Glycaemic outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes over 34 weeks with the Omnipod® 5 automated insulin delivery system.

AIMS: The aim was to evaluate the effect of extended use of the Omnipod® 5 automated insulin delivery (AID) system in adults with type 2 diabetes and suboptimal glycaemic control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following an 8-week single-arm, multicentre, outpatient trial of AID in adults with type 2 diabetes and baseline ≥ 64 mmol/mol, participants were given the opportunity to continue use of the AID system in a 26-week (~6 month) extension phase. The primary safety endpoints were percentage of time with sensor glucose ≥ 250 mg/dL and < 54 mg/dL. Additional glycaemic measures, including percentage of time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) and HbA1c, were evaluated. The use of non-insulin anti-hyperglycaemic medications was permitted throughout the entire study. RESULTS: During the initial 8-week study, participants (N = 22) achieved a decrease in percentage of time ≥ 250 mg/dL from 27.4% ± 21.0% to 10.5% ± 8.8% (p < 0.0001), which further decreased to 9.7% ± 9.2% during the extension phase (p = 0.0002 vs. standard therapy). Percentage of time < 54 mg/dL remained low from standard therapy through extension (median [interquartile range] 0.00% [0.00%, 0.06%] vs. 0.02% [0.00%, 0.05%], p > 0.05). HbA1c decreased by 1.6% ± 1.2% (15.5 ± 13.1 mmol/mol, p < 0.0001) and TIR increased by 22.4% ± 19.2% (p < 0.0001) from standard therapy through extension with no significant change in body mass index and without an observed increase in total daily insulin requirements. CONCLUSIONS: These longer-term findings of Omnipod 5 AID system use demonstrate the potential value of AID in helping people with type 2 diabetes reach glycaemic targets.

Efficacy and Safety of a Tubeless AID System Compared With Pump Therapy With CGM in the Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes in Adults With Suboptimal Glycemia: A Randomized, Parallel-Group Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of the tubeless Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System compared with pump therapy with a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) in adults with type 1 diabetes with suboptimal glycemic outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 13-week multicenter, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial performed in the U.S. and France, adults aged 18-70 years with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c 7-11% (53-97 mmol/mol) were randomly assigned (2:1) to intervention (tubeless AID) or control (pump therapy with CGM) following a 2-week standard therapy period. The primary outcome was a treatment group comparison of time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) during the trial period. RESULTS: A total of 194 participants were randomized, with 132 assigned to the intervention and 62 to the control. TIR during the trial was 4.2h/day higher in the intervention compared with the control group (mean difference 17.5% [95% CI 14.0%, 21.1%]; P < 0.0001). The intervention group had a greater reduction in HbA1c from baseline compared with the control group (mean ± SD -1.24 ± 0.75% [-13.6 ± 8.2 mmol/mol] vs. -0.68 ± 0.93% [-7.4 ± 10.2 mmol/mol], respectively; P < 0.0001), accompanied by a significantly lower time <70 mg/dL (1.18 ± 0.86% vs. 1.75 ± 1.68%; P = 0.005) and >180 mg/dL (37.6 ± 11.4% vs. 54.5 ± 15.4%; P < 0.0001). All primary and secondary outcomes were met. No instances of diabetes-related ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the tubeless AID system led to improved glycemic outcomes compared with pump therapy with CGM among adults with type 1 diabetes, underscoring the clinical benefit of AID and bolstering recommendations to establish AID systems as preferred therapy for this population.

Psychosocial outcomes with the Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System in caregivers of very young children with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have demonstrated improved glycaemic outcomes in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), yet limited data exist on these systems in very young children and their impact on caregivers. We evaluated psychosocial outcomes following use of the tubeless Omnipod® 5 AID System in caregivers of very young children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This 3-month single-arm, multicentre, pivotal clinical trial enrolled 80 children aged 2.0-5.9 years with T1D to use the Omnipod 5 AID System. Caregivers completed questionnaires assessing psychosocial outcomes-diabetes distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes), hypoglycaemia confidence (Hypoglycemia Confidence Scale), well-being (World Health Organization 5 Well-Being Index), sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), insulin delivery satisfaction (Insulin Delivery Satisfaction Survey) and system usability (System Usability Scale) at baseline with standard therapy and after 3 months of AID use. RESULTS: Following 3 months of Omnipod 5 use, caregivers experienced significant improvements across all measures, including diabetes-related psychosocial outcomes (Problem Areas in Diabetes; p < 0.0001, Hypoglycemia Confidence Scale; p < 0.01), well-being (World Health Organization 5 Well-Being Index; p < 0.0001) and perceived system usability (System Usability Scale; p < 0.0001). Significant improvements were seen in the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index total score and the overall sleep quality, sleep duration and efficiency subscales (all p < 0.05). Insulin Delivery Satisfaction Survey scores improved on all subscales (greater satisfaction, reduced burden and reduced inconvenience; all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers face unique challenges when managing T1D in very young children. While glycaemic metrics have unquestioned importance, these results evaluating psychosocial outcomes reveal additional meaningful benefits and suggest that the Omnipod 5 AID System alleviates some of the burdens caregivers face with diabetes management.

A Randomized Comparison of Postprandial Glucose Excursion Using Inhaled Insulin Versus Rapid-Acting Analog Insulin in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Using Multiple Daily Injections of Insulin or Automated Insulin Delivery.

OBJECTIVE: To compare postprandial glucose excursions following a bolus with inhaled technosphere insulin (TI) or subcutaneous rapid-acting analog (RAA) insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A meal challenge was completed by 122 adults with type 1 diabetes who were using multiple daily injections (MDI), a nonautomated pump, or automated insulin delivery (AID) and who were randomized to bolus with their usual RAA insulin (n = 61) or TI (n = 61). RESULTS: The primary outcome, the treatment group difference in area under the curve for glucose >180 mg/dL over 2 h, was less with TI versus RAA (adjusted difference -12 mg/dL, 95% CI -22 to -2, P = 0.02). With TI, the glucose excursion was smaller (P = 0.01), peak glucose lower (P = 0.01), and time to peak glucose shorter (P = 0.006). Blood glucose <70 mg/dL occurred in one participant in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Postmeal glucose excursion was smaller with TI than with RAA insulin in a cohort that included both AID and MDI users.

Glycemic Outcomes Persist for up to 2 Years in Very Young Children with the Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System.

Background: To evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of the Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System in very young children with type 1 diabetes with up to 2 years of use. Methods: Following a 13-week single-arm, multicenter, pivotal trial that took place after 14 days of standard therapy data collection, participating children (2-5.9 years of age at study enrollment) were provided the option to continue use of the AID system in an extension phase. HbA1c was measured every 3 months, up to 15 months of total use, and continuous glucose monitor metrics were collected through the completion of the extension study (for up to 2 years). Results: Participants (N = 80) completed 18.2 [17.4, 23.4] (median [interquartile range]) total months of AID, inclusive of the 3-month pivotal trial. During the pivotal trial, HbA1c decreased from 7.4% ± 1.0% (57 ± 10.9 mmol/mol) to 6.9% ± 0.7% (52 ± 7.7 mmol/mol, P < 0.0001) and was maintained at 7.0% ± 0.7% (53 ± 7.7 mmol/mol) after 15 months total use (P < 0.0001 from baseline). Time in target range (70-180 mg/dL) increased from 57.2% ± 15.3% during standard therapy to 68.1% ± 9.0% during the pivotal trial (P < 0.0001) and was maintained at 67.2% ± 9.3% during the extension phase (P < 0.0001 from standard therapy). Participants spent a median 97.1% of time in Automated Mode during the extension phase, with one episode of severe hypoglycemia and one episode of diabetic ketoacidosis. Conclusion: This evaluation of the Omnipod 5 AID System indicates that long-term use can safely maintain improvements in glycemic outcomes with up to 2 years of use in very young children with type 1 diabetes. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT04476472.

Two Years with a Tubeless Automated Insulin Delivery System: A Single-Arm Multicenter Trial in Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Background: The Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System was shown to be safe and effective following 3 months of use in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D); however, data on the durability of these results are limited. This study evaluated the long-term safety and effectiveness of Omnipod 5 use in people with T1D during up to 2 years of use. Materials and Methods: After a 3-month single-arm, multicenter, pivotal trial in children (6-13.9 years) and adolescents/adults (14-70 years), participants could continue system use in an extension phase. HbA1c was measured every 3 months for up to 15 months; continuous glucose monitor metrics were collected for up to 2 years. Results: Participants (N = 224) completed median (interquartile range) 22.3 (21.7, 22.7) months of AID. HbA1c was reduced in the pivotal trial from 7.7% ± 0.9% in children and 7.2% ± 0.9% in adolescents/adults to 7.0% ± 0.6% and 6.8% ± 0.7%, respectively, (P < 0.0001), and was maintained at 7.2% ± 0.7% and 6.9% ± 0.6% after 15 months (P < 0.0001 from baseline). Time in target range (70-180 mg/dL) increased from 52.4% ± 15.6% in children and 63.6% ± 16.5% in adolescents/adults at baseline to 67.9% ± 8.0% and 73.8% ± 10.8%, respectively, during the pivotal trial (P < 0.0001) and was maintained at 65.9% ± 8.9% and 72.9% ± 11.3% during the extension (P < 0.0001 from baseline). One episode of diabetic ketoacidosis and seven episodes of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the extension. Children and adolescents/adults spent median 96.1% and 96.3% of time in Automated Mode, respectively. Conclusion: Our study supports that long-term use of the Omnipod 5 AID System can safely maintain improvements in glycemic outcomes for up to 2 years of use in people with T1D. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT04196140.

Safety and Glycemic Outcomes During the MiniMedTM Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Pivotal Trial in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes.

Background: During MiniMed™ advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) use by adolescents and adults in the pivotal trial, glycated hemoglobin (A1C) was significantly reduced, time spent in range (TIR) was significantly increased, and there were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). The present study investigated the same primary safety and effectiveness endpoints during AHCL use by a younger cohort with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: An intention-to-treat population (N = 160, aged 7-17 years) with T1D was enrolled in a single-arm study at 13 investigational centers. There was a run-in period (∼25 days) using HCL or sensor-augmented pump with/without predictive low-glucose management, followed by a 3-month study period with AHCL activated at two glucose targets (GTs; 100 and 120 mg/dL) for ∼45 days each. The mean ± standard deviation values of A1C, TIR, mean sensor glucose (SG), coefficient of variation (CV) of SG, time at SG ranges, and insulin delivered between run-in and study were analyzed (Wilcoxon signed-rank test or t-test). Results: Compared with baseline, AHCL use was associated with reduced A1C from 7.9 ± 0.9% (N = 160) to 7.4 ± 0.7% (N = 136) (P < 0.001) and overall TIR increased from the run-in 59.4 ± 11.8% to 70.3 ± 6.5% by end of study (P < 0.001), without change in CV, time spent below range (TBR) <70 mg/dL, or TBR <54 mg/dL. Relative to longer active insulin time (AIT) settings (N = 52), an AIT of 2 h (N = 19) with the 100 mg/dL GT increased mean TIR to 73.4%, reduced TBR <70 mg/dL from 3.5% to 2.2%, and reduced time spent above range (TAR) >180 mg/dL from 28.7% to 24.4%. During AHCL use, there was no severe hypoglycemia or DKA. Conclusions: In children and adolescents with T1D, MiniMed AHCL system use was safe, A1C was lower, and TIR was increased. The lowest GT and shortest AIT were associated with the highest TIR and lowest TBR and TAR, all of which met consensus-recommended glycemic targets. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03959423.

Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec With Dosing Guide App Versus Once-Daily Basal Insulin Analogues in Insulin-Naive Type 2 Diabetes (ONWARDS 5) : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate dose titration and poor adherence to basal insulin can lead to suboptimal glycemic control in persons with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Once-weekly insulin icodec (icodec) is a basal insulin analogue that is in development and is aimed at reducing treatment burden. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of icodec titrated with a dosing guide app (icodec with app) versus once-daily basal insulin analogues (OD analogues) dosed per standard practice. DESIGN: 52-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3a trial with real-world elements. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04760626). SETTING: 176 sites in 7 countries. PARTICIPANTS: 1085 insulin-naive adults with T2D. INTERVENTION: Icodec with app or OD analogue (insulin degludec, insulin glargine U100, or insulin glargine U300). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level from baseline to week 52. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Treatment Related Impact Measure for Diabetes [TRIM-D] compliance domain score and change in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire [DTSQ] total treatment satisfaction score). RESULTS: The estimated mean change in HbA1c level from baseline to week 52 was greater with icodec with app than with OD analogues, with noninferiority (P < 0.001) and superiority (P = 0.009) confirmed in prespecified hierarchical testing (estimated treatment difference [ETD], -0.38 percentage points [95% CI, -0.66 to -0.09 percentage points]). At week 52, patient-reported outcomes were more favorable with icodec with app than with OD analogues (ETDs, 3.04 [CI, 1.28 to 4.81] for TRIM-D and 0.78 [CI, 0.10 to 1.47] for DTSQ). Rates of clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were low and similar with both treatments. LIMITATION: Inability to differentiate the effects of icodec and the dosing guide app. CONCLUSION: Compared with OD analogues, icodec with app showed superior HbA1c reduction and improved treatment satisfaction and compliance with similarly low hypoglycemia rates. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Novo Nordisk A/S.

Assessing Time in Range with Postprandial Glucose-Focused Titration of Ultra Rapid Lispro (URLi) in People with Type 1 Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: To assess time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) with postprandial glucose (PPG)-focused titration of ultra rapid lispro (URLi; Lyumjev®) in combination with insulin degludec in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: This phase 2, single-group, open-label, exploratory study was conducted in 31 participants with T1D on multiple daily injection therapy. Participants were treated with insulin degludec and Lispro for an 11-day lead-in and then URLi for a 46-day treatment period consisting of 35-day titration and 11-day endpoint maintenance period. Glucose targets for the titration period were PPG < 140 mg/dL or < 20% increase from premeal, fasting glucose 80-110 mg/dL, and overnight excursion ± 30 mg/dL or less. Participants used the InPen™ bolus calculator and Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). RESULTS: Primary endpoint mean TIR (70-180 mg/dL) with URLi during the maintenance period was 70.2%. TIR (70-180 mg/dL) and times below/above range were not significantly different with URLi (maintenance) versus lispro (lead-in). HbA1c decreased from 7.1% at screening to 6.8% at endpoint (least squares mean [LSM] change from baseline, - 0.36%; P < 0.001). Fructosamine and 1,5-anhydroglucitol improved (P < 0.001). Mean hourly glucose using CGM was reduced from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM with URLi. Overall highest PPG excursion across meals was significantly reduced at URLi endpoint compared with lispro lead-in (mean 56.5 vs 72.4 mg/dL; P < 0.001). Insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio (U/X g) was reduced (more insulin given) at breakfast at URLi endpoint vs lead-in (LSM 9.0 vs 9.7 g; P = 0.002) and numerically decreased at other meals. Total daily insulin dose (TDD) was higher at URLi endpoint compared with lispro lead-in (mean 50.2 vs 47.0 U; P = 0.046) with similar prandial/TDD ratio (mean 52.1% vs 51.2%). There were no severe hypoglycemia events during the study. CONCLUSIONS: URLi in a basal-bolus regimen focusing on PPG targets demonstrated improved overall glycemic control and reduced PPG excursions without increased hypoglycemia in participants with T1D. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT04585776.

Increased Time in Range with Ultra Rapid Lispro Treatment in Participants with Type 2 Diabetes: PRONTO-Time in Range.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate time in range metrics and HbA1c in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with ultra rapid lispro (URLi) using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the first time in this population. METHODS: This was a Phase 3b, 12-week, single-treatment study in adults with T2D on basal-bolus multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy using basal insulin glargine U-100 along with a rapid-acting insulin analog. Following a 4-week baseline period, 176 participants were newly treated with prandial URLi. Participants used unblinded CGM (Freestyle Libre). Primary endpoint was time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dl) during the daytime period at Week 12 compared to baseline with gated secondary endpoints of HbA1c change from baseline and 24-h TIR (70-180 mg/dl). RESULTS: Improved glycemic control was observed at Week 12 versus baseline including mean daytime TIR (change from baseline [Δ] 3.8%; P = 0.007), HbA1c (Δ - 0.44%; P < 0.001), and 24-h TIR (Δ 3.3%; P = 0.016) with no significant difference in time below range (TBR). After 12 weeks, there was a statistically significant decrease in postprandial glucose incremental area under curve, overall, across all meals, within 1 h (P = 0.005) or 2 h (P < 0.001) after the start of a meal. Basal, bolus, and total insulin dose were intensified with increased bolus/total dose ratio at Week 12 (50.7%) versus baseline (44.5%; P < 0.001). There were no severe hypoglycemia events during the treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: In people with T2D, URLi in an MDI regimen was efficacious with improved glycemic control including TIR, HbA1c, and postprandial glucose without increased hypoglycemia/TBR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04605991.

Safety and Efficacy of the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: From Injections to Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Automated insulin delivery (AID) has rarely been studied in adults with type 2 diabetes. We tested the feasibility of using AID for type 2 diabetes with the Omnipod 5 System in a multicenter outpatient trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants previously were using either basal-only or basal-bolus insulin injections, with or without the use of a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and had a baseline HbA1c ≥8% (≥64 mmol/mol). Participants completed 2 weeks of CGM sensor data collection (blinded for those not previously using CGM) with their standard therapy (ST), then transitioned to 8 weeks of AID. Participants who previously used basal-only injections used the AID system in manual mode for 2 weeks before starting AID. Antihyperglycemic agents were continued at clinician discretion. Primary safety outcomes were percentage of time with sensor glucose ≥250 mg/dL and <54 mg/dL during AID. Additional outcomes included HbA1c and time in target range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL). RESULTS: Participants (N = 24) had a mean (± SD) age of 61 ± 8 years, baseline HbA1c of 9.4% ± 0.9% (79 ± 10 mmol/mol), and diabetes duration of 19 ± 9 years. Percentage of time with sensor glucose ≥250 mg/dL decreased with AID by 16.9% ± 16.2% (P < 0.0001), whereas percentage of time at <54 mg/dL remained low during both ST and AID (median [interquartile range] 0.0% [0.00%, 0.06%] vs. 0.00% [0.00%, 0.03%]; P = 0.4543). HbA1c (± SD) decreased by 1.3% ± 0.7% (14 ± 8 mmol/mol; P < 0.0001) and TIR increased by 21.9% ± 15.2% (P < 0.0001) without a significant change in total daily insulin or BMI with AID. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this feasibility trial of AID in adults with type 2 diabetes with suboptimal glycemic outcomes justify further evaluation of this technology in this population.

Improved Glycemia with Hybrid Closed-Loop Versus Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective: To evaluate safety and effectiveness of MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed loop (HCL) in comparison with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy for 6 months in persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Adults (aged 18-80 years), adolescents, and children (aged 2-17 years) with T1D who were using CSII therapy were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to 6 months of HCL intervention (n = 151, mean age of 39.9 ± 19.8 years) or CSII without continuous glucose monitoring (n = 151, 35.7 ± 18.4 years). Primary effectiveness endpoints included change in A1C for Group 1 (baseline A1C >8.0%), from baseline to the end of study, and difference in the end of study percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL (%TBR <70 mg/dL) for Group 2 (baseline A1C ≤8.0%), to show superiority of HCL intervention versus control. Secondary effectiveness endpoints were change in A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 2 and Group 1, respectively, to show noninferiority of HCL intervention versus control. Primary safety endpoints were rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Results: Change in A1C and difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for the overall group were significantly improved, in favor of HCL intervention. In addition, a significant mean (95% confidence interval) change in A1C was observed for both Group 1 (-0.8% [-1.1% to -0.4%], P < 0.0001) and Group 2 (-0.3% [-0.5% to -0.1%], P < 0.0001), in favor of HCL intervention. The same was observed for difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 1 (-2.2% [-3.6% to -0.9%]) and Group 2 (-4.9% [-6.3% to -3.6%]) (P < 0.0001 for both). There was one DKA event during run-in and six severe hypoglycemic events: two during run-in and four during study (HCL: n = 0 and CSII: n = 4 [6.08 per 100 patient-years]). Conclusions: This RCT demonstrates that the MiniMed 670G HCL safely and significantly improved A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL compared with CSII control in persons with T1D, irrespective of baseline A1C level.

Celebration of a century of insulin therapy in children with type 1 diabetes.

Insulin is the key anabolic hormone of metabolism, with clear effects on glycaemia. Near-complete insulin deficiency occurs in type 1 diabetes (T1D), the predominant form affecting children, and uniformly fatal until the discovery of insulin. By the early 20th century, it was known that T1D was caused by the lack of a factor from pancreatic islets, but isolation of this substance proved elusive. In 1921, an unusual team in Toronto comprising a surgeon, a medical student, a physiologist and a biochemist successfully isolated a glucose-lowering pancreatic endocrine secretion. They treated an emaciated 14-year-old boy in 1922, restoring his health and allowing him to live for another 13 years. Thus began an era of remarkable progress and partnership between academia and the pharmaceutical industry to produce drugs that benefit sick people. The Toronto team received the 1923 Nobel Prize, and more Nobel Prizes for work with insulin followed: for elucidation of its amino acid sequence and crystalline structure, and for its role in the development of radioimmunoassays to measure circulating hormone concentrations. Human insulin was the first hormone synthesised by recombinant methods, permitting modifications to enable improved absorption rates and alterations in duration of action. Coupled with delivery via insulin pens, programmable pumps and continuous glucose monitors, metabolic control and quality of life vastly improved and T1D in children was converted from uniformly fatal to a manageable chronic condition. We describe this remarkable ongoing story as insulin remains a paradigm for human ingenuity to heal nature's maladies.

Can Faster Aspart Be Used to Optimize Glycemic Control With Insulin Pump Therapy? From Expectations to Lessons Learned After a Year of Use in the United States.

Fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) is an ultra-rapid-acting formulation of insulin aspart developed to more closely match the prandial endogenous insulin profile, and its accelerated absorption kinetics are expected to provide clinical benefits for patients using insulin pump therapy. A head-to-head trial versus the original insulin aspart formulation in pump therapy did not demonstrate superiority of faster aspart in terms of A1C reduction, but pump settings were not optimized for the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile of faster aspart. Nevertheless, meal test and continuous glucose monitoring data suggest that faster aspart is beneficial for postprandial glucose control, and a case study is presented illustrating excellent results using this insulin in pump therapy. Frequent blood glucose monitoring and appropriate patient education are vital for success.

Glucagon receptor antagonist volagidemab in type 1 diabetes: a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

Hyperglucagonemia contributes to hyperglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D); however, novel therapeutics that block glucagon action could improve glycemic control. This phase 2 study evaluated the safety and efficacy of volagidemab, an antagonistic monoclonal glucagon receptor (GCGR) antibody, as an adjunct to insulin therapy in adults with T1D. The primary endpoint was change in daily insulin use at week 12. Secondary endpoints included changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at week 13, in average daily blood glucose concentration and time within target range as assessed by continuous blood glucose monitoring (CGM) and seven-point glucose profile at week 12, incidence of hypoglycemic events, the proportion of subjects who achieve HbA1c reduction of ≥0.4%, volagidemab drug concentrations and incidence of anti-drug antibodies. Eligible participants (n = 79) were randomized to receive weekly subcutaneous injections of placebo, 35 mg volagidemab or 70 mg volagidemab. Volagidemab produced a reduction in total daily insulin use at week 12 (35 mg volagidemab: -7.59 units (U) (95% confidence interval (CI) -11.79, -3.39; P = 0.040 versus placebo); 70 mg volagidemab: -6.64 U (95% CI -10.99, -2.29; P = 0.084 versus placebo); placebo: -1.27 U (95% CI -5.4, 2.9)) without meeting the prespecified significance level (P < 0.025). At week 13, the placebo-corrected reduction in HbA1c percentage was -0.53 (95% CI -0.89 to -0.17, nominal P = 0.004) in the 35 mg volagidemab group and -0.49 (95% CI -0.85 to -0.12, nominal P = 0.010) in the 70 mg volagidemab group. No increase in hypoglycemia was observed with volagidemab therapy; however, increases in serum transaminases, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol and blood pressure were observed. Although the primary endpoint did not meet the prespecified significance level, we believe that the observed reduction in HbA1c and tolerable safety profile provide a rationale for further randomized studies to define the long-term efficacy and safety of volagidemab in patients with T1D.

How introduction of automated insulin delivery systems may influence psychosocial outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes: Findings from the first investigation with the Omnipod® 5 System.

AIMS: To evaluate psychosocial outcomes for adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using the tubeless Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System. METHODS: A single-arm, multicenter (across the United States), prospective safety and efficacy study of the tubeless AID system included 115 adults with T1D. Participants aged 18-70 years completed questionnaires assessing psychosocial outcomes - diabetes distress (T1-DDS), hypoglycemic confidence (HCS), well-being (WHO-5), sleep quality (PSQI), insulin delivery satisfaction (IDSS), diabetes treatment satisfaction (DTSQ), and system usability (SUS) - before and after 3 months of AID use. Associations among participant characteristics, psychosocial measures and glycemic outcomes were evaluated using linear regression analyses. RESULTS: Adults using the tubeless AID system demonstrated improvements in diabetes-specific psychosocial measures, including diabetes distress, hypoglycemic confidence, insulin delivery satisfaction, diabetes treatment satisfaction, and system usability after 3 months (all P < 0.001). No changes in general well-being or sleep quality were observed. The psychosocial outcomes assessed were not consistently associated with baseline participant characteristics (i.e., age, sex, diabetes duration, glycemic outcomes including percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL, percent time below range < 70 mg/dL, hemoglobin A1c, or insulin regimen). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Omnipod 5 AID system was associated with significant improvements in diabetes-related psychosocial outcomes for adults with T1D. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04196140.

Accuracy of Three Commercial Home-Use Hemoglobin A1c Tests.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic and the rapid expansion of telemedicine have increased the need for accurate and reliable capillary hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing. Nevertheless, validation studies of commercially available products suitable for home use have been in short supply. Methods: Three commercial home-use capillary blood sample HbA1c tests (Home Access, CoreMedica, and A1cNow+) were evaluated in 219 participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (4-80 years years of age, HbA1c 5.1%-13.4% [32-123 mmol/mol]) at four clinical sites. Comparisons were made between HbA1c measurements from the commercial tests and paired venous samples for which HbA1c was measured at two central reference laboratories. The primary outcome was percentage of commercial HbA1c values within 5% of the corresponding reference values. Results: HbA1c values were within 5% (relative difference) of paired reference values for 82% of Home Access samples, 29% of CoreMedica samples, and 46% of A1cNow+ samples. Absolute differences were within 0.3% of the reference value for 75% of Home Access samples, 28% of CoreMedica samples, and 44% of A1cNow+ samples and exceeded 0.5% for 8%, 55%, and 37%, respectively. Conclusions: None of the commercial home-use HbA1c tests produced the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program goal of ≥90% measurements within 5% of a DCCT venous reference. However, the Home Access product performed substantially better than the CoreMedica or A1cNow+ products. Telemedicine is likely to persist as a mainstay of diabetes care well after the COVID-19 era. As such, accurate home-based HbA1c assessment represents an urgent need for the diabetes community.