Glycaemic outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes over 34 weeks with the Omnipod® 5 automated insulin delivery system.

AIMS: The aim was to evaluate the effect of extended use of the Omnipod® 5 automated insulin delivery (AID) system in adults with type 2 diabetes and suboptimal glycaemic control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following an 8-week single-arm, multicentre, outpatient trial of AID in adults with type 2 diabetes and baseline ≥ 64 mmol/mol, participants were given the opportunity to continue use of the AID system in a 26-week (~6 month) extension phase. The primary safety endpoints were percentage of time with sensor glucose ≥ 250 mg/dL and < 54 mg/dL. Additional glycaemic measures, including percentage of time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) and HbA1c, were evaluated. The use of non-insulin anti-hyperglycaemic medications was permitted throughout the entire study. RESULTS: During the initial 8-week study, participants (N = 22) achieved a decrease in percentage of time ≥ 250 mg/dL from 27.4% ± 21.0% to 10.5% ± 8.8% (p < 0.0001), which further decreased to 9.7% ± 9.2% during the extension phase (p = 0.0002 vs. standard therapy). Percentage of time < 54 mg/dL remained low from standard therapy through extension (median [interquartile range] 0.00% [0.00%, 0.06%] vs. 0.02% [0.00%, 0.05%], p > 0.05). HbA1c decreased by 1.6% ± 1.2% (15.5 ± 13.1 mmol/mol, p < 0.0001) and TIR increased by 22.4% ± 19.2% (p < 0.0001) from standard therapy through extension with no significant change in body mass index and without an observed increase in total daily insulin requirements. CONCLUSIONS: These longer-term findings of Omnipod 5 AID system use demonstrate the potential value of AID in helping people with type 2 diabetes reach glycaemic targets.

Psychosocial outcomes with the Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System in caregivers of very young children with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have demonstrated improved glycaemic outcomes in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), yet limited data exist on these systems in very young children and their impact on caregivers. We evaluated psychosocial outcomes following use of the tubeless Omnipod® 5 AID System in caregivers of very young children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This 3-month single-arm, multicentre, pivotal clinical trial enrolled 80 children aged 2.0-5.9 years with T1D to use the Omnipod 5 AID System. Caregivers completed questionnaires assessing psychosocial outcomes-diabetes distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes), hypoglycaemia confidence (Hypoglycemia Confidence Scale), well-being (World Health Organization 5 Well-Being Index), sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), insulin delivery satisfaction (Insulin Delivery Satisfaction Survey) and system usability (System Usability Scale) at baseline with standard therapy and after 3 months of AID use. RESULTS: Following 3 months of Omnipod 5 use, caregivers experienced significant improvements across all measures, including diabetes-related psychosocial outcomes (Problem Areas in Diabetes; p < 0.0001, Hypoglycemia Confidence Scale; p < 0.01), well-being (World Health Organization 5 Well-Being Index; p < 0.0001) and perceived system usability (System Usability Scale; p < 0.0001). Significant improvements were seen in the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index total score and the overall sleep quality, sleep duration and efficiency subscales (all p < 0.05). Insulin Delivery Satisfaction Survey scores improved on all subscales (greater satisfaction, reduced burden and reduced inconvenience; all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers face unique challenges when managing T1D in very young children. While glycaemic metrics have unquestioned importance, these results evaluating psychosocial outcomes reveal additional meaningful benefits and suggest that the Omnipod 5 AID System alleviates some of the burdens caregivers face with diabetes management.

Reduced hypoglycaemia using liver-targeted insulin in individuals with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To investigate whether an increased bolus: basal insulin ratio (BBR) with liver-targeted bolus insulin (BoI) would increase BoI use and decrease hypoglycaemic events (HEv). PATIENT POPULATION AND METHODS: We enrolled 52 persons (HbA1c 6.9% ± 0.12%, mean ± SEM) with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections. Hepatic-directed vesicle (HDV) was used to deliver 1% of peripheral injected BoI to the liver. A 90-day run-in period was used to introduce subjects to unblinded continuous glucose monitoring and optimize standard basal insulin (BaI) (degludec) and BoI (lispro) dosing. At 90 days, BoI was changed to HDV-insulin lispro and subjects were randomized to an immediate 10% or 40% decrease in BaI dose. RESULTS: At 90 days postrandomization, total insulin dosing was increased by ~7% in both cohorts. The -10% and -40% BaI cohorts were on 7.7% and 13% greater BoI with 6.9% and 30% (P = .02) increases in BBR, respectively. Compared with baseline at randomization, nocturnal level 2 HEv were reduced by 21% and 43%, with 54% and 59% reductions in patient-reported HEv in the -10% and -40% BaI cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that liver-targeted BoI safely decreases HEv and symptoms without compromising glucose control. We further show that with initiation of liver-targeted BoI, the BBR can be safely increased by significantly lowering BaI dosing, leading to greater BoI usage.

Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Hypoglycemia in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides real-time assessment of glucose levels and may be beneficial in reducing hypoglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes. Objective: To determine whether CGM is effective in reducing hypoglycemia compared with standard blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in older adults with type 1 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 22 endocrinology practices in the United States among 203 adults at least 60 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to use CGM (n = 103) or standard BGM (n = 100). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was CGM-measured percentage of time that sensor glucose values were less than 70 mg/dL during 6 months of follow-up. There were 31 prespecified secondary outcomes, including additional CGM metrics for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and glucose control; hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c); and cognition and patient-reported outcomes, with adjustment for multiple comparisons to control for false-discovery rate. Results: Of the 203 participants (median age, 68 [interquartile range {IQR}, 65-71] years; median type 1 diabetes duration, 36 [IQR, 25-48] years; 52% female; 53% insulin pump use; mean HbA1c, 7.5% [SD, 0.9%]), 83% used CGM at least 6 days per week during month 6. Median time with glucose levels less than 70 mg/dL was 5.1% (73 minutes per day) at baseline and 2.7% (39 minutes per day) during follow-up in the CGM group vs 4.7% (68 minutes per day) and 4.9% (70 minutes per day), respectively, in the standard BGM group (adjusted treatment difference, -1.9% (-27 minutes per day); 95% CI, -2.8% to -1.1% [-40 to -16 minutes per day]; P <.001). Of the 31 prespecified secondary end points, there were statistically significant differences for all 9 CGM metrics, 6 of 7 HbA1c outcomes, and none of the 15 cognitive and patient-reported outcomes. Mean HbA1c decreased in the CGM group compared with the standard BGM group (adjusted group difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -0.4% to -0.1%; P <.001). The most commonly reported adverse events using CGM and standard BGM, respectively, were severe hypoglycemia (1 and 10), fractures (5 and 1), falls (4 and 3), and emergency department visits (6 and 8). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults aged 60 years or older with type 1 diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring compared with standard blood glucose monitoring resulted in a small but statistically significant improvement in hypoglycemia over 6 months. Further research is needed to understand the long-term clinical benefit. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03240432.

Efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart in comparison with insulin aspart in type 1 diabetes (onset 1): A 52-week, randomized, treat-to-target, phase III trial.

AIMS: To compare the safety and efficacy of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) with conventional insulin aspart (IAsp) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: onset 1 was a randomized, multicentre, treat-to-target, phase III, 52-week (initial 26 weeks + additional 26 weeks) trial conducted at 165 sites across 9 countries. Adults with T1D were randomly allocated to double-blind mealtime faster aspart or IAsp, each with once- or twice-daily insulin detemir. The primary endpoint, change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline after the initial 26 weeks, has been reported previously. In the present paper, we report data from the full 52-week study period. RESULTS: Between August 2013 and June 2015, 381 participants were assigned to double-blind faster aspart and 380 participants to IAsp. After 52 weeks, estimated mean changes from baseline in HbA1c levels were -0.08% (faster aspart) and +0.01% (IAsp); estimated treatment difference significantly favoured faster aspart (-0.10% [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.19;-0.00]; P = .0424). Changes from baseline in 1-hour postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) increment (meal test; faster aspart -1.05 mmol/L; IAsp -0.14 mmol/L) also significantly favoured faster aspart (estimated treatment difference -0.91 mmol/L [95% CI -1.40;-0.43]; -16.48 mg/dL [95% CI -25.17;-7.80]; P = .0002). There was no difference in overall severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes or treatment-emergent adverse events between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: At 52 weeks, overall glycaemic control had significantly improved with faster aspart vs IAsp, consistent with the 26-week study findings. Achieving an insulin profile closer to physiological insulin secretion with faster aspart translates into lower PPG and HbA1c levels compared with those achieved with IAsp in people with T1D.

Threshold-based insulin-pump interruption for reduction of hypoglycemia.

BACKGROUND: The threshold-suspend feature of sensor-augmented insulin pumps is designed to minimize the risk of hypoglycemia by interrupting insulin delivery at a preset sensor glucose value. We evaluated sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy with and without the threshold-suspend feature in patients with nocturnal hypoglycemia. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 1 diabetes and documented nocturnal hypoglycemia to receive sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy with or without the threshold-suspend feature for 3 months. The primary safety outcome was the change in the glycated hemoglobin level. The primary efficacy outcome was the area under the curve (AUC) for nocturnal hypoglycemic events. Two-hour threshold-suspend events were analyzed with respect to subsequent sensor glucose values. RESULTS: A total of 247 patients were randomly assigned to receive sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy with the threshold-suspend feature (threshold-suspend group, 121 patients) or standard sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy (control group, 126 patients). The changes in glycated hemoglobin values were similar in the two groups. The mean AUC for nocturnal hypoglycemic events was 37.5% lower in the threshold-suspend group than in the control group (980 ± 1200 mg per deciliter [54.4 ± 66.6 mmol per liter] × minutes vs. 1568 ± 1995 mg per deciliter [87.0 ± 110.7 mmol per liter] × minutes, P<0.001). Nocturnal hypoglycemic events occurred 31.8% less frequently in the threshold-suspend group than in the control group (1.5 ± 1.0 vs. 2.2 ± 1.3 per patient-week, P<0.001). The percentages of nocturnal sensor glucose values of less than 50 mg per deciliter (2.8 mmol per liter), 50 to less than 60 mg per deciliter (3.3 mmol per liter), and 60 to less than 70 mg per deciliter (3.9 mmol per liter) were significantly reduced in the threshold-suspend group (P<0.001 for each range). After 1438 instances at night in which the pump was stopped for 2 hours, the mean sensor glucose value was 92.6 ± 40.7 mg per deciliter (5.1 ± 2.3 mmol per liter). Four patients (all in the control group) had a severe hypoglycemic event; no patients had diabetic ketoacidosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that over a 3-month period the use of sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy with the threshold-suspend feature reduced nocturnal hypoglycemia, without increasing glycated hemoglobin values. (Funded by Medtronic MiniMed; ASPIRE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01497938.).

THE EMERGING ROLE OF ADJUNCTIVE NONINSULIN ANTIHYPERGLYCEMIC THERAPY IN THE MANAGEMENT OF TYPE 1 DIABETES.

OBJECTIVE: Review available data on adjunctive therapies for type 1 diabetes (T1D), with a special focus on newer antihyperglycemic agents. METHODS: Published data on hypoglycemia, obesity, mortality, and goal attainment in T1D were reviewed to determine unmet therapeutic needs. PubMed databases and abstracts from recent diabetes meetings were searched using the term "type 1 diabetes" and the available and investigational sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, and metformin. RESULTS: The majority of patients with T1D do not meet glycated hemoglobin (A1C) goals established by major diabetes organizations. Hypoglycemia risks and a rising incidence of obesity and metabolic syndrome featured in the T1D population limit optimal use of intensive insulin therapy. Noninsulin antihyperglycemic agents may enable T1D patients to achieve target A1C levels using lower insulin doses, which may reduce the risk of hypoglycemia. In pilot studies, the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin and the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide reduced blood glucose, weight, and insulin dose in patients with T1D. Phase 2 studies with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin and the dual SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor sotagliflozin, which acts in the gut and the kidney, have demonstrated reductions in A1C, weight, and glucose variability without an increased incidence of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: Newer antihyperglycemic agents, particularly GLP-1 agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, and dual SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitors, show promise as adjunctive treatment for T1D that may help patients achieve better glucose control without weight gain or increased hypoglycemia.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY 2016 OUTPATIENT GLUCOSE MONITORING CONSENSUS STATEMENT.

This document represents the official position of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology. Where there were no randomized controlled trials or specific U.S. FDA labeling for issues in clinical practice, the participating clinical experts utilized their judgment and experience. Every effort was made to achieve consensus among the committee members. Position statements are meant to provide guidance, but they are not to be considered prescriptive for any individual patient and cannot replace the judgment of a clinician.

PATIENTS ACHIEVING GOOD GLYCEMIC CONTROL (HBA1c <7%) EXPERIENCE A LOWER RATE OF HYPOGLYCEMIA WITH INSULIN DEGLUDEC THAN WITH INSULIN GLARGINE: A META-ANALYSIS OF PHASE 3A TRIALS.

OBJECTIVE: Meta-analysis to compare hypoglycemia rates of basal insulin degludec (IDeg) with insulin glargine (IGlar) in patients with diabetes achieving good glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] <7% at end of trial). METHODS: In a preplanned meta-analysis, patient data from 7 randomized, treat-to-target, 26- or 52-week trials in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who administered IDeg (n = 2,899) or IGlar (n = 1,431) once daily were analyzed. Using a negative binomial regression model, this meta-analysis compared hypoglycemia rates in patients achieving HbA1c <7% at end of trial with IDeg (n = 1,347) and IGlar (n = 697). RESULTS: In all trials, IDeg was noninferior to IGlar in HbA1c reduction from baseline. At end of trial, 2,044 patients (T2DM, n = 1,661; T1DM, n = 383) achieved HbA1c <7%. The overall confirmed hypoglycemia rate, defined as plasma glucose <56 mg/dL or severe hypoglycemia if requiring assistance, was significantly lower with IDeg versus IGlar (estimated rate ratio [ERR] IDeg:IGlar, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 0.98). The nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia rate, defined as occurring between midnight and 6:00 am, was significantly lower with IDeg (ERR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.77). In the maintenance period (16 weeks onward when average insulin dose and glycemic levels stabilized), the overall confirmed hypoglycemia rate was significantly lower (ERR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.92) and the nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia rate was significantly lower (ERR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.72) with IDeg versus IGlar. CONCLUSION: Patients with T1DM and T2DM achieved HbA1c <7% with significantly lower rates of overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia with IDeg versus IGlar. The lower hypoglycemia rate with IDeg was more pronounced in the maintenance period.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec 200 U/mL and Insulin Degludec 100 U/mL in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes (Begin: Compare).

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to provide clinical data on the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec (IDeg) 200 U/mL compared with IDeg 100 U/mL in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) currently treated with basal insulin in combination with oral antidiabetic drugs. METHODS: In this 22-week, treat-to-target trial, eligible adult patients with T2DM were randomized 1:1 to IDeg 200 or IDeg 100 U/mL once daily (OD) (n = 186 and 187, respectively). The starting insulin dose was based on a 1:1 transfer of the total prerandomization basal insulin dose. The primary endpoint was change (%) from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin A1C (A1C) after 22 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 373 subjects (mean age 59.8 years, A1C 8.2%, fasting plasma glucose 149.6 mg/dL [8.3 mmol/L], body mass index 33.3 kg/m2) were randomized. A1C reduction with IDeg 200 U/mL was noninferior to that of IDeg 100 U/mL (IDeg 200 U/mL - IDeg 100 U/mL estimated treatment difference: -0.11%, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.28 to 0.05). Rates of overall confirmed hypoglycemia were low and similar between both formulations (5.17 and 5.66 events/patient-year of exposure [PYE] for IDeg 200 and 100 U/mL, respectively). Similarly, the rates of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia were low (1.27 and 1.70 events/PYE for 200 and 100 U/mL). In general, both IDeg formulations were well tolerated (respective rates of adverse events: 4.16 and 3.00 events/PYE for 200 and 100 U/mL). CONCLUSION: The 200 and 100 U/mL formulations of IDeg provide comparable and effective levels of glycemic control with similar, low rates of overall confirmed and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia.

Glycemic Outcomes Persist for up to 2 Years in Very Young Children with the Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System.

Background: To evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of the Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System in very young children with type 1 diabetes with up to 2 years of use. Methods: Following a 13-week single-arm, multicenter, pivotal trial that took place after 14 days of standard therapy data collection, participating children (2-5.9 years of age at study enrollment) were provided the option to continue use of the AID system in an extension phase. HbA1c was measured every 3 months, up to 15 months of total use, and continuous glucose monitor metrics were collected through the completion of the extension study (for up to 2 years). Results: Participants (N = 80) completed 18.2 [17.4, 23.4] (median [interquartile range]) total months of AID, inclusive of the 3-month pivotal trial. During the pivotal trial, HbA1c decreased from 7.4% ± 1.0% (57 ± 10.9 mmol/mol) to 6.9% ± 0.7% (52 ± 7.7 mmol/mol, P < 0.0001) and was maintained at 7.0% ± 0.7% (53 ± 7.7 mmol/mol) after 15 months total use (P < 0.0001 from baseline). Time in target range (70-180 mg/dL) increased from 57.2% ± 15.3% during standard therapy to 68.1% ± 9.0% during the pivotal trial (P < 0.0001) and was maintained at 67.2% ± 9.3% during the extension phase (P < 0.0001 from standard therapy). Participants spent a median 97.1% of time in Automated Mode during the extension phase, with one episode of severe hypoglycemia and one episode of diabetic ketoacidosis. Conclusion: This evaluation of the Omnipod 5 AID System indicates that long-term use can safely maintain improvements in glycemic outcomes with up to 2 years of use in very young children with type 1 diabetes. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT04476472.

Efficacy and Safety of a Tubeless AID System Compared With Pump Therapy With CGM in the Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes in Adults With Suboptimal Glycemia: A Randomized, Parallel-Group Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of the tubeless Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System compared with pump therapy with a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) in adults with type 1 diabetes with suboptimal glycemic outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 13-week multicenter, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial performed in the U.S. and France, adults aged 18-70 years with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c 7-11% (53-97 mmol/mol) were randomly assigned (2:1) to intervention (tubeless AID) or control (pump therapy with CGM) following a 2-week standard therapy period. The primary outcome was a treatment group comparison of time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) during the trial period. RESULTS: A total of 194 participants were randomized, with 132 assigned to the intervention and 62 to the control. TIR during the trial was 4.2h/day higher in the intervention compared with the control group (mean difference 17.5% [95% CI 14.0%, 21.1%]; P < 0.0001). The intervention group had a greater reduction in HbA1c from baseline compared with the control group (mean ± SD -1.24 ± 0.75% [-13.6 ± 8.2 mmol/mol] vs. -0.68 ± 0.93% [-7.4 ± 10.2 mmol/mol], respectively; P < 0.0001), accompanied by a significantly lower time <70 mg/dL (1.18 ± 0.86% vs. 1.75 ± 1.68%; P = 0.005) and >180 mg/dL (37.6 ± 11.4% vs. 54.5 ± 15.4%; P < 0.0001). All primary and secondary outcomes were met. No instances of diabetes-related ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the tubeless AID system led to improved glycemic outcomes compared with pump therapy with CGM among adults with type 1 diabetes, underscoring the clinical benefit of AID and bolstering recommendations to establish AID systems as preferred therapy for this population.

Two Years with a Tubeless Automated Insulin Delivery System: A Single-Arm Multicenter Trial in Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Background: The Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System was shown to be safe and effective following 3 months of use in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D); however, data on the durability of these results are limited. This study evaluated the long-term safety and effectiveness of Omnipod 5 use in people with T1D during up to 2 years of use. Materials and Methods: After a 3-month single-arm, multicenter, pivotal trial in children (6-13.9 years) and adolescents/adults (14-70 years), participants could continue system use in an extension phase. HbA1c was measured every 3 months for up to 15 months; continuous glucose monitor metrics were collected for up to 2 years. Results: Participants (N = 224) completed median (interquartile range) 22.3 (21.7, 22.7) months of AID. HbA1c was reduced in the pivotal trial from 7.7% ± 0.9% in children and 7.2% ± 0.9% in adolescents/adults to 7.0% ± 0.6% and 6.8% ± 0.7%, respectively, (P < 0.0001), and was maintained at 7.2% ± 0.7% and 6.9% ± 0.6% after 15 months (P < 0.0001 from baseline). Time in target range (70-180 mg/dL) increased from 52.4% ± 15.6% in children and 63.6% ± 16.5% in adolescents/adults at baseline to 67.9% ± 8.0% and 73.8% ± 10.8%, respectively, during the pivotal trial (P < 0.0001) and was maintained at 65.9% ± 8.9% and 72.9% ± 11.3% during the extension (P < 0.0001 from baseline). One episode of diabetic ketoacidosis and seven episodes of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the extension. Children and adolescents/adults spent median 96.1% and 96.3% of time in Automated Mode, respectively. Conclusion: Our study supports that long-term use of the Omnipod 5 AID System can safely maintain improvements in glycemic outcomes for up to 2 years of use in people with T1D. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT04196140.

A Randomized Comparison of Postprandial Glucose Excursion Using Inhaled Insulin Versus Rapid-Acting Analog Insulin in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Using Multiple Daily Injections of Insulin or Automated Insulin Delivery.

OBJECTIVE: To compare postprandial glucose excursions following a bolus with inhaled technosphere insulin (TI) or subcutaneous rapid-acting analog (RAA) insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A meal challenge was completed by 122 adults with type 1 diabetes who were using multiple daily injections (MDI), a nonautomated pump, or automated insulin delivery (AID) and who were randomized to bolus with their usual RAA insulin (n = 61) or TI (n = 61). RESULTS: The primary outcome, the treatment group difference in area under the curve for glucose >180 mg/dL over 2 h, was less with TI versus RAA (adjusted difference -12 mg/dL, 95% CI -22 to -2, P = 0.02). With TI, the glucose excursion was smaller (P = 0.01), peak glucose lower (P = 0.01), and time to peak glucose shorter (P = 0.006). Blood glucose <70 mg/dL occurred in one participant in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Postmeal glucose excursion was smaller with TI than with RAA insulin in a cohort that included both AID and MDI users.

Assessing Time in Range with Postprandial Glucose-Focused Titration of Ultra Rapid Lispro (URLi) in People with Type 1 Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: To assess time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) with postprandial glucose (PPG)-focused titration of ultra rapid lispro (URLi; Lyumjev®) in combination with insulin degludec in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: This phase 2, single-group, open-label, exploratory study was conducted in 31 participants with T1D on multiple daily injection therapy. Participants were treated with insulin degludec and Lispro for an 11-day lead-in and then URLi for a 46-day treatment period consisting of 35-day titration and 11-day endpoint maintenance period. Glucose targets for the titration period were PPG < 140 mg/dL or < 20% increase from premeal, fasting glucose 80-110 mg/dL, and overnight excursion ± 30 mg/dL or less. Participants used the InPen™ bolus calculator and Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). RESULTS: Primary endpoint mean TIR (70-180 mg/dL) with URLi during the maintenance period was 70.2%. TIR (70-180 mg/dL) and times below/above range were not significantly different with URLi (maintenance) versus lispro (lead-in). HbA1c decreased from 7.1% at screening to 6.8% at endpoint (least squares mean [LSM] change from baseline, - 0.36%; P < 0.001). Fructosamine and 1,5-anhydroglucitol improved (P < 0.001). Mean hourly glucose using CGM was reduced from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM with URLi. Overall highest PPG excursion across meals was significantly reduced at URLi endpoint compared with lispro lead-in (mean 56.5 vs 72.4 mg/dL; P < 0.001). Insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio (U/X g) was reduced (more insulin given) at breakfast at URLi endpoint vs lead-in (LSM 9.0 vs 9.7 g; P = 0.002) and numerically decreased at other meals. Total daily insulin dose (TDD) was higher at URLi endpoint compared with lispro lead-in (mean 50.2 vs 47.0 U; P = 0.046) with similar prandial/TDD ratio (mean 52.1% vs 51.2%). There were no severe hypoglycemia events during the study. CONCLUSIONS: URLi in a basal-bolus regimen focusing on PPG targets demonstrated improved overall glycemic control and reduced PPG excursions without increased hypoglycemia in participants with T1D. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT04585776.

Increased Time in Range with Ultra Rapid Lispro Treatment in Participants with Type 2 Diabetes: PRONTO-Time in Range.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate time in range metrics and HbA1c in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with ultra rapid lispro (URLi) using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the first time in this population. METHODS: This was a Phase 3b, 12-week, single-treatment study in adults with T2D on basal-bolus multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy using basal insulin glargine U-100 along with a rapid-acting insulin analog. Following a 4-week baseline period, 176 participants were newly treated with prandial URLi. Participants used unblinded CGM (Freestyle Libre). Primary endpoint was time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dl) during the daytime period at Week 12 compared to baseline with gated secondary endpoints of HbA1c change from baseline and 24-h TIR (70-180 mg/dl). RESULTS: Improved glycemic control was observed at Week 12 versus baseline including mean daytime TIR (change from baseline [Δ] 3.8%; P = 0.007), HbA1c (Δ - 0.44%; P < 0.001), and 24-h TIR (Δ 3.3%; P = 0.016) with no significant difference in time below range (TBR). After 12 weeks, there was a statistically significant decrease in postprandial glucose incremental area under curve, overall, across all meals, within 1 h (P = 0.005) or 2 h (P < 0.001) after the start of a meal. Basal, bolus, and total insulin dose were intensified with increased bolus/total dose ratio at Week 12 (50.7%) versus baseline (44.5%; P < 0.001). There were no severe hypoglycemia events during the treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: In people with T2D, URLi in an MDI regimen was efficacious with improved glycemic control including TIR, HbA1c, and postprandial glucose without increased hypoglycemia/TBR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04605991.

Safety and Efficacy of the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: From Injections to Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Automated insulin delivery (AID) has rarely been studied in adults with type 2 diabetes. We tested the feasibility of using AID for type 2 diabetes with the Omnipod 5 System in a multicenter outpatient trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants previously were using either basal-only or basal-bolus insulin injections, with or without the use of a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and had a baseline HbA1c ≥8% (≥64 mmol/mol). Participants completed 2 weeks of CGM sensor data collection (blinded for those not previously using CGM) with their standard therapy (ST), then transitioned to 8 weeks of AID. Participants who previously used basal-only injections used the AID system in manual mode for 2 weeks before starting AID. Antihyperglycemic agents were continued at clinician discretion. Primary safety outcomes were percentage of time with sensor glucose ≥250 mg/dL and <54 mg/dL during AID. Additional outcomes included HbA1c and time in target range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL). RESULTS: Participants (N = 24) had a mean (± SD) age of 61 ± 8 years, baseline HbA1c of 9.4% ± 0.9% (79 ± 10 mmol/mol), and diabetes duration of 19 ± 9 years. Percentage of time with sensor glucose ≥250 mg/dL decreased with AID by 16.9% ± 16.2% (P < 0.0001), whereas percentage of time at <54 mg/dL remained low during both ST and AID (median [interquartile range] 0.0% [0.00%, 0.06%] vs. 0.00% [0.00%, 0.03%]; P = 0.4543). HbA1c (± SD) decreased by 1.3% ± 0.7% (14 ± 8 mmol/mol; P < 0.0001) and TIR increased by 21.9% ± 15.2% (P < 0.0001) without a significant change in total daily insulin or BMI with AID. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this feasibility trial of AID in adults with type 2 diabetes with suboptimal glycemic outcomes justify further evaluation of this technology in this population.

Improved Glycemia with Hybrid Closed-Loop Versus Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective: To evaluate safety and effectiveness of MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed loop (HCL) in comparison with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy for 6 months in persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Adults (aged 18-80 years), adolescents, and children (aged 2-17 years) with T1D who were using CSII therapy were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to 6 months of HCL intervention (n = 151, mean age of 39.9 ± 19.8 years) or CSII without continuous glucose monitoring (n = 151, 35.7 ± 18.4 years). Primary effectiveness endpoints included change in A1C for Group 1 (baseline A1C >8.0%), from baseline to the end of study, and difference in the end of study percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL (%TBR <70 mg/dL) for Group 2 (baseline A1C ≤8.0%), to show superiority of HCL intervention versus control. Secondary effectiveness endpoints were change in A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 2 and Group 1, respectively, to show noninferiority of HCL intervention versus control. Primary safety endpoints were rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Results: Change in A1C and difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for the overall group were significantly improved, in favor of HCL intervention. In addition, a significant mean (95% confidence interval) change in A1C was observed for both Group 1 (-0.8% [-1.1% to -0.4%], P < 0.0001) and Group 2 (-0.3% [-0.5% to -0.1%], P < 0.0001), in favor of HCL intervention. The same was observed for difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 1 (-2.2% [-3.6% to -0.9%]) and Group 2 (-4.9% [-6.3% to -3.6%]) (P < 0.0001 for both). There was one DKA event during run-in and six severe hypoglycemic events: two during run-in and four during study (HCL: n = 0 and CSII: n = 4 [6.08 per 100 patient-years]). Conclusions: This RCT demonstrates that the MiniMed 670G HCL safely and significantly improved A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL compared with CSII control in persons with T1D, irrespective of baseline A1C level.

Safety and Glycemic Outcomes During the MiniMedTM Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Pivotal Trial in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes.

Background: During MiniMed™ advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) use by adolescents and adults in the pivotal trial, glycated hemoglobin (A1C) was significantly reduced, time spent in range (TIR) was significantly increased, and there were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). The present study investigated the same primary safety and effectiveness endpoints during AHCL use by a younger cohort with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: An intention-to-treat population (N = 160, aged 7-17 years) with T1D was enrolled in a single-arm study at 13 investigational centers. There was a run-in period (∼25 days) using HCL or sensor-augmented pump with/without predictive low-glucose management, followed by a 3-month study period with AHCL activated at two glucose targets (GTs; 100 and 120 mg/dL) for ∼45 days each. The mean ± standard deviation values of A1C, TIR, mean sensor glucose (SG), coefficient of variation (CV) of SG, time at SG ranges, and insulin delivered between run-in and study were analyzed (Wilcoxon signed-rank test or t-test). Results: Compared with baseline, AHCL use was associated with reduced A1C from 7.9 ± 0.9% (N = 160) to 7.4 ± 0.7% (N = 136) (P < 0.001) and overall TIR increased from the run-in 59.4 ± 11.8% to 70.3 ± 6.5% by end of study (P < 0.001), without change in CV, time spent below range (TBR) <70 mg/dL, or TBR <54 mg/dL. Relative to longer active insulin time (AIT) settings (N = 52), an AIT of 2 h (N = 19) with the 100 mg/dL GT increased mean TIR to 73.4%, reduced TBR <70 mg/dL from 3.5% to 2.2%, and reduced time spent above range (TAR) >180 mg/dL from 28.7% to 24.4%. During AHCL use, there was no severe hypoglycemia or DKA. Conclusions: In children and adolescents with T1D, MiniMed AHCL system use was safe, A1C was lower, and TIR was increased. The lowest GT and shortest AIT were associated with the highest TIR and lowest TBR and TAR, all of which met consensus-recommended glycemic targets. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03959423.

Clinical Evaluation of a Novel CGM-Informed Bolus Calculator with Automatic Glucose Trend Adjustment.

Background: Expert opinion guidelines and limited data from clinical trials recommend adjustment to bolus insulin doses based on continuous glucose monitor (CGM) trend data, yet minimal evidence exists to support this approach. We performed a clinical evaluation of a novel CGM-informed bolus calculator (CIBC) with automatic insulin bolus dose adjustment based on CGM trend used with sensor-augmented pump therapy. Materials and Methods: In this multicenter, outpatient study, participants 6-70 years of age with type 1 diabetes (T1D) used the Omnipod® 5 System in Manual Mode, first for 7 days without a connected CGM (standard bolus calculator, SBC, phase 1) and then for 7 days with a connected CGM using the CIBC (CIBC phase 2). The integrated bolus calculator used stored pump settings plus user-estimated meal size and/or either a manually entered capillary glucose value (SBC phase) or an imported current CGM value and trend (CIBC phase) to recommend a bolus amount. The CIBC automatically increased or decreased the suggested bolus amount based on the CGM trend. Results: Twenty-five participants, (mean ± standard deviation) 27 ± 15 years of age, with T1D duration 12 ± 9 years and A1C 7.0% ± 0.9% completed the study. There were significantly fewer sensor readings <70 mg/dL 4 h postbolus with the CIBC compared to the SBC (2.1% ± 2.0% vs. 2.8 ± 2.7, P = 0.03), while percent of sensor readings >180 and 70-180 mg/dL remained the same. There was no difference in insulin use or number of boluses given between the two phases. Conclusion: The CIBC was safe when used with the Omnipod 5 System in Manual Mode, with fewer hypoglycemic readings in the postbolus period compared to the SBC. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04320069).