Automatic 1-year follow-up appointment creation and reminders can improve long-term follow-up after carotid revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Long-term follow-up (LTFU) following carotid revascularization is important for post-surgical care, stroke risk optimization and post-market surveillance of new technologies. METHODS: We instituted a quality improvement project to improve LTFU rates for carotid revascularizations (primary outcome) by scheduling perioperative and one-year follow-up appointments at time of surgery discharge. A temporal trends analysis (Q1 2019 through Q1 2022), multivariable regression, and interrupted time series (ITS) were performed to compare pre-post intervention LTFU rates. RESULTS: 269 consecutive patients were included (151 pre-intervention, 118 post-intervention; mean 71 â€‹± â€‹12 years-old, 39% female, 77% White). The overall LTFU rate improved (64.9%-78.8%; P â€‹= â€‹0.013) after the intervention. After controlling for patient factors, procedures performed after the intervention were associated with increased odds of being seen for 1-year follow-up (OR: 2.2 95%CI: 1.2-4.0). Quarterly ITS analysis corroborated this relationship (P â€‹= â€‹0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Time-of-surgery appointment creation and automated patient reminders can improve LTFU rates following carotid revascularizations.

Corrigendum: Implementation of a patient-centered remote wound monitoring system for management of diabetic foot ulcers.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1157518.].

Implementation of a patient-centered remote wound monitoring system for management of diabetic foot ulcers.

Background: Regular clinical assessment is critical to optimize lower extremity wound healing. However, family and work obligations, socioeconomic, transportation, and time barriers often limit patient follow-up. We assessed the feasibility of a novel, patient-centered, remote wound management system (Healthy.io Minuteful for Wound Digital Management System) for the surveillance of lower extremity wounds. Methods: We enrolled 25 patients from our outpatient multidisciplinary limb preservation clinic with a diabetic foot ulcer, who had undergone revascularization and podiatric interventions prior to enrollment. Patients and their caregivers were instructed on how to use the digital management system and asked to perform one at-home wound scan per week for a total of 8 weeks using a smartphone application. We collected prospective data on patient engagement, smartphone app useability, and patient satisfaction. Results: Twenty-five patients (mean age 65.5 ± 13.7 years, 60.0% male, 52.0% Black) were enrolled over 3 months. Mean baseline wound area was 18.0 ± 15.2 cm2, 24.0% of patients were recovering from osteomyelitis, and post-surgical WiFi stage was 1 in 24.0%, 2 in 40.0%, 3 in 28.0%, and 4 in 8.00% of patients. We provided a smartphone to 28.0% of patients who did not have access to one that was compatible with the technology. Wound scans were obtained by patients (40.0%) and caregivers (60.0%). Overall, 179 wound scans were submitted through the app. The mean number of wound scans acquired per patient was 0.72 ± 0.63 per week, for a total mean of 5.80 ± 5.30 scans over the course of 8 weeks. Use of the digital wound management system triggered an early change in wound management for 36.0% of patients. Patient satisfaction was high; 94.0% of patients reported the system was useful. Conclusion: The Healthy.io Minuteful for Wound Digital Management System is a feasible means of remote wound monitoring for use by patients and/or their caregivers.

Empagliflozin add-on therapy to closed-loop insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes: a 2 × 2 factorial randomized crossover trial.

There is a need to optimize closed-loop automated insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes. We assessed the glycemic efficacy and safety of empagliflozin 25 mg d-1 as add-on therapy to insulin delivery with a closed-loop system. We performed a 2 × 2 factorial randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover two-center trial in adults, assessing 4 weeks of closed-loop delivery versus sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy and empagliflozin versus placebo. The primary outcome was time spent in the glucose target range (3.9-10.0 mmol l-1). Primary comparisons were empagliflozin versus placebo in each of closed-loop or SAP therapy; the remaining comparisons were conditional on its significance. Twenty-four of 27 randomized participants were included in the final analysis. Compared to placebo, empagliflozin improved time in target range with closed-loop therapy by 7.2% and in SAP therapy by 11.4%. Closed-loop therapy plus empagliflozin improved time in target range compared to SAP therapy plus empagliflozin by 6.1% but by 17.5% for the combination of closed-loop therapy and empagliflozin compared to SAP therapy plus placebo. While no diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred during any intervention, uncomplicated ketosis events were more common on empagliflozin. Empagliflozin 25 mg d-1 added to automated insulin delivery improves glycemic control but increases ketone concentration and ketosis compared to placebo.

A fully artificial pancreas versus a hybrid artificial pancreas for type 1 diabetes: a single-centre, open-label, randomised controlled, crossover, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: For people with type 1 diabetes, there is currently no automated insulin delivery system that does not require meal input. We aimed to assess the efficacy of a novel faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) plus pramlintide fully closed-loop system that does not require meal input. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised controlled, crossover, non-inferiority trial we compared the Fiasp (Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark) plus pramlintide closed-loop system with no meal input (fully artificial pancreas) and the Fiasp-alone closed-loop system with precise carbohydrate counting (hybrid artificial pancreas). Adults (≥18 years) who had a clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes for at least 12 months, had glycated haemoglobin 12% or lower, and had been on insulin pump therapy for at least 6 months were enrolled at McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. The Fiasp plus pramlintide fully closed-loop system delivered pramlintide in a basal-bolus manner with a fixed ratio of 10 µg:U relative to insulin. A research staff member counted the carbohydrate content of meals to input in the hybrid closed-loop system. Participants completed the two full-day crossover interventions in a random order allocated by a computer-generated code implementing a blocked randomisation (block size of four). The primary outcome was the percentage of time spent within the glucose target range (3·9-10·0 mmol/L), with a 6% non-inferiority margin, assessed in all participants who completed both interventions. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03800875. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2019, and Sept 19, 2020, we enrolled 28 adults, of whom 24 completed both interventions and were included in analyses. The percentage of time spent in the target range was 74·3% (IQR 61·5-82·8) with the fully closed-loop system versus 78·1% (66·3-87·5) with the hybrid Fiasp-alone closed-loop system (paired difference 2·6%, 95% CI -2·4 to 12·2; non-inferiority p=0·28). Eight (33%) participants had at least one hypoglycaemia event (<3·3 mmol/L) with the fully closed-loop system compared with 14 (58%) participants with the hybrid closed-loop system (2200-2200 h). Non-mild nausea was reported by three (13%) participants and non-mild bloating by one (4%) participant with the fully closed-loop system compared with zero participants with the hybrid closed-loop system. INTERPRETATION: The Fiasp plus pramlintide fully closed-loop system was not non-inferior to the Fiasp-alone hybrid closed-loop system for the overall percentage of time in the glucose target range. However, participants still spent a high percentage of time within the target range with the fully-closed loop system. Outpatient studies comparing the fully closed-loop hybrid systems with patient-estimated, rather than precise, carbohydrate counting are warranted. FUNDING: Diabetes Canada.

Alleviating carbohydrate counting with a FiASP-plus-pramlintide closed-loop delivery system (artificial pancreas): Feasibility and pilot studies.

AIM: To assess whether a FiASP-and-pramlintide closed-loop system has the potential to replace carbohydrate counting with a simple meal announcement (SMA) strategy (meal priming bolus without carbohydrate counting) without degrading glycaemic control compared with a FiASP closed-loop system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a 24-hour feasibility study comparing a FiASP system with full carbohydrate counting (FCC) with a FiASP-and-pramlintide system with SMA. We conducted a subsequent 12-day outpatient pilot study comparing a FiASP-and-placebo system with FCC, a FiASP-and-pramlintide system with SMA, and a FiASP-and-placebo system with SMA. Basal-bolus FiASP-and-pramlintide were delivered at a fixed ratio (1 U:10 µg). Glycaemic outcomes were measured, surveys evaluated gastrointestinal symptoms and diabetes distress, and participant interviews helped establish a preliminary coding framework to assess user experience. RESULTS: Seven participants were included in the feasibility analysis. Time spent in 3.9-10 mmol/L was similar between both interventions (81%-84%). Four participants were included in the pilot analysis. Time spent in 3.9-10 mmol/L was similar between the FiASP-and-placebo with FCC and FiASP-and-pramlintide with SMA interventions (70%), but was lower in the FiASP-and-placebo with SMA intervention (60%). Time less than 3.9 mmol/L and gastrointestinal symptoms were similar across all interventions. Emotional distress was moderate at baseline, after the FiASP-and-placebo with FCC and SMA interventions, and fell after the FiASP-and-pramlintide with SMA intervention. SMA reportedly afforded participants flexibility and reduced mealtime concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The FiASP-and-pramlintide system has the potential to substitute carbohydrate counting with SMA without degrading glucose control.

Fully Automated Artificial Pancreas for Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Using Multiple Hormones: Exploratory Experiments.

OBJECTIVES: A fully automated insulin-pramlintide-glucagon artificial pancreas that alleviates the burden of carbohydrate counting without degrading glycemic control was iteratively enhanced until convergence through pilot experiments on adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Nine participants (age, 37±13 years; glycated hemoglobin, 7.7±0.7%) completed two 27-hour interventions: a fully automated multihormone artificial pancreas and a comparator insulin-alone artificial pancreas with carbohydrate counting. The baseline algorithm was a model-predictive controller that administered insulin and pramlintide in a fixed ratio, with boluses triggered by a glucose threshold, and administered glucagon in response to low glucose levels. RESULTS: The baseline multihormone dosing algorithm resulted in noninferior time in target range (3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L) (71%) compared with the insulin-alone arm (70%) in 2 participants, with minimal glucagon delivery. The algorithm was modified to deliver insulin and pramlintide more aggressively to increase time in range and maximize the benefits of glucagon. The modified algorithm displayed a similar time in range for the multihormone arm (79%) compared with the insulin-alone arm (83%) in 2 participants, but with undesired glycemic fluctuations. Subsequently, we reduced the glucose threshold that triggers glucagon boluses. This resulted in inferior glycemic control for the multihormone arm (81% vs 91%) in 2 participants. Thereafter, a model-based meal-detection algorithm to deliver insulin and pramlintide boluses closer to mealtimes was added and glucagon was removed. The final dual-hormone system had comparable time in range (81% vs 83%) in the last 3 participants. CONCLUSION: The final version of the fully automated system that delivered insulin and pramlintide warrants a randomized controlled trial.

Comparison Between Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery System (the Artificial Pancreas) and Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy: A Randomized-Controlled Crossover Trial.

Objective: Several studies have shown that closed-loop automated insulin delivery (the artificial pancreas) improves glucose control compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy. We aimed to confirm these findings using our automated insulin delivery system based on the iPancreas platform. Research Design and Methods: We conducted a two-center, randomized crossover trial comparing automated insulin delivery with sensor-augmented pump therapy in 36 adults with type 1 diabetes. Each intervention lasted 12 days in outpatient free-living conditions with no remote monitoring. The automated insulin delivery system used a model predictive control algorithm that was a less aggressive version of our earlier dosing algorithm to emphasize safety. The primary outcome was time in the range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L. Results: The automated insulin delivery system was operational 90.2% of the time. Compared with the sensor-augmented pump therapy, automated insulin delivery increased time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) from 61% (interquartile range 53-74) to 69% (60-73; P = 0.006) and increased time in tight target range (3.9-7.8 mmol/L) from 37% (30-49) to 45% (35-51; P = 0.011). Automated insulin delivery also reduced time spent below 3.9 and 3.3 mmol/L from 3.5% (0.8-5.4) to 1.6% (1.1-2.7; P = 0.0021) and from 0.9% (0.2-2.1) to 0.5% (0.2-1.1; P = 0.0122), respectively. Time spent below 2.8 mmol/L was 0.2% (0.0-0.6) with sensor-augmented pump therapy and 0.1% (0.0-0.4; P = 0.155) with automated insulin delivery. Conclusions: Our study confirms findings that automated insulin delivery improves glucose control compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT02846831.

A Novel Dual-Hormone Insulin-and-Pramlintide Artificial Pancreas for Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The rapid insulin-alone artificial pancreas improves glycemia in type 1 diabetes but daytime control remains suboptimal. We propose two novel dual-hormone artificial pancreas systems. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized crossover trial comparing a rapid insulin-alone artificial pancreas with rapid insulin-and-pramlintide and with regular insulin-and-pramlintide artificial pancreas systems in adults with type 1 diabetes. Participants were assigned to the interventions in random order during three 24-h inpatient visits. Each visit was preceded by an outpatient hormonal open-loop run-in period of 10-14 days. The dual-hormone artificial pancreas delivered pramlintide in a basal-bolus manner, using a novel dosing algorithm, with a fixed ratio relative to insulin. The primary outcome was time in the range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L. RESULTS: Compared with the rapid insulin-alone artificial pancreas system, the rapid insulin-and-pramlintide system increased the time in range from 74% (SD 18%) to 84% (13%) (P = 0.0014), whereas the regular insulin-and-pramlintide system did not change the time in range (69% [19%]; P = 0.22). The increased time in range with the rapid insulin-and-pramlintide system was due to improved daytime control (daytime time in range increased from 63% [23%] to 78% [16%], P = 0.0004). There were 11 (1 per 2.5 days) hypoglycemic events (<3.3 mmol/L with symptoms or <3.0 mmol/L irrespective of symptoms) with the rapid insulin-alone system, compared with 12 (1 per 2.3 days) and 18 (1 per 1.4 days) with the rapid and regular insulin-and-pramlintide systems, respectively. Gastrointestinal symptoms were reported after 0% (0 of 112) of meals with the rapid insulin-alone system, compared with 6% (6 of 108) and 11% (11 of 104) with the rapid and regular insulin-and-pramlintide systems, respectively; none of the symptoms were severe. CONCLUSIONS: A novel rapid insulin-and-pramlintide artificial pancreas improves glucose control compared with a rapid insulin-alone artificial pancreas (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02814123).

Accuracy of FreeStyle Libre in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: The Effect of Sensor Age.

Background: FreeStyle Libre is a factory-calibrated continuous 14-day glucose sensor. Little is known about the accuracy of FreeStyle Libre as a function of sensor age. Methods: We assessed the accuracy of FreeStyle Libre in 14 adults with type 1 diabetes. Each study participant attended our research facility for two or three 24-h visits, during which they wore a FreeStyle Libre aged 0-1 day, 5-7 days, or 13-14 days. Plasma glucose levels were measured every 10-30 min using YSI2300 STAT Plus Analyser. Participants also wore Dexcom G5® glucose sensor aged 1-2 days. We assessed sensors' accuracy using mean absolute relative difference (MARD) between FreeStyle Libre, the Dexcom G5 sensor, and plasma glucose. Results: We had 1930 pairs of FreeStyle Libre sensor-plasma glucose measurements, collected from 36 FreeStyle Libre sensors, 18 of which were sensors aged 0-1 day, 9 were sensors aged 5-7 days, and 9 were sensors aged 13-14 days. The mean and median MARD for FreeStyle Libre sensors aged 0-1 days were 14.5% and 11.2%, respectively, and for sensors aged 13-14 days were 14.7% and 11.2%, respectively, but for sensors aged 5-7 days were 7.8% and 6.6%, respectively (P = 0.03 vs. sensors aged 0-1 days, and P = 0.06 vs. sensors aged 13-14 days). The percentage of points falling in the potentially dangerous zones C, D, or E in Clarke's error grid analysis were 1.9% for FreeStyle Libre sensors aged 0-1 day, 0.2% for sensors aged 5-7 days, and 0.4% for sensors aged 13-14 days. The overall accuracy of FreeStyle Libre and Dexcom G5 sensor was the same (mean MARD 12.8% and 12.5%, respectively; P = 0.57). Conclusions: FreeStyle Libre's accuracy is adequate during its entire lifetime but is least accurate during its first and last days. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02814123.

The Efficacy of Basal Rate and Carbohydrate Ratio Learning Algorithm for Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery (Artificial Pancreas) in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes in a Diabetes Camp.

Background: Optimizing programmed basal rates and carbohydrate ratios may improve the performance of the artificial pancreas. We tested, in a diabetes camp, the efficacy of a learning algorithm that updates daily basal rates and carbohydrate ratios in the artificial pancreas. Materials and Methods: We conducted a randomized crossover trial in campers and counselors aged 8-21 years with type 1 diabetes on pump therapy. Participants underwent 2 days of artificial pancreas alone and 6 days of artificial pancreas with learning. During the artificial pancreas with learning, programmed basal rates and carbohydrate ratios were updated daily based on the learning algorithm's recommendations. All algorithm recommendations were reviewed for safety by camp physicians. The primary outcome was the time in target range (3.9-10 mmol/L) of the last 2 days of each intervention. Results: Thirty-four campers (age 13.9 ± 3.9, hemoglobin A1c 8.3% ± 0.2%) were included. Ninety-six percent of algorithm recommendations were approved by the camp physicians. Participants were in closed-loop mode 74% of the time. There was no difference between interventions in time in target (55%-55%; P = 0.71) nor in hypoglycemia events (0.8-0.9 events per day; P = 0.63). This was despite changes in programmed basal rate ranging from -21% to +117%, and changes in breakfast, lunch, and supper carbohydrate ratios from -17% to +40%, -36% to +37%, and -35% to +63%, respectively. Morever, postprandial hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia did not decrease in participants whose carbohydrate ratios were decreased (more insulin boluses) and increased (less insulin boluses), respectively. Conclusions: In camp settings, despite adjustments to programmed basal rates and carbohydrate ratios, the learning algorithm did not change glycemia, which may point toward limited effect of these adjustments in environments with large day-to-day variability in insulin needs. Longer randomized studies in real-world settings are required to further assess the efficacy of automatic adjustments of programmed basal rates and carbohydrate ratios.