Switching from predictive low glucose suspend to advanced hybrid closed loop control: Effects on glucose control and patient reported outcomes.

AIMS: Automated insulin delivery improves glucose control. Aim of this study was to compare in real life the effects on glucose control and patient reported outcomes of an advanced hybrid closed loop system (Control-IQ), versus a simpler system with predictive low glucose suspend function (Basal-IQ). METHODS: Thirty-one type 1 diabetic subjects were studied during Basal-IQ and after switching to Control-IQ. Variables analyzed were time spent in range (70-180 mg/dL), in tight range (70-140 mg/dL), above range (>180 mg/dL), below range (<70 mg/dL), mean glucose, coefficient of variation and glycated hemoglobin. Questionnaires were administered regarding therapy satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire in status/change form), fear of hypoglycemia (Hypoglycemia Fear Survey), quality of sleep (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index). RESULTS: After 12 weeks of Control-IQ, time in range increased from 62.7 to 74.0%, p < 0.0001, time in tight range increased from 37.1 to 44.6 %, p < 0.001, time above range decreased from 35.6 to 24.4% p < 0.0001. Improvements were observed in mean glucose and glucose variability. Glycated hemoglobin decreased from 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) to 6.6% (49 mmol/mol), p < 0.0001. Subjects using Control-IQ manifested greater satisfaction and less fear of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: Compared to Basal-IQ, Control-IQ improves glucose control and therapy satisfaction.

Effectiveness of adding alarms to flash glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes under routine care.

AIM: Whether glucose sensor alarms improve metabolic control and are accepted by individuals with diabetes is unclear. Here, we investigated whether switching from a standard flash glucose monitoring system (FGM1) to a system equipped with hypo- and hyperglycemia alarms (FGM2) improves glycemic control and psychological outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: Subjects with T1D and > 4% of time in hypoglycemia or > 40% of time in hyperglycemia were studied while wearing FGM1 (4 weeks) and after switching to FGM2 for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dl [3.9-10.0 mmol/L]) after 4 weeks of FGM2 use. Time below range (TBR), time above range (TAR), mean glucose, coefficient of variation (CV), sensor scans, treatment satisfaction, and hypoglycemia fear were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: We included 38 subjects aged 33.7 ± 12.6 year. During 4 weeks of FGM2 use, TIR increased from 52.8 to 57.0% (p = 0.001), TBR decreased from 6.2 to 3.4% (p < 0.0001) as did time < 54 mg/dl (from 1.4 to 0.3%, p < 0.0001) and CV (from 39.6% to 36.1%, p < 0.0001). These changes were confirmed after 8 weeks of FGM2 use. Treatment satisfaction improved and fear of hypoglycemia decreased. Subjects who had > 4% of time in hypoglycemia at baseline showed the greatest improvements in glucose control and treatment satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Switching from FGM1 to FGM2 improved TIR and treatment satisfaction and reduced fear of hypoglycemia. Participants who benefited most from switching from FGM1 to FGM2 were those prone to hypoglycemia.

Efficacy of telemedicine for persons with type 1 diabetes during Covid19 lockdown.

BACKGROUND: Starting March 2020 the Italian Government imposed a lockdown to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2. During lockdown outpatient visits were limited and telemedicine (TM) was encouraged. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from continuous or flash glucose monitoring systems shared through different cloud systems during the lockdown by subjects with type 1 diabetes and compared data obtained 4 weeks before and 4 weeks after structured telephonic visit. Variables considered were mean glucose, time spent in target (70-180 mg/dl), hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dl) and hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dl), coefficient of variation, and length of sensor use. RESULTS: During the 4 weeks following the telephonic visit there was an improvement of glycemic control, with a significant reduction of mean glucose values (161.1 before vs 156.3 mg/dl after, p = 0.001), an increase of the time spent in target (63.6 vs 66.3, p = 0.0009) and a reduction of time spent in hyperglycemia (33.4 vs 30.5, p = 0.002). No changes were observed regarding glucose variability, time spent in hypoglycemia, and length of sensor use. Similar results were observed in subjects treated with multiple daily injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. CONCLUSIONS: A structured telephonic visit appears to be an effective way to replace or integrate routine visits in particular conditions.