Twelve-month results of the ADAPT randomized controlled trial: Reproducibility and sustainability of advanced hybrid closed-loop therapy outcomes versus conventional therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To reassess the 6-month efficacy and to assess the 12-month sustained efficacy of the MiniMed™ 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop automated insulin delivery (AID) system compared to multiple daily injections plus intermittently scanned glucose monitoring (MDI+isCGM) in people with type 1 diabetes not meeting glucose targets. METHODS: The ADAPT study was a prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomized control trial in people with type 1 diabetes, with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration of at least 8.0% (64 mmol/mol), on MDI+isCGM therapy. After a 6-month study phase, participants randomized at baseline to MDI+isCGM switched to AID (SWITCH) while the others continued AID therapy (SUSTAIN) for an additional 6 months. The primary endpoint of this continuation phase was the within-group change in mean HbA1c between 6 and 12 months, with superiority in the SWITCH group and noninferiority in the SUSTAIN group (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04235504). RESULTS: A total of 39 SWITCH and 36 SUSTAIN participants entered the continuation phase. In the SWITCH group, HbA1c was significantly decreased by -1.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.7% to -1.1%; P < 0.001) from a mean ± SD of 8.9% ± 0.8% (73.9 ± 8.6 mmol/mol) at 6 months to 7.5% ± 0.6% (58.5 ± 6.9 mmol/mol) at 12 months. Mean HbA1c increased by 0.1% (95% CI -0.05% to +0.25%), from 7.3% ± 0.6% (56.5 ± 6.7 mmol/mol) to 7.4% ± 0.8% (57.7 ± 9.1 mmol/mol) in the SUSTAIN group, meeting noninferiority criteria. Three severe hypoglycaemia events occurred in two SWITCH participants during the continuation phase. CONCLUSION: ADAPT study phase glycaemic improvements were reproduced and sustained in the continuation phase, supporting the early adoption of AID therapy in people with type 1 diabetes not meeting glucose targets on MDI therapy.

How to Use Continuous Glucose Monitoring Efficiently in Diabetes Management: Opinions and Recommendations by German Experts on the Status and Open Questions.

Today, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is a standard diagnostic option for patients with diabetes, at least for those with type 1 diabetes and those with type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy, according to international guidelines. The switch from spot capillary blood glucose measurement to CGM was driven by the extensive and immediate support and facilitation of diabetes management CGM offers. In patients not using insulin, the benefits of CGM are not so well studied/obvious. In such patients, factors like well-being and biofeedback are driving CGM uptake and outcome. Apps can combine CGM data with data about physical activity and meal consumption for therapy adjustments. Personalized data management and coaching is also more feasible with CGM data. The same holds true for digitalization and telemedicine intervention ("virtual diabetes clinic"). Combining CGM data with Smart Pens ("patient decision support") helps to avoid missing insulin boluses or insulin miscalculation. Continuous glucose monitoring is a major pillar of all automated insulin delivery systems, which helps substantially to avoid acute complications and achieve more time in the glycemic target range. These options were discussed by a group of German experts to identify concrete gaps in the care structure, with a view to the necessary structural adjustments of the health care system.

Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop in Adult Population With Type 1 Diabetes: A Substudy From the ADAPT Randomized Controlled Trial in Users of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

BACKGROUND: This analysis reports the findings from a predefined exploratory cohort (cohort B) from the ADAPT (ADvanced Hybrid Closed Loop Study in Adult Population with Type 1 Diabetes) study. Adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) with suboptimal glucose control were randomly allocated to an advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system or multiple daily injections of insulin (MDI) plus real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM). METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, exploratory, open-label, randomized controlled trial, 13 participants using MDI + RT-CGM and with HbA1c ≥8.0% were randomized to switch to AHCL (n = 8) or continue with MDI + RT-CGM (n = 5) for six months. Prespecified endpoints included the between-group difference in mean change from baseline in HbA1c, CGM-derived measures of glycemic control, and safety. RESULTS: The mean HbA1c level decreased by 1.70 percentage points in the AHCL group versus a 0.60 percentage point decrease in the MDI + RT-CGM group, with a model-based treatment effect of -1.08 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.17 to 0.00 percentage points; P = .0508) in favor of AHCL. The percentage of time spent with sensor glucose levels between 70 and 180 mg/dL in the study phase was 73.6% in the AHCL group and 46.4% in the MDI + RT-CGM group; model-based between-group difference of 28.8 percentage points (95% CI = 12.3 to 45.3 percentage points; P = .0035). No diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In people with T1D with HbA1c ≥8.0%, the use of AHCL resulted in improved glycemic control relative to MDI + RT-CGM. The scale of improvement suggests that AHCL should be considered as an option for people not achieving good glycemic control on MDI + RT-CGM.

Advanced hybrid closed loop therapy versus conventional treatment in adults with type 1 diabetes (ADAPT): a randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Adults with type 1 diabetes who are treated with multiple daily injections of insulin plus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) can have suboptimal glucose control. We aimed to assess the efficacy of an advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system compared with such therapy in this population. METHODS: The Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop Study in Adult Population with Type 1 Diabetes (ADAPT) trial is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial that involved 14 centres in three European countries (France, Germany, and the UK). We enrolled patients who were at least 18 years of age, had a type 1 diabetes duration of at least 2 years, HbA1c of at least 8% (64 mmol/mol), and were using multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM (cohort A) or real time continuous glucose monitoring (cohort B) for at least 3 months. Here, only results for cohort A are reported. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to AHCL therapy or continuation of multiple daily injections of insulin plus continuous glucose monitoring for 6 months with an investigator-blinded block randomisation procedure. Participants and treating clinicians could not be masked to the arm assignment. The primary endpoint was the between-group difference in mean HbA1c change from baseline to 6 months in the intention-to-treat population using AHCL therapy and those using multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM. The primary endpoint was analysed using a repeated measures random-effects model with the study arm and period as factors. Safety endpoints included the number of device deficiencies, severe hypoglycaemic events, diabetic ketoacidosis, and serious adverse events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04235504. FINDINGS: Between July 13, 2020, and March 12, 2021, 105 people were screened and 82 randomly assigned to treatment (41 in each arm). At 6 months, mean HbA1c had decreased by 1·54% (SD 0·73), from 9·00% to 7·32% in the AHCL group and 0·20% (0·80) in the multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM from 9·07% to 8·91% (model-based difference -1·42%, 95% CI -1·74 to -1·10; p<0·0001). No diabetic ketoacidosis, severe hypoglycaemia, or serious adverse events related to study devices occurred in either group; two severe hypoglycaemic events occurred in the run-in phase. 15 device-related non-serious adverse events occurred in the AHCL group, compared with three in the multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM group. Two serious adverse events occurred (one in each group), these were breast cancer (in one patient in the AHCL group) and intravitreous haemorrhage (in one patient in the multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM group). INTERPRETATION: In people with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM and with HbA1c of at least 8%, the use of AHCL confers benefits in terms of glycaemic control beyond those that can be achieved with multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM. These data support wider access to AHCL in people with type 1 diabetes not at target glucose levels. FUNDING: Medtronic International Trading Sàrl.

The Development of New Composite Metrics for the Comprehensive Analytic and Visual Assessment of Hypoglycemia Using the Hypo-Triad.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying hypoglycemia has traditionally been limited to using the frequency of hypoglycemic events during a given time interval using data from blood glucose (BG) testing. However, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) captures three parameters-a Hypo-Triad-unavailable with BG monitoring that can be used to better characterize hypoglycemia: area under the curve (AUC), time (duration of hypoglycemia), and frequency of daily episodes below a specified threshold. METHODS: We developed two new analytic metrics to enhance the traditional Hypo-Triad of CGM-derived data to more effectively capture the intensity of hypoglycemia (IntHypo) and overall hypoglycemic environment called the "hypoglycemia risk volume" (HypoRV). We reanalyzed the CGM data from the ASPIRE In-Home study, a randomized, controlled trial of a sensor-integrated pump system with a low glucose threshold suspend feature (SIP+TS), using these new metrics and compared them to standard metrics of hypoglycemia. RESULTS: IntHypo and HypoRV provide additional insights into the benefit of a SIP+TS system on glycemic exposure when compared to the standard reporting methods. In addition, the visual display of these parameters provides a unique and intuitive way to understand the impact of a diabetes intervention on a cohort of subjects as well as on individual patients. CONCLUSION: The IntHypo and HypoRV are new and enhanced ways of analyzing CGM-derived data in diabetes intervention studies which could lead to new insights in diabetes management. They require validation using existing, ongoing, or planned studies to determine whether they are superior to existing metrics.

Discrepancies Between Blood Glucose and Interstitial Glucose-Technological Artifacts or Physiology: Implications for Selection of the Appropriate Therapeutic Target.

BACKGROUND: For decades, the major source of information used to make therapeutic decisions by patients with diabetes has been glucose measurements using capillary blood samples. Knowledge gained from clinical studies, for example, on the impact of metabolic control on diabetes-related complications, is based on such measurements. Different to traditional blood glucose measurement systems, systems for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) measure glucose in interstitial fluid (ISF). The assumption is that glucose levels in blood and ISF are practically the same and that the information provided can be used interchangeably. Thus, therapeutic decisions, that is, the selection of insulin doses, are based on CGM system results interpreted as though they were blood glucose values. METHODS: We performed a more detailed analysis and interpretation of glucose profiles obtained with CGM in situations with high glucose dynamics to evaluate this potentially misleading assumption. RESULTS: Considering physical activity, hypoglycemic episodes, and meal-related differences between glucose levels in blood and ISF uncover clinically relevant differences that can make it risky from a therapeutic point of view to use blood glucose for therapeutic decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Further systematic and structured evaluation as to whether the use of ISF glucose is more safe and efficient when it comes to acute therapeutic decisions is necessary. These data might also have a higher prognostic relevance when it comes to long-term metabolic consequences of diabetes. In the long run, it may be reasonable to abandon blood glucose measurements as the basis for diabetes management and switch to using ISF glucose as the appropriate therapeutic target.