Reduced burden of diabetes and improved quality of life: Experiences from unrestricted day-and-night hybrid closed-loop use in very young children with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the experiences of families with very young children aged 1 to 7 years (inclusive) with type 1 diabetes using day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery. METHODS: Parents/caregivers of 20 children aged 1 to 7 years with type 1 diabetes completed a closed-loop experience survey following two 3-week periods of unrestricted day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin therapy using Cambridge FlorenceM system at home. Benefits, limitations, and improvements of closed-loop technology were explored. RESULTS: Responders reported reduced burden of diabetes management, less time spent managing diabetes, and improved quality of sleep with closed-loop. Ninety percent of the responders felt less worried about their child's glucose control using closed-loop. Size of study devices, battery performance and connectivity issues were identified as areas for improvement. Parents/caregivers wished for more options to input information to the system such as temporary glucose targets. CONCLUSIONS: Parents/caregivers of very young children reported important quality of life benefits associated with using closed-loop, supporting adoption of this technology in this population.

Intermittent Scanning Glucose Monitoring or Predicted Low Suspend Pump Treatment: Does It Impact Time in Glucose Target and Treatment Preference? The QUEST Randomized Crossover Study.

Objective: To compare glycemic control and treatment preference in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using sensor augmented pump (SAP) with predictive low glucose suspend (SmartGuard®) or pump with independent intermittent scanning continuous glucose monitoring (iscCGM, Freestyle libre ®). Methods: In this open label, cross-over study, children 6 to 14 years of age, treated with insulin pump for at least 6 months, were randomized to insulin pump and iscCGM (A) or SAP with SmartGuard® (B) for 5 weeks followed by 5 additional weeks. The difference in percentages of time in glucose target (TIT), (3.9 - 8.0 mmol/l), <3 mmol/l, > 8 and 10 mmol/l, were analyzed using linear mixed models during the final week of each arm and were measured by blinded CGM (IPro2®). Results: 31 children (15 girls) finished the study. With sensor compliance > 60%, no difference in TIT was found, TIT: A 37.86%; 95% CI [33.21; 42.51]; B 37.20%; 95% CI [32.59; 41.82]; < 3 mmol/l A 2.27% 95% CI [0.71; 3.84] B 1.42% 95% CI [-0.13; 2.97]; > 8 mmol/l A 0.60% 95% CI [0.56, 0.67]; B 0.63% [0.56; 0.70]. One year after the study all participants were on CGM compared to 80.7% prior to the study, with a shift of 13/25 participants from iscCGM to SAP. Conclusions: In this study, no significant difference in glycemic control was found whether treated with SAP (SmartGuard®) or pump with iscCGM. The decision of all families to continue with CGM after the study suggests a positive impact, with preference for SmartGuard®. Clinical Trial Registration: [clinicaltrials.gov], identifier NCT03103867.

Psychological Well-Being of Parents of Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes - Baseline Assessment.

Background: Type 1 diabetes in young children is a heavy parental burden. As part of pilot phase of the KIDSAP01 study, we conducted a baseline assessment in parents to study the association between hypoglycemia fear, parental well-being and child behavior. Methods: All parents were invited to fill in baseline questionnaires: hypoglycemia fear survey (HFS), WHO-5, Epworth Sleepiness Scale and Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Results: 24 children (median age: 5-year, range 1-7 years, 63% male, mean diabetes duration: 3 ± 1.7 years) participated. 23/24 parents filled out the questionnaires. We found a higher score for the hypoglycemia fear behavior 33.9 ± 5.6 compared to hypoglycemia worry 34.6 ± 12.2. Median WHO-5 score was 16 (8 - 22) with poor well-being in two parents. Median daytime sleepiness score was high in five parents (>10). For six children a high total behavioral difficulty score (>16) was reported. Pro social behavior score was lower than normal in six children (<6). Parental well-being was negatively associated with HFS total (r = - 0.50, p <.05) and subscale scores (r = - 0.44, p <.05 for HFS-Worry and HFS-Behavior), child behavior (r = - 0.45, p = .05) and positively with child age and diabetes duration (r = 0.58, p <.01, r = 0.6, p <.01). HFS, parental well-being nor daytime sleepiness are associated with the HbA1c. Conclusion: Regular screening of parental well-being, hypoglycemia fear and child behavior should be part of routine care to target early intervention.

Home Use of Day-and-Night Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Very Young Children: A Multicenter, 3-Week, Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in children with type 1 diabetes aged 1-7 years as well as evaluate the role of diluted insulin on glucose control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In an open-label, multicenter, multinational, randomized crossover study, 24 children with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy (median age 5 years [interquartile range 3-6] and mean ± SD HbA1c 7.4 ± 0.7% [57 ± 8 mmol/mol] and total insulin 13.2 ± 4.8 units/day) underwent two 21-day periods of unrestricted living and we compared hybrid closed-loop with diluted insulin (U20) and hybrid closed-loop with standard strength insulin (U100) in random order. During both interventions, the Cambridge model predictive control algorithm was used. RESULTS: The proportion of time that sensor glucose was in the target range between 3.9 and 10 mmol/L (primary end point) was not different between interventions (mean ± SD 72 ± 8% vs. 70 ± 7% for closed-loop with diluted insulin vs. closed-loop with standard insulin, respectively; P = 0.16). There was no difference in mean glucose levels (8.0 ± 0.8 vs. 8.2 ± 0.6 mmol/L; P = 0.14), glucose variability (SD of sensor glucose 3.1 ± 0.5 vs. 3.2 ± 0.4 mmol/L; P = 0.16), or the proportion of time spent with sensor glucose <3.9 mmol/L (4.5 ± 1.7% vs. 4.7 ± 1.4%; P = 0.47) or <2.8 mmol/L (0.6 ± 0.5% vs. 0.6 ± 0.4%; P > 0.99). Total daily insulin delivery did not differ (17.3 ± 5.6 vs. 18.9 ± 6.9 units/day; P = 0.07). No closed-loop-related severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Unrestricted home use of day-and-night closed-loop in very young children with type 1 diabetes is feasible and safe. The use of diluted insulin during closed-loop does not provide additional benefits compared with standard strength insulin.

Effect of predicted low suspend pump treatment on improving glycaemic control and quality of sleep in children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers: the QUEST randomized crossover study.

BACKGROUND: In attempting to achieve optimal metabolic control, the day-to-day management is challenging for a child with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and his family and can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Augmenting an insulin pump with glucose sensor information leads to improved outcomes: decreased haemoglobin A1c levels, increased time in glucose target and less hypoglycaemia. Fear of nocturnal hypoglycaemia remains pervasive amongst parents, leading to chronic sleep interruption and lack of sleep for the parents and their children. The QUEST study, an open-label, single-centre randomized crossover study, aims to evaluate the impact on time in target, in hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia and the effect on sleep and quality of life in children with T1D, comparing a sensor-augmented pump (SAP) with predictive low glucose suspend and alerts to the use of the same insulin pump with a flash glucose measurement (FGM) device not interacting with the pump. METHODS/DESIGN: Subjects meeting the inclusion criteria are randomized to treatment with the SAP or treatment with an insulin pump and independent FGM for 5 weeks. Following a 3-week washout period, the subjects cross over to the other study arm for 5 weeks. During the week before and in the last week of treatment, the subjects and one of their caregivers wear a sleep monitor in order to obtain sleep data. The primary endpoint is the between-arm difference in percentage of time in glucose target during the final 6 days of each treatment arm, measured by a blinded continuous glucose measurement (CGM). Additional endpoints include comparison of quantity and quality of sleep as well as quality of life perception of the subjects and one of their caregivers in the two different treatment arms. Recruitment started in February 2017. A total of 36 patients are planned to be randomized. The study recruitment was completed in April 2018. DISCUSSION: With this study we will provide more information on whether insulin pump treatment combined with more technology (SmartGuard® feature and alerts) leads to better metabolic control. The inclusion of indicators on quality of sleep with less sleep interruption, less lack of sleep and perception of quality of life in both children and their primary caregivers is essential for this study and might help to guide us to further treatment improvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03103867 . Registered on 6 April 2017.