Real-World Evidence of Off-Label Use of Commercially Automated Insulin Delivery Systems Compared to Multiple Daily Insulin Injections in Pregnancies Complicated by Type 1 Diabetes.

Aims: To compare glycemic control and maternal-fetal outcomes of women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using hybrid closed loop (HCL) versus multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) plus continuous glucose monitoring. Methods: Multicenter prospective cohort study of pregnant women with T1D in Spain. We evaluated HbA1c and time spent within (TIR), below (TBR), and above (TAR) the pregnancy-specific glucose range of 3.5-7.8 mmol/L. Adjusted models were performed for adverse pregnancy outcomes, including baseline maternal characteristics and center. Results: One hundred twelve women were included (HCL n = 59). Women in the HCL group had a longer duration of diabetes and higher rates of prepregnancy care. There was no between-group difference in HbA1c in any trimester. However, in the second trimester, MDI users had a greater decrease in HbA1c (-6.12 ± 9.06 vs. -2.16 ± 7.42 mmol/mol, P = 0.031). No difference in TIR (3.5-7.8 mmol/L) and TAR was observed between HCL and MDI users, but with a higher total insulin dose in the second trimester [+0.13 IU/kg·day)]. HCL therapy was associated with increased maternal weight gain during pregnancy (ßadjusted = 3.20 kg, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-5.50). Regarding neonatal outcomes, newborns of HCL users were more likely to have higher birthweight (ßadjusted = 279.0 g, 95% CI 39.5-518.5) and macrosomia (ORadjusted = 3.18, 95% CI 1.05-9.67) compared to MDI users. These associations disappeared when maternal weight gain or third trimester HbA1c was included in the models. Conclusions: In a real-world setting, HCL users gained more weight during pregnancy and had larger newborns than MDI users, while achieving similar glycemic control in terms of HbA1c and TIR.

Spanish Translation and Linguistic Validation of the Glucose Monitoring Experiences Questionnaire (GME-Q) in Continuous Glucose Monitoring Users.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has become standard practice in people with type 1 diabetes. The evaluation of user satisfaction is crucial. The Glucose Monitoring Experiences questionnaire (GME-Q) includes 23 items with a 5-point Likert scale to produce a total satisfaction score and three subscale scores. The study aimed to translate the GME-Q from English into Spanish and to validate its use in Spanish-speaking CGM users with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: The linguistic translation and validation process of the GME-Q was established. T1D CGM users were asked to complete the produced Spanish version of the GME-Q and interviewed about difficulties or misunderstandings. Total satisfaction, effectiveness, convenience and intrusiveness subscales and internal consistency reliability were computed. RESULTS: Forward and backward translations and cognitive debriefing produced a final version of the GME-Q in Spanish. Ninety-eight subjects with type 1 diabetes were selected (age: 40 ± 12 years, 63% females, Hb1c: 7.2 ± 0.9% (55 ± 10 mmol/l), pump users: 78%, CGM use: 3.7 ± 2.6 years). The completion rate was 99% and the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.8. The total satisfaction score was 3.9 ± 0.4 (effectiveness: 4.1 ± 0.6, convenience: 3.8 ± 0.6, intrusiveness: 2.2 ± 0.7). CONCLUSION: The GME-Q was translated into Spanish and validated for Spanish-speaking CGM users with type 1 diabetes.

Real-world outcomes with different technology modalities in type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Several treatment modalities are available for type 1 diabetes (T1D), including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and flash glucose monitoring (FGM) with MDI, sensor-augmented pumps with predictive low-glucose suspend function (SAP-PLGS) and hybrid closed-loop systems (HCL). The aim of the study was to evaluate the real-world benefits obtained with these treatment modalities. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cross-sectional study was performed, selecting 4 groups of T1D subjects, regarding their treatment modalities, paired by age, sex and diabetes duration. A comparison was performed, concerning time in different glucose ranges in 2-week sensor downloads. Estimated HbA1c, glycaemic variability measures and sensor use were also compared. 302 T1D people were included (age: 39 ± 12 years, 47% male, diabetes duration: 21 ± 10 years, estimated HbA1c: 7.28 ± 0.84% (56 ± 9 mmol/mol), baseline HbA1c: 7.4 ± 1.0% (57 ± 11 mmol/mol), length of use of the device 8 [3-21] months). Group 1 (CGM + MDI) and 2 (FGM + MDI) showed no differences in time in different glucose ranges. Group 4 (HCL) showed a higher time 70-180 mg/dl and a lower time in hypoglycaemia than group 3 (SAP-PLGS). Group 1 and 2 showed lower time 70-180 mg/dl, higher time in hyperglycaemia and higher glycaemic variability measures than group 3. Group 4 was superior to groups 1 and 2 in all the outcomes. CONCLUSION: Real-life achievements in glycaemic control and glycaemic variability are described. HCL offer the maximum benefit in terms of time in range and hypoglycaemia protection, compared to CGM + MDI, FGM + MDI and SAP-PLGS.

New uses and formulations of glucagon for hypoglycaemia.

Hypoglycaemia is the more frequent complication of insulin therapy and the main barrier to tight glycaemic control. Injectable glucagon and oral intake of carbohydrates are the recommended treatments for severe and non-severe hypoglycaemia episodes, respectively. Nasal glucagon is currently being developed as a ready-to-use device, to simplify severe hypoglycaemia rescue. Stable forms of liquid glucagon could open the field for different approaches for mild to moderate hypoglycaemia treatment, such as mini-doses of glucagon or continuous subcutaneous glucagon infusion as a part of dual-hormone closed-loop systems. Pharmaceutical companies are developing stable forms of native glucagon or glucagon analogues for that purpose.

Avoiding Misdiagnosis Due to Antibody Interference with Serum Free Thyroxin.

INTRODUCTION: Interfering antibodies are capable of causing potentially misleading results in automated thyroid hormone immunoassays. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the case of a 46- year-old female patient with autoimmune hypothyroidism in chronic replacement treatment with levothyroxine who was presented 8 years after diagnosis with a thyroid function test showing an increased level of TSH and a very high level of FT4. Interference in the laboratory serum free thyroxin (FT4) test was suspected, due to the lack of symptoms of hyperthyroidism and a different immunoassay platform confirmed a low FT4 result. The discrepancy between the two results was explained by the presence of antiT4-autoantibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Antibody interference with serum free thyroxine must be considered when clinical findings and laboratory results show discrepancies.