Closed-Loop Therapy and Sleep in Young People Newly Diagnosed With T1D and Their Parents.

BACKGROUND: A diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in a young person can create vulnerability for sleep. Historically it has been rare for young people to be offered a closed-loop system soon after diagnosis meaning that studies examining sleep under these circumstances in comparison with standard treatment have not been possible. In this study, we examine sleep in young people (and their parents) who were provided with hybrid closed-loop therapy at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes versus those who receive standard treatment over a 2-year period. METHODS: The sample comprised 97 participants (mean age = 12.0 years; SD = 1.7) from a multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel trial, where young people were randomized to either hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery or standard care at diagnosis. Sleep was measured using actigraphy and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) in the young people, and using the PSQI in parents. RESULTS: Sleep in young people using hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery did not differ significantly compared with those receiving standard care (although there were nonsignificant trends for better sleep in the closed-loop group for 4 of the 5 sleep actigraphy measures and PSQI). Similarly, there were nonsignificant differences for sleep between the groups at 24 months (with mixed direction of effects). CONCLUSIONS: This study assessed for the first time sleep in young people using a closed-loop system soon after diagnosis. Although sleep was not significantly different for young people using closed-loop insulin delivery as compared with those receiving standard care, the direction of effects of the nonsignificant results indicates a possible tendency for better sleep quality in the hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery group at the beginning of the treatment.

Eighteen-Month Hybrid Closed-Loop Use in Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes: A Single-Arm Multicenter Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the longer-term safety and efficacy of hybrid closed-loop (CL) therapy in very young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Following a 16-week multinational, randomized crossover trial comparing hybrid CL with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy in 74 very young children aged 1-7 years with T1D, participants were invited to an extension phase using CL for a further 18 months. Outcomes were compared with the primary-phase SAP period and primary-phase CL period. RESULTS: After the primary study phase, 60 participants were eligible to enroll in the extension. Of these, 49 consented (mean ± SD age 6.6 ± 1.5 years) to continue use of CL for 18 months. Percentage time in range (TIR) 3.9-10.0 mmol/L was 8.4 percentage points (95% CI 6.7 to 10.1; P < 0.001) higher, while HbA1c was 0.4% ([5.0 mmol/mol], 95% CI 0.3 to 0.6 [3.7 to 6.2]; P < 0.001) lower during the CL extension phase compared with primary-phase SAP period. At 18 months, mean HbA1c was 6.7 ± 0.5% and TIR was 70 ± 7%, compared with 6.7 ± 0.5% and 71 ± 6% in the primary-phase CL period. Time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) was similar between CL extension phase and both primary-phase SAP (P = 0.31) and CL periods (P = 0.70). There were two severe hypoglycemia events and one other serious adverse event during the extension phase. One unexpected serious adverse device effect occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Cambridge hybrid CL system led to sustained improvements in glycemic control lasting more than 18 months in very young children with T1D.

Impact of Ultra-Rapid Insulin on Boost and Ease-Off in the Cambridge Hybrid Closed-Loop System for Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ultra-rapid-acting insulin with the Boost and Ease-off features of the Cambridge hybrid closed-loop system. METHODS: A secondary analysis of Boost and Ease-off from two double-blind, randomized, crossover hybrid closed-loop studies comparing (1) Fiasp to insulin aspart (n = 25), and (2) Lyumjev to insulin lispro (n = 26) was carried out. Mean glucose on initialization of Boost and Ease-off, change in glucose 60 and 120 minutes after initialization, duration and frequency of use, mean glucose, and time in, above, and below target glucose range were calculated for periods of Boost use, Ease-off use, or neither. RESULTS: Participants used Boost for longer with Fiasp than insulin aspart (median [interquartile range, IQR] = 75 [53-125] minutes vs 60 [49-75] minutes; P = .01). Mean glucose on Boost initialization with Fiasp was 238 ± 62 mg/dL compared with 218 ± 45 mg/dL with insulin aspart (P = .08). Fiasp use resulted in a greater glucose reduction 120 minutes after Boost initialization [-59 ± 34 mg/dL vs -43 ± 31 mg/dL; P = .02]. There were no statistically significant differences in sensor glucose endpoints during Boost or Ease-off periods between Fiasp and aspart. There were no statistically significant differences during Boost or Ease-off periods when comparing Lyumjev with insulin lispro. There were no safety issues when using Boost and Ease-off with ultra-rapid insulins. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Fiasp and Lyumjev during Boost or Ease-off resulted in comparable safety and efficacy to using insulin aspart and lispro.

Perioperative Fully Closed-loop versus Usual Care Glucose Management in Adults Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery - A Two-centre Randomised Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of fully closed-loop (FCL) compared with usual care (UC) glucose control in patients experiencing major abdominal surgery-related stress hyperglycaemia. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Major abdominal surgery-related stress and periprocedural interventions predispose to perioperative hyperglycaemia, both in diabetes and non-diabetes patients. Insulin corrects hyperglycaemia effectively, but its safe use remains challenging. METHODS: In this two-centre randomised controlled trial, we contrasted subcutaneous FCL with UC glucose management in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery anticipated to experience prolonged hyperglycaemia. FCL (CamAPS HX, Dexcom G6, mylife YpsoPump 1.5x) or UC treatment was used from hospital admission to discharge (max 20 d). Glucose control was assessed using continuous glucose monitoring (masked in the UC group). The primary outcome was the proportion of time with sensor glucose values in target range 5.6-10.0 mmol/L. RESULTS: Thirty-seven surgical patients (54% pancreas, 22% liver, 19% upper gastrointestinal, 5% lower gastrointestinal), of whom 18 received FCL and 19 UC glucose management, were included in the analysis. Mean±SD percentage time with sensor glucose in target range was 80.1±10.0% in the FCL and 53.7±19.7% in the UC group (P<0.001). Mean±SD glucose was 7.5±0.5 mmol/L in the FCL and 9.1±2.4 mmol/L in the UC group (P=0.015). Time in hypoglycaemia (<3.0 mmol/L) was low in either group. No study-related serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The FCL approach resulted in significantly better glycaemic control compared to UC management, without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. Automated glucose-responsive insulin delivery is a safe and effective strategy to minimise hyperglycaemia in complex surgical populations.

Safety of Options to "Boost" (Enhancing Insulin Infusion Rates) and "Ease-Off" (Reducing Insulin Infusion Rates) in CamAPS FX Hybrid Closed-Loop System: A Real-World Analysis.

The usage and safety of the Boost and Ease-off features in the CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop system were analyzed in a retrospective analysis of real-world data from 7,464 users over a 12-month period. Boost was used more frequently than Ease-off, but for a shorter duration per use. Mean starting glucose was above range for Boost (229 ± 51 mg/dL), and within range for Ease-off (114 ± 29 mg/dL). Time spent below 70 mg/dL was low during Boost periods [median (interquartile range; IQR) 0.0% (0.0, 0.5%)], and lower than during no Boost periods [2.1% (1.2, 3.4%)], while time spent above 180 mg/dL was lower during Ease-off periods (15 ± 14%) compared with no Ease-off periods (25 ± 12%). There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis attributed to Boost or Ease-off use. Boost and Ease-off allow users to engage safely with CamAPS FX to manage their glucose levels during periods of more-than-usual and less-than-usual insulin needs.

Effect of 48 Months of Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery on Residual C-Peptide Secretion and Glycemic Control in Newly Diagnosed Youth With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effect of long-term intensive metabolic control with hybrid closed-loop (CL) on residual C-peptide secretion and glucose control compared with standard insulin therapy in youth with type 1 diabetes over 48 months. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Following the 24-month primary phase of a multicenter, randomized, parallel trial of 96 newly diagnosed youth aged 10 to 16.9 years, participants were invited to an extension phase using treatment allocated at randomization. They continued with hybrid CL using the Cambridge algorithm or standard insulin therapy (control) until 48 months after diagnosis. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: At 24 months after diagnosis, 81 participants (mean ± SD age 14 ± 2 years) continued in the extension phase (47 CL, 34 control). There was no difference in fasting C-peptide corrected for fasting glucose at 48 months between groups (CL: 5 ± 9 vs. control: 6 ± 14 pmol/L per mmol/L; mean adjusted difference -2 [95% CI -7, 4; P = 0.54]). Central laboratory HbA1c remained lower in the CL group by 0.9% (10 mmol/mol [95% CI 0.2, 1.5; 3, 17 mmol/mol); P = 0.009). Time in target range of 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L was 12 percentage points (95% CI 3, 20; P = 0.008) higher in the CL group compared with control. There were 11 severe hypoglycemic events (6 CL, 5 control) and 7 diabetic ketoacidosis events (3 CL, 4 control) during the extension phase. CONCLUSIONS: Improved glycemic control was sustained over 48 months after diagnosis with CL insulin delivery compared with standard therapy in youth with type 1 diabetes. This did not appear to confer a protective effect on residual C-peptide secretion.

Hypoglycemia and Hyperglycemia According to Type of Diabetes: Observations During Fully Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: CamAPS HX fully closed-loop (FCL) system, with no user input required at mealtimes, has been shown to be safe and effective in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. We assessed whether time spent in hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia during FCL insulin delivery in adults varied by type of diabetes over the 24-hour period. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed eight weeks of data from 52 participants (adults with type 1 diabetes and adults with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes) recruited to two single-center randomized controlled studies using FCL insulin delivery during unrestricted-living conditions. Key outcomes were time spent in hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL and marked hyperglycemia >300 mg/dL by type of diabetes. RESULTS: The median percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL over the 24-hour period was lower for those with type 2 diabetes than for those with type 1 diabetes (median [interquartile range (IQR)] 0.43% [0.20-0.77] vs 0.86%, [0.54-1.46]; mean difference 0.46 percentage points [95% CI 0.23-0.70]; P < .001). Median percentage time in marked hyperglycemia >300 mg/dL was lower for those with type 2 diabetes than for those with type 1 diabetes (median [IQR] 1.8% [0.6-3.5] vs 9.3% [6.9-11.8]; mean difference 7.8 percentage points [95% CI 5.5-10.0]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Using the FCL system, hypoglycemia and marked hyperglycemia exposure were lower in type 2 diabetes than in type 1 diabetes.

Lived Experience of Fully Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Introduction: The Closing the Loop in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes (CLEAR) randomized crossover study compared a novel fully closed-loop insulin delivery system with no carbohydrate entry or mealtime bolusing (CamAPS HX), with standard insulin pump therapy and glucose sensor in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic outcomes. This qualitative substudy aimed to understand the psychosocial impact of using the fully automated system. Materials and Methods: Adults participating in the CLEAR study were invited to take part in a virtual semistructured interview after they had completed 8 weeks using the fully closed-loop system. Recruitment continued until there was adequate representation and data saturation occurred. Interviews were anonymized and transcribed for in-depth thematic analysis using an inductive-deductive approach. Study participants were also asked to complete questionnaires assessing diabetes distress, hypoglycemia confidence, and closed-loop treatment satisfaction. Results: Eleven participants (eight male and three female; age range 26-66 years) were interviewed. After an initial adjustment period, interviewees reported enjoying a reduction in diabetes burden, freed-up mental capacity, and improved mood. All were happy with overnight glycemic outcomes, with the majority reporting benefits on sleep. Although experiences of postprandial glucose outcomes varied, all found mealtimes easier and less stressful, particularly when eating out. Negatives raised by participants predominantly related to the insulin pump hardware, but some also reported increased snacking and challenges around resuming carbohydrate counting at trial closeout. Conclusions: In adults with type 1 diabetes, use of a fully closed-loop insulin delivery system had significant quality-of-life benefits and provided a welcome break from the day-to-day demands of living with diabetes. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04977908.

Cost-Effectiveness of Closed-Loop Automated Insulin Delivery Using the Cambridge Hybrid Algorithm in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: Results from a Multicenter 6-Month Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study is to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of the Cambridge hybrid closed-loop automated insulin delivery (AID) algorithm versus usual care for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: This multicenter, binational, parallel-controlled trial randomized 133 insulin pump using participants aged 6 to 18 years to either AID (n = 65) or usual care (n = 68) for 6 months. Both within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness were analyzed. Analysis focused on the treatment subgroup (n = 21) who received the much more reliable CamAPS FX hardware iteration and their contemporaneous control group (n = 24). Lifetime complications and costs were simulated via an updated Sheffield T1D policy model. RESULTS: Within-trial, both groups had indistinguishable and statistically unchanged health-related quality of life, and statistically similar hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) event rates. Total health care utilization was higher in the treatment group. Both the overall treatment group and CamAPS FX subgroup exhibited improved HbA1C (-0.32%, 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.04; P = .02, and -1.05%, 95% CI: -1.43 to -0.67; P < .001, respectively). Modeling projected increased expected lifespan of 5.36 years and discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 1.16 (U.K. tariffs) and 1.52 (U.S. tariffs) in the CamAPS FX subgroup. Estimated ICERs for the subgroup were £19 324/QALY (United Kingdom) and -$3917/QALY (United States). For subgroup patients already using continuous glucose monitors (CGM), ICERs were £10 096/QALY (United Kingdom) and -$33 616/QALY (United States). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis generated mean ICERs of £19 342/QALY (95% CI: £15 903/QALY to £22 929/QALY) (United Kingdom) and -$28 283/QALY (95% CI: -$59 607/QALY to $1858/QALY) (United States). CONCLUSIONS: For children and adolescents with T1D on insulin pump therapy, AID using the Cambridge algorithm appears cost-effective below a £20 000/QALY threshold (United Kingdom) and cost saving (United States).

Diabetic Ketoacidosis at Onset of Type 1 Diabetes and Glycemic Outcomes with Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery.

The presence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes (T1D) is associated with higher glycated hemoglobin levels over time. We evaluated whether hybrid-closed loop (HCL) therapy from onset of T1D could prevent the adverse impact of DKA at diagnosis on long-term glycemic outcomes. This was a posthoc analysis from 51 adolescents using HCL from diagnosis of T1D as part of the CLOuD trial (NCT02871089). We compared glycemic and insulin metrics between adolescents with (n = 17) and without (n = 34) DKA at diagnosis. Participants with and without DKA at diagnosis had similar time in target glucose range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL), time below range (<3.9 mmol/L, <70 mg/dL) and HbA1c at 6, 12, and 24 months. While insulin requirements at 6 months were higher in those with DKA at diagnosis, this was not statistically significant after adjusting for bodyweight. Residual C-peptide secretion was similar between groups. We conclude that HCL therapy may mitigate against the negative glycemic effects of DKA at T1D diagnosis.

Postprandial Glucose Excursions with Ultra-Rapid Insulin Analogs in Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Objective: To evaluate postprandial glucose control when applying (1) faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) compared to insulin aspart and (2) ultra-rapid insulin lispro (Lyumjev) compared to insulin lispro using the CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop algorithm. Research Design and Methods: We undertook a secondary analysis of postprandial glucose excursions from two double-blind, randomized, crossover hybrid closed-loop studies contrasting Fiasp to standard insulin aspart, and Lyumjev to standard insulin lispro. Endpoints included incremental area under curve (iAUC)-2h, iAUC-4h, 4 h postprandial time in target range, time above range, and time below range. It was approved by independent research ethics committees. Results: Two trials with 8 weeks of data from 51 adults with type 1 diabetes were analyzed and 7137 eligible meals were included. During Lyumjev compared with insulin lispro, iAUC-2h and iAUC-4h were significantly decreased following breakfast (mean difference 92 mmol/L per 2 h (95% confidence interval [CI]: 56 to 127); P < 0.001 and 151 mmol/L per 4 h (95% CI: 74 to 229); P < 0.001, respectively) and the evening meal (P < 0.001 and P = 0.011, respectively). Mean time in target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) for 4 h postprandially significantly increased during Lyumjev with a mean difference of 6.7 percentage points (95% CI: 3.3 to 10) and 5.7 percentage points (95% CI: 1.4 to 9.9) for breakfast and evening meal, respectively. In contrast, there were no significant differences in iAUC-2h, iAUC-4h, and the other measures of postprandial glucose control between insulin aspart and Fiasp during breakfast, lunch, and evening meal (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The use of Lyumjev with CamAPS FX closed-loop system improved postprandial glucose excursions compared with insulin lispro, while the use of Fiasp did not provide any advantage compared with insulin aspart. Clinical Trial Registration numbers: NCT04055480, NCT05257460.

CamAPS FX Hybrid Closed-Loop with Ultra-Rapid Lispro Compared with Standard Lispro in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Crossover Study.

Introduction: To evaluate hybrid closed-loop with ultra-rapid insulin lispro (Lyumjev) compared with hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes. Materials and Methods: In a single-center, double-blind, randomized, crossover study, 28 adults with type 1 diabetes (mean ± standard deviation [SD]: age 44.5 ± 10.7 years, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.1 ± 0.9% [54 ± 10 mmol/mol]) underwent two 8-week periods comparing hybrid closed-loop with ultra-rapid insulin lispro and hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin lispro in random order. The same CamAPS FX closed-loop algorithm was used in both periods. Results: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time sensor glucose was in target range (3.9-10 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]; primary endpoint) was greater with ultra-rapid lispro compared with standard insulin lispro (mean ± SD: 78.7 ± 9.8% vs. 76.2 ± 9.6%; mean difference 2.5 percentage points [95% confidence interval 0.8 to 4.2]; P = 0.005). Mean sensor glucose was lower with ultra-rapid lispro compared with standard insulin lispro (7.9 ± 0.8 mmol/L [142 ± 14 mg/dL] vs. 8.1 ± 0.9 mmol/L [146 ± 16 mg/dL]; P = 0.048). The proportion of time with sensor glucose <3.9 mmol/L [70 mg/dL] was similar between interventions (median [interquartile range] ultra-rapid lispro 2.3% [1.3%-2.7%] vs. standard insulin lispro 2.1% [1.4%-3.3%]; P = 0.33). No severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred. Conclusions: The use of ultra-rapid lispro with CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop increases time in range and reduces mean glucose with no difference in hypoglycemia compared with standard insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes. ClinicalTrials.gov: Trial registration number NCT05257460.

Automated Insulin Delivery in Women with Pregnancy Complicated by Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid closed-loop insulin therapy has shown promise for management of type 1 diabetes during pregnancy; however, its efficacy is unclear. METHODS: In this multicenter, controlled trial, we randomly assigned pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and a glycated hemoglobin level of at least 6.5% at nine sites in the United Kingdom to receive standard insulin therapy or hybrid closed-loop therapy, with both groups using continuous glucose monitoring. The primary outcome was the percentage of time in the pregnancy-specific target glucose range (63 to 140 mg per deciliter [3.5 to 7.8 mmol per liter]) as measured by continuous glucose monitoring from 16 weeks' gestation until delivery. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary outcomes were the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state (glucose level >140 mg per deciliter), overnight time in the target range, the glycated hemoglobin level, and safety events. RESULTS: A total of 124 participants with a mean (±SD) age of 31.1±5.3 years and a mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level of 7.7±1.2% underwent randomization. The mean percentage of time that the maternal glucose level was in the target range was 68.2±10.5% in the closed-loop group and 55.6±12.5% in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference, 10.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.0 to 14.0; P<0.001). Results for the secondary outcomes were consistent with those of the primary outcome; participants in the closed-loop group spent less time in a hyperglycemic state than those in the standard-care group (difference, -10.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -13.8 to -6.6); had more overnight time in the target range (difference, 12.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 8.3 to 16.2), and had lower glycated hemoglobin levels (difference, -0.31 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.50 to -0.12). Little time was spent in a hypoglycemic state. No unanticipated safety problems associated with the use of closed-loop therapy during pregnancy occurred (6 instances of severe hypoglycemia, vs. 5 in the standard-care group; 1 instance of diabetic ketoacidosis in each group; and 12 device-related adverse events in the closed-loop group, 7 related to closed-loop therapy). CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid closed-loop therapy significantly improved maternal glycemic control during pregnancy complicated by type 1 diabetes. (Funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Program; AiDAPT ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN56898625.).

Fully Closed-Loop Glucose Control Compared With Insulin Pump Therapy With Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes and Suboptimal Glycemic Control: A Single-Center, Randomized, Crossover Study.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control compared with insulin pump therapy with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This single-center, randomized, crossover study enrolled 26 adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin pump therapy with suboptimal glycemic control (mean ± SD, age 41 ± 12 years, HbA1c 9.2 ± 1.1% [77 ± 12 mmol/mol]). Participants underwent two 8-week periods of unrestricted living to compare fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro (CamAPS HX system) with insulin pump therapy with CGM in random order. RESULTS: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time glucose was in range (primary end point 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was higher during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD 50.0 ± 9.6% vs. 36.2 ± 12.2%, mean difference 13.2 percentage points [95% CI 9.5, 16.9], P < 0.001). Time with glucose >10.0 mmol/L and mean glucose were lower during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD time >10.0 mmol/L: 49.0 ± 9.9 vs. 62.9 ± 12.6%, mean difference -13.3 percentage points [95% CI -17.2, -9.5], P < 0.001; mean ± SD glucose 10.7 ± 1.1 vs. 12.0 ± 1.6 mmol/L, mean difference -1.2 mmol/L [95% CI -1.8, -0.7], P < 0.001). The proportion of time with glucose <3.9 mmol/L was similar between periods (median [interquartile range (IQR)] closed-loop 0.88% [0.51-1.55] vs. pump with CGM 0.64% [0.28-1.10], P = 0.102). Total daily insulin requirements did not differ (median [IQR] closed-loop 51.9 units/day [35.7-91.2] vs. pump with CGM 50.7 units/day [34.0-70.0], P = 0.704). No severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Fully closed-loop insulin delivery with CamAPS HX improved glucose control compared with insulin pump therapy with CGM in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control.

Real-World Evidence Analysis of a Hybrid Closed-Loop System.

BACKGROUND: We analyzed real-world evidence to assess the performance of the mylife CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop system. METHODS: Users from 15 countries across different age groups who used the system between May 9, 2022, and December 3, 2022, and who had ≥30 days of continuous glucose monitor data, and ≥30% of closed-loop usage were included in the current analysis (N = 1805). RESULTS: Time in range (3.9-10 mmol/L) was 72.6 ± 11.5% (mean ± SD) for all users and increased by age from 66.9 ± 11.7% for users ≤6 years old to 81.8 ± 8.7% for users ≥65 years. Time spent in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) was 2.3% [1.3, 3.6] (median [interquartile range]). Mean glucose and glucose management indicator were 8.4 ± 1.1 mmol/L and 6.9%, respectively. Time using closed-loop was high at 94.7% [90.0, 96.9]. CONCLUSIONS: Glycemic outcomes from the present real-world evidence are comparable to results obtained from previous randomized controlled studies and confirm the efficacy of this hybrid closed-loop system in real-world settings.

Real-World Evidence of the Cambridge Hybrid Closed-Loop App With a Novel Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring System.

We evaluated the performance of the interoperable Cambridge hybrid closed-loop app with FreeStyle Libre 3 glucose sensor, and YpsoPump insulin pump in a real-world setting. Data from 100 users (63 adults [mean ± SD age 41.9 ± 14.0 years], 15 children [8.6 ± 5.2 years)] and 22 users of unreported age) for a period of 28 days were analyzed. Time in range (3.91- 10.0mmol/L) was 72.6 ± 11.1% overall. Time below range (<3.9mmol/L) was 3.1% (1.4-5.1) (median [interquartile range]). Auto-mode was active for 95.8% (91.8-97.9) of time. This real-world analysis suggests that the performance of Cambridge hybrid closed-loop app with this glucose sensor is comparable to other commercially available hybrid closed-loop systems.

Time Spent in Hypoglycemia According to Age and Time of Day: Observations During Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery.

Objective: We aimed to assess whether percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia during closed-loop insulin delivery differs by age group and time of day. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from hybrid closed-loop studies involving young children (2-7 years), children and adolescents (8-18 years), adults (19-59 years), and older adults (≥60 years) with type 1 diabetes. Main outcome was time spent in hypoglycemia <3.9 mmol/L (<70 mg/dL). Eight weeks of data for 88 participants were analyzed. Results: Median time spent in hypoglycemia over the 24-h period was highest in children and adolescents (4.4% [interquartile range 2.4-5.0]) and very young children (4.0% [3.4-5.2]), followed by adults (2.7% [1.7-4.0]), and older adults (1.8% [1.2-2.2]); P < 0.001 for difference between age groups. Time spent in hypoglycemia during nighttime (midnight-05:59) was lower than during daytime (06:00-23:59) across all age groups. Conclusion: Time in hypoglycemia was highest in the pediatric age group during closed-loop insulin delivery. Hypoglycemia burden was lowest overnight across all age groups.