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.

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.

Advanced Technology in the Management of Diabetes: Which Comes First-Continuous Glucose Monitor or Insulin Pump?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this article, we consider advanced technologies for the management of diabetes. RECENT FINDINGS: Specifically, we pose the question of which should come first: an insulin pump (CSII) or a continuous glucose monitor (CGM)? Historical perspective on both insulin delivery and glucose measurement is provided. Recently published clinical trials are reviewed. Practical issues including quality of life, patient education, and out-of-pocket cost are discussed. Based on available evidence and clinical experience, we favor CGM as a first-line technology recommendation for the treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D).

EVALUATION OF INSULIN GLARGINE AND EXENATIDE ALONE AND IN COMBINATION: A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL WITH CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING AND AMBULATORY GLUCOSE PROFILE ANALYSIS.

Objective: Characterize the effectiveness of insulin glargine alone, exenatide alone, or combined in subjects taking stable doses of metformin and evaluate their impact on hemoglobin A1C, hypoglycemia, weight, and glucose variability. Methods: Open-label, randomized, parallel-arm study of adults with type 2 diabetes naïve to both insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist who were not at A1C goal despite treatment with metformin. This prospective interventional study employed blinded continuous glucose monitoring ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) reports over 32 weeks. Subjects were randomized to treatment with glargine (Iglar), exenatide (GLP-1), or combination of glargine and exenatide (Iglar + GLP-1). At midpoint, those not at A1C target had the second medication added; those on Iglar + GLP-1 continued therapy optimization. Results: Decreases in A1C were: 7.6 to 6.2% for Iglar + GLP-1, 7.5 to 6.6% for Iglar, and 7.5 to 6.4% for GLP-1. Iglar + GLP-1 achieved A1C targets faster (14 to 16 weeks) but had more hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia rates increased slightly for all arms. Weight loss was achieved in all regimens including GLP-1. Glucose variability was not reduced to the same extent in the Iglar arm as the GLP-1 arm. Conclusion: Addition of Iglar and/or GLP-1 to metformin for patients not at treatment goal was safe and effective. The order of medication addition needs to consider individualized AGP patterns and goals. Iglar + GLP-1 resulted in rapid A1C lowering, whereas GLP-1 was noted to have less hypoglycemia. Weight loss was most pronounced in GLP-1 monotherapy, suggesting that GLP-1 may mitigate the weight gain of Iglar. Any treatment with GLP-1 showed significant decreases in glucose variability. Abbreviations: A1C = hemoglobin A1c; AGP = ambulatory glucose profile; CGM = continuous glucose monitoring; GLM = general linear model; GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide 1 (exenatide); Iglar = insulin glargine; SGLT2 = sodium-glucose cotransporter 2; SMBG = self-monitoring blood glucose; SU = sulfonylurea; T2D = type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Fast-acting insulin aspart versus insulin aspart in the setting of insulin degludec-treated type 1 diabetes: Efficacy and safety from a randomized double-blind trial.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mealtime or post-meal fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) vs mealtime insulin aspart (IAsp), both in combination with insulin degludec, in participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: This multicentre, treat-to-target trial (Clinical trial registry: NCT02500706, ClinicalTrials.gov) randomized participants to double-blind mealtime faster aspart (n = 342) or IAsp (n = 342) or open-label post-meal faster aspart (n = 341). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c 26 weeks post randomization. All available information, regardless of treatment discontinuation, was used for evaluation of the effect. RESULTS: Non-inferiority for the change from baseline in HbA1c was confirmed for mealtime and post-meal faster aspart vs IAsp (estimated treatment difference [ETD]: 95%CI, -0.02% [-0.11; 0.07] and 0.10% [0.004; 0.19], respectively). Mealtime faster aspart was superior to IAsp for 1-hour PPG increment using a meal test (ETD, -0.90 mmol/L [-1.36; -0.45]; P < 0.001). Self-monitored 1-hour PPG increment favoured faster aspart at breakfast (ETD, -0.58 mmol/L [-0.99; -0.17]; P = 0.006) and across all meals (-0.48 mmol/L [-0.74; -0.21]; P < 0.001). Safety profiles and overall rate of severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia were similar between treatments, but significantly less hypoglycaemia was seen 3 to 4 hours after meals with mealtime faster aspart. CONCLUSION: Mealtime and post-meal faster aspart in conjunction with insulin degludec provided effective glycaemic control compared with IAsp, with no increased safety risk. Mealtime faster aspart provided PPG control superior to that of IAsp.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Derived Differences in Pregnancies With and Without Adverse Perinatal Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived glycemic patterns observed throughout pregnancy were associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, specifically fetal growth disorders and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP). METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of individuals with viable singleton pregnancies and screening hemoglobin A1c levels less than 6.5%. Those with preexisting diabetes were excluded. Enrollment occurred at the earliest gestational age before 17 weeks. Participants wore blinded continuous glucose monitors consecutively as willing until delivery. Those with at least 14 days of CGM data were included in analysis. Rates of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates, small-for-gestational age (SGA) neonates, and HDP were assessed. Continuous glucose monitoring-derived glycemic metrics were calculated, including mean glucose level and percent time above and below thresholds. Two-sample t tests were used to compare glycemic metrics between participants with and without adverse perinatal outcomes. RESULTS: Of 937 participants enrolled, 760 met inclusion criteria. Those delivering LGA neonates or who were diagnosed with HDP had higher mean glucose levels (102±9 vs 100±8, P=.01 and 103±8 vs 99±8, P<.001) and spent more time above 120 mg/dL (median 16% vs 12%, P=.006, and 16% vs 12%, P<.001, respectively) and above 140 mg/dL (median 3.9% vs 2.8%, P=.006, and 3.5% vs 2.8%, P<.001, respectively) throughout gestation than those without these outcomes. These findings were present regardless of gestational diabetes mellitus status. Participants with SGA neonates had lower mean glucose levels (97±7 vs 101±8, P=.01) and spent less time above 140 mg/dL (median 1.6% vs 2.3%, P=.01) and more time below 63 mg/dL (median 3.0% vs 2.3%, P=.02) than those without SGA neonates. CONCLUSION: Individuals with LGA neonates or HDP exhibit a slightly higher mean glucose levels and spend more time hyperglycemic in early pregnancy than those who do not experience these outcomes.

Glucose levels measured with continuous glucose monitoring in uncomplicated pregnancies.

INTRODUCTION: To characterize glucose levels during uncomplicated pregnancies, defined as pregnancy with a hemoglobin A1c <5.7% (<39 mmol/mol) in early pregnancy, and without a large-for-gestational-age birth, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, or gestational diabetes mellitus (ie, abnormal oral glucose tolerance test). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Two sites enrolled 937 pregnant individuals aged 18 years and older prior to reaching 17 gestational weeks; 413 had an uncomplicated pregnancy (mean±SD body mass index (BMI) of 25.3±5.0 kg/m2) and wore Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices throughout the observed gestational period. Mealtimes were voluntarily recorded. Glycemic levels during gestation were characterized using CGM-measured glycemic metrics. RESULTS: Participants wore CGM for a median of 123 days each. Glucose levels were nearly stable throughout all three trimesters in uncomplicated pregnancies. Overall mean±SD glucose during gestation was 98±7 mg/dL (5.4±0.4 mmol/L), median per cent time 63-120 mg/dL (3.5-6.7 mmol/L) was 86% (IQR: 82-89%), median per cent time <63 mg/dL (3.5 mmol/L) was 1.8%, median per cent time >120 mg/dL (6.7 mmol/L) was 11%, and median per cent time >140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L) was 2.5%. Mean post-prandial peak glucose was 126±22 mg/dL (7.0±1.2 mmol/L), and mean post-prandial glycemic excursion was 36±22 mg/dL (2.0±1.2 mmol/L). Higher mean glucose levels were low to moderately associated with pregnant individuals with higher BMIs (103±6 mg/dL (5.7±0.3 mmol/L) for BMI ≥30.0 kg/m2 vs 96±7 mg/dL (5.3±0.4 mmol/L) for BMI 18.5-<25 kg/m2, r=0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Mean glucose levels and time 63-120 mg/dL (3.5-6.7 mmol/L) remained nearly stable throughout pregnancy and values above 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L) were rare. Mean glucose levels in pregnancy trend higher as BMI increases into the overweight/obesity range. The glycemic metrics reported during uncomplicated pregnancies represent treatment targets for pregnant individuals.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Profiles in Pregnancies With and Without Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived glycemic patterns can characterize pregnancies with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) as diagnosed by standard oral glucose tolerance test at 24-28 weeks' gestation compared with those without GDM. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The analysis includes 768 individuals enrolled from two sites prior to 17 weeks' gestation between June 2020 and December 2021 in a prospective observational study. Participants wore blinded Dexcom G6 CGMs throughout gestation. Main outcome of interest was a diagnosis of GDM by oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Glycemic levels in participants with GDM versus without GDM were characterized using CGM-measured glycemic metrics. RESULTS: Participants with GDM (n = 58 [8%]) had higher mean glucose (109 ± 13 vs. 100 ± 8 mg/dL [6.0 ± 0.7 vs. 5.6 ± 0.4 mmol/L], P < 0.001), greater glucose SD (23 ± 4 vs. 19 ± 3 mg/dL [1.3 ± 0.2 vs. 1.1 ± 0.2 mmol/L], P < 0.001), less time in range 63-120 mg/dL (3.5-6.7 mmol/L) (70% ± 17% vs. 84% ± 8%, P < 0.001), greater percent time >120 mg/dL (>6.7 mmol/L) (median 23% vs. 12%, P < 0.001), and greater percent time >140 mg/dL (>7.8 mmol/L) (median 7.4% vs. 2.7%, P < 0.001) than those without GDM throughout gestation prior to OGTT. Median percent time >120 mg/dL (>6.7 mmol/L) and time >140 mg/dL (>7.8 mmol/L) were higher as early as 13-14 weeks of gestation (32% vs. 14%, P < 0.001, and 5.2% vs. 2.0%, P < 0.001, respectively) and persisted during the entire study period prior to OGTT. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to OGTT at 24-34 weeks' gestation, pregnant individuals who develop GDM have higher CGM-measured glucose levels and more hyperglycemia compared with those who do not develop GDM.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Derived Differences in Pregnancies With and Without Adverse Perinatal Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived glycemic patterns observed throughout pregnancy were associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, specifically fetal growth disorders and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP). METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of individuals with viable singleton pregnancies and screening hemoglobin A 1c levels less than 6.5%. Those with preexisting diabetes were excluded. Enrollment occurred at the earliest gestational age before 17 weeks. Participants wore blinded continuous glucose monitors consecutively as willing until delivery. Those with at least 14 days of CGM data were included in analysis. Rates of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates, small-for-gestational age (SGA) neonates, and HDP were assessed. Continuous glucose monitoring-derived glycemic metrics were calculated, including mean glucose level and percent time above and below thresholds. Two-sample t tests were used to compare glycemic metrics between participants with and without adverse perinatal outcomes. RESULTS: Of 937 participants enrolled, 760 met inclusion criteria. Those delivering LGA neonates or who were diagnosed with HDP had higher mean glucose levels (102±9 vs 100±8, P =.01 and 103±8 vs 99±8, P <.001) and spent more time above 120 mg/dL (median 16% vs 12%, P =.006, and 16% vs 12%, P <.001, respectively) and above 140 mg/dL (median 3.9% vs 2.8%, P =.006, and 3.5% vs 2.8%, P <.001, respectively) throughout gestation than those without these outcomes. These findings were present regardless of gestational diabetes mellitus status. Participants with SGA neonates had lower mean glucose levels (97±7 vs 101±8, P =.01) and spent less time above 140 mg/dL (median 1.6% vs 2.3%, P =.01) and more time below 63 mg/dL (median 3.0% vs 2.3%, P =.02) than those without SGA neonates. CONCLUSION: Individuals with LGA neonates or HDP exhibit a slightly higher mean glucose levels and spend more time hyperglycemic in early pregnancy than those who do not experience these outcomes.

Control-IQ Technology Use in Individuals With High Insulin Requirements: Results From the Multicenter Higher-IQ Trial.

BACKGROUND: Control-IQ technology version 1.5 allows for a wider range of weight and total daily insulin (TDI) entry, in addition to other changes to enhance performance for users with high basal rates. This study evaluated the safety and performance of the updated Control-IQ system for users with basal rates >3 units/h and high TDI in a multicenter, single arm, prospective study. METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and at least one basal rate over 3 units/h (N = 34, mean age = 39.9 years, 41.2% female, diabetes duration = 21.8 years) used the t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology version 1.5 for 13 weeks. Primary outcome was safety events (severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA)). Central laboratory hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was measured at system initiation and 13 weeks. Participants continued using glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, or other medications for glycemic control and/or weight loss if on a stable dose. RESULTS: All 34 participants completed the study. Fifteen participants used a basal rate >3 units/h for all 24 hours of the day. Nine participants used >300 units TDI on at least one day during the study. There were no severe hypoglycemia or DKA events. Time in range 70-180 mg/dL was 64.8% over the 13 weeks, with 1.0% time <70 mg/dL. Hemoglobin A1c decreased from 7.69% at baseline to 6.87% at 13 weeks (-0.82%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Control-IQ technology version 1.5, with wider range of weight and TDI input and enhancements for users with high insulin requirements, was safe in individuals with T1D in this study.

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.

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.

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.

BMI, insulin sensitivity, and cognition in early type 2 diabetes: The Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored the association of BMI and insulin sensitivity with cognitive performance in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of data from the baseline assessment of the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: a Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE) was conducted. BMI was used as a surrogate of adiposity and the Matsuda index as the measure of insulin sensitivity. Cognitive tests included the Spanish English Verbal Learning Test, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, and the letter and animal fluency tests. RESULTS: Cognitive assessments were completed by 5018 (99.4%) of 5047 participants aged 56.7 ± 10.0 years, of whom 36.4% were female. Higher BMI and lower insulin sensitivity were related to better performance on memory and verbal fluency tests. In models including BMI and insulin sensitivity simultaneously, only higher BMI was related to better cognitive performance. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, higher BMI and lower insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetes were cross-sectionally associated with better cognitive performance. However, only higher BMI was related to cognitive performance when both BMI and insulin sensitivity were considered simultaneously. The causality and mechanisms for this association need to be determined in future studies.

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.

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.

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.

Real-World Evidence Supporting Tandem Control-IQ Hybrid Closed-Loop Success in the Medicare and Medicaid Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Populations.

Background: The Tandem Control-IQ (CIQ) system has demonstrated significant glycemic improvements in large randomized controlled and real-world trials. Use of this system is lower in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) government-sponsored insurance and those with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of CIQ in these groups. Methods and Materials: A retrospective analysis of CIQ users was performed. Users age ≥6 years with a t:slim X2 Pump and >30 days of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data pre-CIQ and >30 days post-CIQ technology initiation were included. Results: A total of 4243 Medicare and 1332 Medicaid CIQ users were analyzed among whom 5075 had T1D and 500 had T2D. After starting CIQ, the Medicare beneficiaries group saw significant improvement in time in target range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR; 64% vs. 74%; P < 0.0001), glucose management index (GMI; 7.3% vs. 7.0%; P < 0.0001), and the percentage of users meeting American Diabetes Association (ADA) CGM Glucometrics Guidelines (12.8% vs. 26.3%; P < 0.0001). The Medicaid group also saw significant improvement in TIR (46% vs. 60%; P < 0.0001), GMI (7.9% vs. 7.5%; P < 0.0001), and percentage meeting ADA guidelines (5.7% vs. 13.4%; P < 0.0001). Patients with T2D and either insurance saw significant glycemic improvements. Conclusions: The CIQ system was effective in the Medicare and Medicaid groups in improving glycemic control. The T2D subgroup also demonstrated improved glycemic control with CIQ use. Glucometrics achieved in this analysis are comparable with those seen in previous randomized controlled clinical trials with the CIQ system.

Flash glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin in the USA: a retrospective real-world chart review study and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence supporting use of continuous glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin is unclear. This real-world study aimed to assess the impact on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of flash glucose monitoring use in adults with type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for adult individuals with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin for ≥1 year with or without additional antihyperglycemic medication, HbA1c 8.0%-12.0% prior to FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring use for ≥90 days and an HbA1c measurement recorded between 90 and 194 days after device use. Exclusion criteria included utilization of bolus insulin. Meta-analysis data are from the current study (USA) and a similar Canadian cohort. RESULTS: Medical record analysis (n=100) from 8 USA study sites showed significant HbA1c decrease of 1.4%±1.3%, from 9.4%±1.0% at baseline to 8.0%±1.2% after device use, p<0.0001 (mean±SD).Meta-analysis of medical records from USA and Canada sites (n=191) showed HbA1c significantly decreased by 1.1%±0.14% (mean±SE), from baseline 9.2%±1.0% to 8.1%±1.1%, p≤0.0001, with moderate to high heterogeneity between sites (Q=43.9, I2=74.9, p<0.0001) explained by differences in baseline HbA1c between sites.The HbA1c improvement in both groups was observed by age group, body mass index, duration of insulin use and sex at birth. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world retrospective USA study and a meta-analysis of a larger USA and Canada cohort, HbA1c significantly reduced in basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, without bolus insulin initiation and following the commencement of flash glucose monitoring technology.

Increase Access, Reduce Disparities: Recommendations for Modifying Medicaid CGM Coverage Eligibility Criteria.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical value of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) populations. However, the eligibility criteria for CGM coverage required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ignore the conclusive evidence that supports CGM use in various diabetes populations that are currently deemed ineligible. In an earlier article, we discussed the limitations and inconsistencies of the agency's CGM eligibility criteria relative to current scientific evidence and proposed practice solutions to address this issue and improve the safety and care of Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes. Although Medicaid is administered through CMS, there is no consistent Medicaid policy for CGM coverage in the United States. This article presents a rationale for modifying and standardizing Medicaid CGM coverage eligibility across the United States.