Effect of an Automated Advice Algorithm (CloudConnect) on Adolescent-Parent Diabetes-Specific Communication and Glycemic Management: A Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Because adolescence is a time of difficult management of Type 1 diabetes (T1D) in part from adolescent-parent shared responsibility of T1D management, our objective was to assess the effects of a decision support system (DSS) CloudConnect on T1D-related communication between adolescents and their parents and on glycemic management. METHODS: We followed 86 participants including 43 adolescents with T1D (not on automated insulin delivery systems, AID) and their parents/care-giver for a 12-week intervention of UsualCare + CGM or CloudConnect, which included a Weekly Report of automated T1D advice, including insulin dose adjustments, based on data from continuous glucose monitors (CGM), Fitbit and insulin use. Primary outcome was T1D-specific communication and secondary outcomes were hemoglobin A1c, time-in-target range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dl, and additional psychosocial scales. RESULTS: Adolescents and parents reported a similar amount of T1D-related communication in both the UsualCare + CGM or CloudConnect groups and had similar levels of final HbA1c. Overall blood glucose time in range 70-180 mg/dl and time below 70 mg/dl were not different between groups. Parents but not children in the CloudConnect group reported less T1D-related conflict; however, compared to the UsualCare + CGM group, adolescents and parents in the CloudConnect reported a more negative tone of T1D-related communication. Adolescent-parent pairs in the CloudConnect group reported more frequent changes in insulin dose. There were no differences in T1D quality of life between groups. CONCLUSIONS: While feasible, the CloudConnect DSS system did not increase T1D communication or provide improvements in glycemic management. Further efforts are needed to improve T1D management in adolescents with T1D not on AID systems.

Safety and Glycemic Outcomes With a Tubeless Automated Insulin Delivery System in Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes: A Single-Arm Multicenter Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Very young children with type 1 diabetes often struggle to achieve glycemic targets, putting them at risk for long-term complications and creating an immense management burden for caregivers. We conducted the first evaluation of the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System in this population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 80 children aged 2.0-5.9 years used the investigational system in a single-arm study for 13 weeks following 14 days of baseline data collection with their usual therapy. RESULTS: There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis. By study end, HbA1c decreased by 0.55% (6.0 mmol/mol) (P < 0.0001). Time with sensor glucose levels in target range 70-180 mg/dL increased by 10.9%, or 2.6 h/day (P < 0.0001), while time with levels <70 mg/dL declined by median 0.27% (P = 0.0204). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the automated insulin delivery system was safe, and participants experienced improved glycemic measures and reduced hypoglycemia during the study phase compared with baseline.

Advanced Closed-Loop Control System Improves Postprandial Glycemic Control Compared With a Hybrid Closed-Loop System Following Unannounced Meal.

OBJECTIVE: Meals are a major hurdle to glycemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Our objective was to test a fully automated closed-loop control (CLC) system in the absence of announcement of carbohydrate ingestion among adolescents with T1D, who are known to commonly omit meal announcement. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Eighteen adolescents with T1D (age 15.6 ± 1.7 years; HbA1c 7.4 ± 1.5%; 9 females/9 males) participated in a randomized crossover clinical trial comparing our legacy hybrid CLC system (Unified Safety System Virginia [USS]-Virginia) with a novel fully automated CLC system (RocketAP) during two 46-h supervised admissions (each with one announced and one unannounced dinner), following 2 weeks of data collection. Primary outcome was the percentage time-in-range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) following the unannounced meal, with secondary outcomes related to additional continuous glucose monitoring-based metrics. RESULTS: Both TIR and time-in-tight-range 70-140 mg/dL (TTR) were significantly higher using RocketAP than using USS-Virginia during the 6 h following the unannounced meal (83% [interquartile range 64-93] vs. 53% [40-71]; P = 0.004 and 49% [41-59] vs. 27% [22-36]; P = 0.002, respectively), primarily driven by reduced time-above-range (TAR >180 mg/dL: 17% [1.3-34] vs. 47% [28-60]), with no increase in time-below-range (TBR <70 mg/dL: 0% median for both). RocketAP also improved control following the announced meal (mean difference TBR: -0.7%, TIR: +7%, TTR: +6%), overall (TIR: +5%, TAR: -5%, TTR: +8%), and overnight (TIR: +7%, TTR: +19%, TAR: -5%). RocketAP delivered less insulin overall (78 ± 23 units vs. 85 ± 20 units, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A new fully automated CLC system with automatic prandial dosing was proven to be safe and feasible and outperformed our legacy USS-Virginia in an adolescent population with and without meal announcement.