is associated with glycemic outcomes, diabetes self-management, and mental health in people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes technologies, including insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, and hybrid closed-loop systems improve glycemic outcomes. However, many people find this technology challenging for a variety of reasons, including increased burden and frequent alarms, especially during the night. The impact of different devices on sleep quality and quantity has been mixed. The newest technology, the hybrid closed-loop systems, offers the best opportunity for nocturnal glycemic regulation and has improved patient and family perspectives on sleep quality. However, objective sleep assessment has not shown significant improvement on sleep duration. Sleep quality and quantity in people with type 1 diabetes are widely recognized as an important component of health care, and the literature regarding the impact of diabetes devices on sleep is increasing. However, sleep disruptions are common and a barrier to device use. Despite finding minimal changes to sleep duration with device use, subjective accounts of sleep quality are overall positive, especially in those using hybrid closed-loop systems. Sleep quantity and quality are important outcomes to consider as diabetes technology continues to evolve.

COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes: Glycemic control and side effects.

BACKGROUND: Two vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are approved by the World Health Organization (WHO) for minors aged 12 years and over. Currently, people with both type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) are prioritized for vaccination. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate possible glycemic control modification, insulin dose adjustment and adverse effects after COVID-19 vaccination in young T1D individuals, users of different technology levels. METHODS: Thirty-nine T1D individuals, who received a whole vaccination cycle of either Moderna or Pfizer- BioNTech vaccines, were enrolled, 24 of whom using advanced hybrid closed loop systems (AHCLs) and 15 using intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM). Symptoms after each dose and the following variables were considered: time in range 70-180 mg/dl (TIR), time in different glucose ranges, mean glucose levels, coefficient of variation (CV), total daily dose (TDD) and bolus proportion RESULTS: No significant differences in TIR, time in different glucose ranges, mean glucose levels, TDD, bolus proportion, were observed before and after any dose nor before and after the whole vaccination cycle. CV was significantly lower after the whole vaccination cycle (CV pre-vaccination 35.1 ± 6.9% vs. CV post-vaccination 33.5 ± 6.3%; p 0.031) in subjects treated by AHCLs. Side effects after the vaccination were mild and more frequent after the second dose. No severe adverse reactions were reported. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination was safe and not associated with significant perturbation of glycemic control in adolescents and young adults with T1D. This information could be of clinical use when counseling families about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in young people with T1D.