Towards the standardisation of adult person-reported outcome domains in diabetes research: A Consensus Statement development panel.

Diabetes is unique among chronic diseases because clinical outcomes are intimately tied to how the person living with diabetes reacts to and implements treatment recommendations. It is further characterised by widespread social stigma, judgement and paternalism. This physical, social and psychological burden collectively influences self-management behaviours. It is widely recognised that the individual's perspective about the impact of trying to manage the disease and the burden that self-management confers must be addressed to achieve optimal health outcomes. Standardised, rigorous assessment of mental and behavioural health status, in interaction with physical health outcomes is crucial to aid understanding of person-reported outcomes (PROs). Whilst tempting to conceptualise PROs as an issue of perceived quality of life (QoL), in fact health-related QoL is multi-dimensional and covers indicators of physical or functional health status, psychological and social well-being. This complexity is illuminated by the large number of person reported outcome measures (PROMs) that have been developed across multiple psychosocial domains. Often measures are used inappropriately or because they have been used in the scientific literature rather than based on methodological or outcome assessment rigour. Given the broad nature of psychosocial functioning/mental health, it is important to broadly define PROs that are evaluated in the context of therapeutic interventions, real-life and observational studies. This report summarises the central themes and lessons derived in the assessment and use of PROMs amongst adults with diabetes. Effective assessment of PROMs routinely in clinical research is crucial to understanding the true impact of any intervention. Selecting appropriate measures, relevant to the specific factors of PROs important in the research study will provide valuable data alongside physical health data.

A comparison of two hybrid closed-loop systems in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes (FLAIR): a multicentre, randomised, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Management of type 1 diabetes is challenging. We compared outcomes using a commercially available hybrid closed-loop system versus a new investigational system with features potentially useful for adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: In this multinational, randomised, crossover trial (Fuzzy Logic Automated Insulin Regulation [FLAIR]), individuals aged 14-29 years old, with a clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes with a duration of at least 1 year, using either an insulin pump or multiple daily insulin injections, and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of 7·0-11·0% (53-97 mmol/mol) were recruited from seven academic-based endocrinology practices, four in the USA, and one each in Germany, Israel, and Slovenia. After a run-in period to teach participants how to use the study pump and continuous glucose monitor, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated sequence, with a permuted block design (block sizes of two and four), stratified by baseline HbA1c and use of a personal MiniMed 670G system (Medtronic) at enrolment, to either use of a MiniMed 670G hybrid closed-loop system (670G) or the investigational advanced hybrid closed-loop system (Medtronic) for the first 12-week period, and then participants were crossed over with no washout period, to the other group for use for another 12 weeks. Masking was not possible due to the nature of the systems used. The coprimary outcomes, measured with continuous glucose monitoring, were proportion of time that glucose levels were above 180 mg/dL (>10·0 mmol/L) during 0600 h to 2359 h (ie, daytime), tested for superiority, and proportion of time that glucose levels were below 54 mg/dL (<3·0 mmol/L) calculated over a full 24-h period, tested for non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin 2%). Analysis was by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all participants randomly assigned to treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03040414, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between June 3 and Aug 22, 2019, 113 individuals were enrolled into the trial. Mean age was 19 years (SD 4) and 70 (62%) of 113 participants were female. Mean proportion of time with daytime glucose levels above 180 mg/dL (>10·0 mmol/L) was 42% (SD 13) at baseline, 37% (9) during use of the 670G system, and 34% (9) during use of the advanced hybrid closed-loop system (mean difference [advanced hybrid closed-loop system minus 670G system] -3·00% [95% CI -3·97 to -2·04]; p<0·0001). Mean 24-h proportion of time with glucose levels below 54 mg/dL (<3·0 mmol/L) was 0·46% (SD 0·42) at baseline, 0·50% (0·35) during use of the 670G system, and 0·46% (0·33) during use of the advanced hybrid closed-loop system (mean difference [advanced hybrid closed-loop system minus 670G system] -0·06% [95% CI -0·11 to -0·02]; p<0·0001 for non-inferiority). One severe hypoglycaemic event occurred in the advanced hybrid closed-loop system group, determined to be unrelated to study treatment, and none occurred in the 670G group. INTERPRETATION: Hyperglycaemia was reduced without increasing hypoglycaemia in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes using the investigational advanced hybrid closed-loop system compared with the commercially available MiniMed 670G system. Testing an advanced hybrid closed-loop system in populations that are underserved due to socioeconomic factors and testing during pregnancy and in individuals with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia would advance the effective use of this technology FUNDING: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Diabetes ketoacidosis recovery in youth with newly diagnosed and established type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to describe the differences in metabolic parameters and in time to recovery from diabetes ketoacidosis (DKA), between children and adolescents with newly diagnosed diabetes compared with established type 1 diabetes (T1DM). METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective study. The cohort consists of 356 children and adolescents with T1DM who had DKA during 2008-2018. Data were obtained from the patients' medical files. Recovery of DKA was defined as the resolution of acidosis (pH >7.3 and bicarbonate >15 meq/L). RESULTS: The mean time to recovery from DKA was significantly longer in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes than in those with established diabetes (13± versus 8.5± h) (p < 0.001). This difference was maintained in an analysis according to DKA severity: mild, moderate, and severe. pH at presentation did not differ between the groups, but bicarbonate at presentation was significantly lower in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes than in those with established diabetes, 9.9± versus 12± mmol/L (p < 0.001). Potassium and phosphorus levels were lower, and sodium and chloride levels were higher in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes than in those with established diabetes (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: DKA is associated with a shorter recovery time in patients with established diabetes compared to newly diagnosed diabetes. This may have implications on the treatment of people with established diabetes. IMPACT: DKA is associated with a shorter recovery time in patients with established diabetes compared with newly diagnosed diabetes. Shorter recovery time in a patient with established diabetes compared with newly diagnosed diabetes was observed in any DKA severity. The time to recovery from DKA did not differ significantly between patients treated with an insulin pump and those treated with multiple daily injections. Triggers for DKA among patients with established diabetes were poor compliance with treatment, infection, pump dysfunction, and dehydration.

Clinical characteristics, growth patterns, and long-term diabetes complications of 24 patients with neonatal diabetes mellitus: A single center experience.

OBJECTIVES: Neonatal diabetes mellitus (NDM) is a rare form of monogenic diabetes, diagnosed before age 6 months. We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, molecular genetics, and long-term follow-up of NDM patients from a single pediatric endocrine center in Israel. METHODS: Retrospective study (1975-2020) of all patients diagnosed with diabetes before 6 months of age, who tested negative for pancreatic autoantibodies. Medical records were reviewed for demographic, familial and medical history, and clinical and biochemical features; a genetic analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of 24 patients, nine had transient neonatal diabetes (TNDM) and 15 permanent neonatal diabetes (PNDM), of whom five had rare syndromic causes. Genetic etiology was revealed in 87.5% of the NDM cohort, and the most common causes were ABCC8 mutations in TNDM and KCNJ11 and insulin gene mutations in PNDM. The switch from insulin to off-label sulfonylurea therapy was successful for 5/9 (56%) of the qualifying candidates. Severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis developed in 2 (8%) patients, and chronic diabetes complications in 5 (21%) patients with more than 10 years NDM. At last follow-up, weight and height of all but two syndromic PNDM patients were normal. The median height-SDS of the TNDM subgroup was significantly taller and the mean weight-SDS significantly heavier than those of the PNDM subgroup (-0.52 (-0.67, -0.09) vs. -0.9 (-1.42, -0.3) (p = 0.035) and 0.22 ± 0.69 vs. -0.89 ± 1.21 (p = 0.02), respectively). PNDM patients showed no incremental change in mean weight SDS over the time. CONCLUSION: The Israeli NDM cohort has clinical and genetic characteristics comparable with other populations. Patients with TNDM were taller and heavier than those diagnosed with PNDM, although both show rapid catch-up growth and reached normal growth parameters. Chronic diabetes complications developed in patients with long-standing NDM.

Add-on therapy with dapagliflozin under full closed loop control improves time in range in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes: The DAPADream study.

AIM: To investigate the effect of the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin on glucose levels overnight and during the following day after two unannounced meals under full closed loop (FCL) conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this single-centre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial, non-obese persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D) were studied twice (10 mg dapagliflozin bid vs. placebo) for 24 hours with two unannounced mixed meal tests 6 hours apart under FCL conditions. Primary outcome was sensor glucose time in range (TIR; 3.9-10 mmol/L). For safety evaluation, ß-hydroxybutyrate (BHB), glucagon, insulin and gastric inhibitory polypeptide were measured. RESULTS: Fifteen adolescents (aged 15.4 ± 1.6 years, diabetes duration 10.0 ± 3.4 years, HbA1c 8.4% ± 0.9% [67.7 ± 10.1 mmol/mol]) and 15 young adults (aged 18.7 ± 0.8 years; diabetes duration 12.5 ± 3.6 years; HbA1c 8.3% ± 0.9% [68.5 ± 11.2 mmol/mol]) completed the trial. TIR was significantly higher in the intervention group compared with placebo (68% ± 6% vs. 50% ± 13%; P < .001); nocturnal glucose was significantly lower with dapagliflozin (6.2 ± 0.7 vs. 7.3 ± 1.7 mmol/L; P = .003) without an increase in time at less than 3.9 mmol/L (3.3% ± 6.0% vs 3.1% ± 5.2%; P = .75). Urinary glucose excretion was increased 3-fold using dapagliflozin (149 ± 42 vs. 49 ± 23 g/24 hours) with a total insulin reduction of 22% (39.7 ± 12.7 vs. 30.6 ± 10.4 U; P = .004). No abnormal elevated BHB values were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In adolescents and adults with T1D, dapagliflozin significantly increased TIR on average by 259 minutes/day while reducing glycaemic variability during FCL control without any signs of hypoglycaemia or ketosis.

Type 1 diabetes mellitus management in young children: implementation of current technologies.

The use of advanced technologies for diabetes management is on the rise among pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), continuous glucose monitoring, predictive low glucose suspend, hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems-all enable better diabetes management and glycemic control. However, when used by children, and especially very young children, specific aspects must be taken into consideration, including technical parameters, ease of use, parental stress, and satisfaction. The unique characteristics of T1D in children aged <6 years are reviewed and studies of the pros and cons of different technologies in this specific age group are presented. Addressing such issues when implementing advanced technologies among very young children with T1D will enable better diabetes management and will hopefully ease a tremendous burden of both children and families.

Insulin Pump Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Advances in pump technology have increased the popularity of this treatment modality among patients with type 1 diabetes and recently also among patients with type 2 diabetes. AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY: Four decades after the incorporation of the insulin pump in clinical use, questions regarding its efficacy, occurrence rate of short-term complications as hypoglycemia and diabetes ketoacidosis, timing of pump initiation, and selected populations for use remain unanswered. DATA SOURCES: A review of the literature was performed using the PubMed database to identify all articles published up till December 2018, with the search terms including insulin pump therapy/continuous subcutaneous insulin delivery. The Cochrane database was searched for meta-analysis evaluating controlled randomized trials. Consensuses guidelines published by the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, American Diabetes Association, and Advanced Technologies and Treatments for Diabetes year books were additionally reviewed for relevant cited articles. THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES: Insulin pump therapy offers flexible management of diabetes. It enables adjustment of basal insulin to daily requirements and circadian needs, offers more precise treatment for meals and physical activity, and, when integrated with continuous glucose monitoring, allows glucose responsive insulin delivery. The ability to download and transmit data for analysis allow for treatment optimization. Newer pumps are simple to operate and increase user experience. Studies support the efficacy of pump therapy in improving glycemic control and reducing the occurrence of hypoglycemia without increasing episodes of diabetes ketoacidosis. They also improve quality of life. Recent evidence suggests a role for pump therapy in reducing microvascular and macrovascular diabetes-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin pump therapy appears to be effective and safe in people with T1D regardless of age. Future advancements will include incorporation of closed loop and various decision support systems to aid and improve metabolic control and quality of life.

Decision Support Systems for Insulin Treatment Adjustment in People with Type 1 Diabetes.

For people with type 1 diabetes, achieving optimal glycemic control requires use of intensive insulin therapy. To achieve this goal individuals are required to become proficient in accurately determining the appropriate amount of insulin needed to address a variety of situations throughout the day while considering numerous influencing factors. They also need to perform multiple tasks a day such as counting carbohydrates to accurately determine the required premeal bolus. There is also a need to periodically adjust insulin dosing as insulin sensitivity varies considerably over time. Sophisticated advanced technologies are being used by growing numbers of individuals to manage diabetes. However, despite innovations in glucose monitoring technologies and new insulin formulations, many of these individuals are not achieving their glycemic goals. The new technologies provide ample amount of valuable diabetes related data that may complicate even further the insulin dosing decision making for people with diabetes as well as for the health care providers. Mobile health, digital tools and decision support systems can help to increase accurate, timely insulin dosing and insulin titration and holds the potential to improve glycemic control to a wide range of individuals with diabetes. The emerging mobile toolbox for insulin dosing adjustments that will be reviewed in this paper includes insulin management Apps; diverse range of Apps to guide insulin adjustments such as in times of physical activity and eating; data management systems which enable visualization and analysis of insulin and glucose data of various devices; real-time alarms and glucose prediction Apps that help to prevent hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia events; various bolus calculators for meal time dosing; sophisticated decision support algorithms for people using insulin pump, multiple insulin injections and closed loop systems for real-time and retrospective insulin dosing adjustments.

DREAM5: An open-label, randomized, cross-over study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of day and night closed-loop control by comparing the MD-Logic automated insulin delivery system to sensor augmented pump therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes at home.

AIMS: Previous DREAM studies demonstrated the safety and efficacy of the CE marked MD-Logic closed-loop system (DreaMed GlucoSitter) in different settings for overnight glycaemic control. The present study aimed to evaluate the system for day and night use for 60 hours during the weekend at home compared to sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy in participants with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre, crossover, controlled study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT01238406). All participants were connected in randomized order for one weekend to SAP therapy or the MD-Logic System. In the intervention arm only, the amount of carbohydrate was entered into the bolus calculator; the rest of insulin delivery was automated and wireless via a tablet computer. The primary endpoint was percentage of glucose values between 70 and 180 mg/dL. RESULTS: The ITT population comprised 48 (19 males, 29 females) adolescents and adults experienced in sensor use: (median, [IQR]): age, 16.1years [13.2-18.5]; diabetes duration, 9.4 years [5.0-12.7]; pump use, 5.4 years [3.1-9.4]; HbA1c, 7.6% [7.0-8.1]. A significant increase in the percentage of time within target range (70-180 mg/dL) (66.6% vs 59.9%, P = 0.002) was observed with the closed-loop system vs control weekends with unchanged percentage of time below 70 mg/dL (2.3% vs 1.5%, P = 0.369). Mean weekend glucose level per participant was significantly lower (153 [142-175] vs 164 [150-186] mg/dL, P = 0.003). No safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The MD-Logic system was safe and associated with better glycaemic control than SAP therapy for day and night use. The absence of remote monitoring did not lead to safety signals in adapting basal rates nor in administration of automated bolus corrections.

Adjusting insulin doses in patients with type 1 diabetes who use insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring: Variations among countries and physicians.

AIMS: To evaluate physicians' adjustments of insulin pump settings based on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for patients with type 1 diabetes and to compare these to automated insulin dose adjustments. METHODS: A total of 26 physicians from 16 centres in Europe, Israel and South America participated in the study. All were asked to adjust insulin dosing based on insulin pump, CGM and glucometer downloads of 15 patients (mean age 16.2 ± 4.3 years, six female, mean glycated haemoglobin 8.3 ± 0.9% [66.8 ± 7.3 mmol/mol]) gathered over a 3-week period. Recommendations were compared for the relative changes in the basal, carbohydrate to insulin ratio (CR) and correction factor (CF) plans among physicians and among centres and also between the physicians and an automated algorithm, the Advisor Pro (DreaMed Diabetes Ltd, Petah Tikva, Israel). Study endpoints were the percentage of comparison points for which there was full agreement on the trend of insulin dose adjustments (same trend), partial agreement (increase/decrease vs no change) and full disagreement (opposite trend). RESULTS: The percentages for full agreement between physicians on the trend of insulin adjustments of the basal, CR and CF plans were 41 ± 9%, 45 ± 11% and 45.5 ± 13%, and for complete disagreement they were 12 ± 7%, 9.5 ± 7% and 10 ± 8%, respectively. Significantly similar results were found between the physicians and the automated algorithm. The algorithm magnitude of insulin dose change was at least equal to or less than that proposed by the physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians provide different insulin dose recommendations based on the same datasets. The automated advice of the Advisor Pro did not differ significantly from the advice given by the physicians in the direction or magnitude of the insulin dosing.

Closed-loop glucose control in young people with type 1 diabetes during and after unannounced physical activity: a randomised controlled crossover trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Hypoglycaemia during and after exercise remains a challenge. The present study evaluated the safety and efficacy of closed-loop insulin delivery during unannounced (to the closed-loop algorithm) afternoon physical activity and during the following night in young people with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: A randomised, two-arm, open-label, in-hospital, crossover clinical trial was performed at a single site in Slovenia. The order was randomly determined using an automated web-based programme with randomly permuted blocks of four. Allocation assignment was not masked. Children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes who were experienced insulin pump users were eligible for the trial. During four separate in-hospital visits, the participants performed two unannounced exercise protocols: moderate intensity (55% of [Formula: see text]) and moderate intensity with integrated high-intensity sprints (55/80% of [Formula: see text]), using the same study device either for closed-loop or open-loop insulin delivery. We investigated glycaemic control during the exercise period and the following night. The closed-loop insulin delivery was applied from 15:00 h on the day of the exercise to 13:00 h on the following day. RESULTS: Between 20 January and 16 June 2016, 20 eligible participants (9 female, mean age 14.2 ± 2.0 years, HbA1c 7.7 ± 0.6% [60.0 ± 6.6 mmol/mol]) were included in the trial and performed all trial-mandated activities. The median proportion of time spent in hypoglycaemia below 3.3 mmol/l was 0.00% for both treatment modalities (p = 0.7910). Use of the closed-loop insulin delivery system increased the proportion of time spent within the target glucose range of 3.9-10 mmol/l when compared with open-loop delivery: 84.1% (interquartile range 70.0-85.5) vs 68.7% (59.0-77.7), respectively (p = 0.0057), over the entire study period. This was achieved with significantly less insulin delivered via the closed-loop (p = 0.0123). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Closed-loop insulin delivery was safe both during and after unannounced exercise protocols in the in-hospital environment, maintaining glucose values mostly within the target range without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02657083 FUNDING: University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenian National Research Agency, and ISPAD Research Fellowship.

MD-Logic overnight type 1 diabetes control in home settings: A multicentre, multinational, single blind randomized trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the safety, efficacy and need for remote monitoring of the MD-Logic closed-loop system during short-term overnight use at home. METHODS: Seventy-five patients (38 male; aged 10-54 years; average A1c, 7.8% ± 0.7%, 61.8 ± 7.2 mmol/mol) were enrolled from 3 clinical sites. Patients were randomly assigned to participate in 2 overnight crossover periods, each including 4 consecutive nights, 1 under closed-loop control and 1 under sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy in the patient's home. Both study arms were supervised using a remote-monitoring system in a blinded manner. Primary endpoints were time spent with glucose levels below 70 mg/dL and percentage of nights in which mean overnight glucose levels were within 90 to 140 mg/dL. RESULTS: The median [interquartile range] percentage of time spent in hypoglycaemia was significantly lower on nights when MD-Logic was used, compared to SAP therapy (2.07 [0, 4.78] and 2.6 [0, 10.34], respectively; P = .004) and the percentage of individual nights with a mean overnight glucose level in target was significantly greater (75 [42, 75] and 50 [25,75], respectively; P = .008). The time spent in target range was increased by a median of 28% (P = .001), with the same amount of insulin (10.69 [7.28, 13.94] and 10.41[6.9, 14.07], respectively; P = .087). The remote monitoring triggered calls for hypoglycaemia at twice the rate during SAP therapy compared to closed-loop control (62 and 29, respectively; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: The MD-Logic system demonstrated a safe and efficient profile during overnight use by children, adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes and, therefore, provides an effective means of mitigating the risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia.

Nocturnal glucose control with an artificial pancreas at a diabetes camp.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that an artificial-pancreas system can improve glucose control and reduce nocturnal hypoglycemia. However, it is not known whether such results can be replicated in settings outside the hospital. METHODS: In this multicenter, multinational, randomized, crossover trial, we assessed the short-term safety and efficacy of an artificial pancreas system for control of nocturnal glucose levels in patients (10 to 18 years of age) with type 1 diabetes at a diabetes camp. In two consecutive overnight sessions, we randomly assigned 56 patients to receive treatment with an artificial pancreas on the first night and a sensor-augmented insulin pump (control) on the second night or to the reverse order of therapies on the first and second nights. Thus, all the patients received each treatment in a randomly assigned order. The primary end points were the number of hypoglycemic events (defined as a sensor glucose value of <63 mg per deciliter [3.5 mmol per liter] for at least 10 consecutive minutes), the time spent with glucose levels below 60 mg per deciliter (3.3 mmol per liter), and the mean overnight glucose level for individual patients. RESULTS: On nights when the artificial pancreas was used, versus nights when the sensor-augmented insulin pump was used, there were significantly fewer episodes of nighttime glucose levels below 63 mg per deciliter (7 vs. 22) and significantly shorter periods when glucose levels were below 60 mg per deciliter (P=0.003 and P=0.02, respectively, after adjustment for multiplicity). Median values for the individual mean overnight glucose levels were 126.4 mg per deciliter (interquartile range, 115.7 to 139.1 [7.0 mmol per liter; interquartile range, 6.4 to 7.7]) with the artificial pancreas and 140.4 mg per deciliter (interquartile range, 105.7 to 167.4 [7.8 mmol per liter; interquartile range, 5.9 to 9.3]) with the sensor-augmented pump. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Patients at a diabetes camp who were treated with an artificial-pancreas system had less nocturnal hypoglycemia and tighter glucose control than when they were treated with a sensor-augmented insulin pump. (Funded by Sanofi and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01238406.).

Night glucose control with MD-Logic artificial pancreas in home setting: a single blind, randomized crossover trial-interim analysis.

BACKGROUND: Artificial pancreas (AP) systems have shown an improvement in glucose control and a reduced risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia under controlled conditions but remain to be evaluated under daily-life conditions. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the MD-Logic AP in controlling nocturnal glucose levels in the patient's home. METHODS: Two-arm study, each covering four consecutive nights comparing the MD-Logic AP ('closed-loop' arm) with sensor-augmented pump therapy ('control' arm). Fifteen patients (mean age 19 ± 10.4 yr, A1c 7.5 ± 0.5% or 58 ± 5.9 mmol/mol, diabetes duration 9.9 ± 8.2 yr) were randomly assigned either to 'Group A' (first 'closed-loop', then 'control' arm) or to 'Group B' (vice versa). Investigators were masked to treatment intervention. Primary endpoints were the time spent with glucose levels below 70 mg/dL and the percentage of nights in which the mean overnight glucose levels were within 90-140 mg/dL. Endpoint analyses were based on unmodified sensor glucose readings of the four study nights. RESULTS: Time of glucose levels spent below 70 mg/dL was significantly shorter on the closed-loop nights than on control nights, median and interquartile range 3.8 (0, 11.6) and 48.7 (0.6, 67.9) min, respectively; p = 0.0034. The percentage of individual nights in which mean overnight glucose level was within 90-140 mg/dL was 67 (33, 88), and 50 (25, 75), under closed-loop and control nights, respectively, with no statistical difference. Secondary endpoint analyses demonstrated significant improvements in hypoglycemia parameters. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: This interim analysis demonstrates the feasibility, safety, and efficiency of the MD-Logic AP system in home use, and demonstrates an improvement over sensor-augmented pump therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01726829).

Expert Panel Recommendations for a Standardized Ambulatory Glucose Profile Report for Connected Insulin Pens.

Background: Connected insulin pens capture data on insulin dosing/timing and can integrate with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices with essential insulin and glucose metrics combined into a single platform. Standardization of connected insulin pen reports is desirable to enhance clinical utility with a single report. Methods: An international expert panel was convened to develop a standardized connected insulin pen report incorporating insulin and glucose metrics into a single report containing clinically useful information. An extensive literature review and identification of examples of current connected insulin pen reports were performed serving as the basis for creation of a draft of a standardized connected insulin pen report. The expert panel participated in three virtual standardization meetings and online surveys. Results: The Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP) Report: Connected Insulin Pen brings all clinically relevant CGM-derived glucose and connected insulin pen metrics into a single simplified two-page report. The first page contains the time in ranges bar, summary of key insulin and glucose metrics, the AGP curve, and detailed basal (long-acting) insulin assessment. The second page contains the bolus (mealtime and correction) insulin assessment periods with information on meal timing, insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio, average bolus insulin dose, and number of days with bolus doses recorded. The report's second page contains daily glucose profiles with an overlay of the timing and amount of basal and bolus insulin administered. Conclusion: The AGP Report: Connected Insulin Pen is a standardized clinically useful report that should be considered by companies developing connected pen technology as part of their system reporting/output.

Metabolic control by insulin detemir in basal-bolus therapy: treat-to-target study in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir administered once vs. twice daily in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. RESEARCH DESIGN: In this prospective, open-label, treat-to-target study, 37 patients [mean age 12.7 ± 3 yr; diabetes duration 4.2 ± 3 yr, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 8.8 ± 0.8%] were scheduled to receive insulin detemir once daily before breakfast, with pre-meal insulin aspart, for 16-20 wk. Detemir dose titration algorithm was based on age-related target fasting blood glucose levels during 4-8 wk. Patients achieving target range continued on once-daily detemir (Group A) if up-titration could not be done due to hypoglycemia patients were switched to twice-daily detemir (Group B). RESULTS: Nineteen (51%) patients continued with once-daily detemir. HbA1c decreased significantly in both groups (A: -0.7%, p = 0.02; B: -0.8%, p = 0.004), without a significant difference between groups. The frequency of nocturnal hypoglycemic events/week decreased in both groups but a significant change was found only in Group A (10.9-2.7, p < 0.05 vs. 8.7-5.8, NS), with no change in frequency of severe hypoglycemic episodes in either group. No significant differences were found between and within groups for body mass index-standard deviation score, insulin requirement or treatment satisfaction. Group B patients were significantly younger than Group A patients (11.5 ± 2.3 vs.13.8 ± 3.2 yr, p = 0.01), with a higher percentage in active puberty (50 vs. 11%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Since twice-daily determir showed no clinical advantage over once-daily detemir, it appears reasonable to commence all children on once-daily detemir, taking into consideration that younger children and those in active puberty may require twice-daily therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00542399).

The "Glucositter" overnight automated closed loop system for type 1 diabetes: a randomized crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Tight glucose control is needed to prevent long-term diabetes complications; this is hindered by the risk of hypoglycemia, especially at night. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of the closed-loop MD-Logic Artificial Pancreas (MDLAP), controlling nocturnal glucose levels in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a randomized, multicenter, multinational, crossover trial conducted in Slovenia, Germany, and Israel. Twelve patients with T1DM (age 23.8 ± 15.6 yr; duration of diabetes 13.5 ± 11.9 yr; A1c 8.1 ± 0.8%, mean ± SD) were randomly assigned to participate in two sequential overnight sessions: one using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and the other, closed-loop insulin delivery by MDLAP. The primary outcome was the number of hypoglycemic events below 63 mg/dL. Endpoints analyses were based on sensor glucose readings. RESULTS: Three events of nocturnal hypoglycemia occurred during CSII and none during the closed-loop control (p = 0.18). The percentage of time spent in the near normal range of 63-140 mg/dL was significantly higher in the overnight closed-loop sessions [76% (54-85)] than during CSII therapy [29% (11-44)] [p = 0.02, median (interquartile range)]. The mean overnight glucose level was reduced by 36 mg/dL with closed-loop insulin delivery (p = 0.02) with a significantly less glucose variability when compared with the CSII nights (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate the ability of the MDLAP to safely improve overnight glucose control without increased risk of hypoglycemia in patients with T1DM at three different national, geographic, and clinical centers (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT 01238406).

Continuous glucose monitoring and metrics for clinical trials: an international consensus statement.

Randomised controlled trials and other prospective clinical studies for novel medical interventions in people with diabetes have traditionally reported HbA1c as the measure of average blood glucose levels for the 3 months preceding the HbA1c test date. The use of this measure highlights the long-established correlation between HbA1c and relative risk of diabetes complications; the change in the measure, before and after the therapeutic intervention, is used by regulators for the approval of medications for diabetes. However, with the increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in clinical practice, prospective clinical studies are also increasingly using CGM devices to collect data and evaluate glucose profiles among study participants, complementing HbA1c findings, and further assess the effects of therapeutic interventions on HbA1c. Data is collected by CGM devices at 1-5 min intervals, which obtains data on glycaemic excursions and periods of asymptomatic hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia (ie, details of glycaemic control that are not provided by HbA1c concentrations alone that are measured continuously and can be analysed in daily, weekly, or monthly timeframes). These CGM-derived metrics are the subject of standardised, internationally agreed reporting formats and should, therefore, be considered for use in all clinical studies in diabetes. The purpose of this consensus statement is to recommend the ways CGM data might be used in prospective clinical studies, either as a specified study endpoint or as supportive complementary glucose metrics, to provide clinical information that can be considered by investigators, regulators, companies, clinicians, and individuals with diabetes who are stakeholders in trial outcomes. In this consensus statement, we provide recommendations on how to optimise CGM-derived glucose data collection in clinical studies, including the specific glucose metrics and specific glucose metrics that should be evaluated. These recommendations have been endorsed by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Diabetes Association, the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists, DiabetesIndia, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, the Japanese Diabetes Society, and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. A standardised approach to CGM data collection and reporting in clinical trials will encourage the use of these metrics and enhance the interpretability of CGM data, which could provide useful information other than HbA1c for informing therapeutic and treatment decisions, particularly related to hypoglycaemia, postprandial hyperglycaemia, and glucose variability.

Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery Technologies in Clinical Practice.

The significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers, and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past 6 years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage.

User and Healthcare Professional Perspectives on Do-It-Yourself Artificial Pancreas Systems: A Need for Guidelines.

A growing number of individuals with type 1 diabetes are choosing to use "do-it-yourself" artificial pancreas systems (DIY APS) to support their diabetes self-management. Observational and self-report data of glycemic benefits of DIY APS are promising; however, without rigorous clinical trials or regulation from governing bodies, liability and user safety continue to be central concerns for stakeholders. Despite DIY APS having been used for several years now, there are no guidelines to assist users and healthcare professionals in addressing DIY APS use in routine clinical care. This commentary reports key stakeholders' perspectives presented at the annual Advanced Technologies and Treatments in Diabetes conference in February 2020. Important considerations to inform the development of clinical care guidelines are also presented to generate further debate.