A narrative commentary about interoperability in medical devices and data used in diabetes therapy from an academic EU/UK/US perspective.

People living with diabetes have many medical devices available to assist with disease management. A critical aspect that must be considered is how systems for continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pumps communicate with each other and how the data generated by these devices can be downloaded, integrated, presented and used. Not only is interoperability associated with practical challenges, but also devices must adhere to all aspects of regulatory and legal frameworks. Key issues around interoperability in terms of data ownership, privacy and the limitations of interoperability include where the responsibility/liability for device and data interoperability lies and the need for standard data-sharing protocols to allow the seamless integration of data from different sources. There is a need for standardised protocols for the open and transparent handling of data and secure integration of data into electronic health records. Here, we discuss the current status of interoperability in medical devices and data used in diabetes therapy, as well as regulatory and legal issues surrounding both device and data interoperability, focusing on Europe (including the UK) and the USA. We also discuss a potential future landscape in which a clear and transparent framework for interoperability and data handling also fulfils the needs of people living with diabetes and healthcare professionals.

The impact of hypoglycaemia on daily functioning among adults with diabetes: a prospective observational study using the Hypo-METRICS app.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this work was to examine the impact of hypoglycaemia on daily functioning among adults with type 1 diabetes or insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, using the novel Hypo-METRICS app. METHODS: For 70 consecutive days, 594 adults (type 1 diabetes, n=274; type 2 diabetes, n=320) completed brief morning and evening Hypo-METRICS 'check-ins' about their experienced hypoglycaemia and daily functioning. Participants wore a blinded glucose sensor (i.e. data unavailable to the participants) for the study duration. Days and nights with or without person-reported hypoglycaemia (PRH) and/or sensor-detected hypoglycaemia (SDH) were compared using multilevel regression models. RESULTS: Participants submitted a mean ± SD of 86.3±12.5% morning and 90.8±10.7% evening check-ins. For both types of diabetes, SDH alone had no significant associations with the changes in daily functioning scores. However, daytime and night-time PRH (with or without SDH) were significantly associated with worsening of energy levels, mood, cognitive functioning, negative affect and fear of hypoglycaemia later that day or while asleep. In addition, night-time PRH (with or without SDH) was significantly associated with worsening of sleep quality (type 1 and type 2 diabetes) and memory (type 2 diabetes). Further, daytime PRH (with or without SDH), was associated with worsening of fear of hyperglycaemia while asleep (type 1 diabetes), memory (type 1 and type 2 diabetes) and social functioning (type 2 diabetes). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: This prospective, real-world study reveals impact on several domains of daily functioning following PRH but not following SDH alone. These data suggest that the observed negative impact is mainly driven by subjective awareness of hypoglycaemia (i.e. PRH), through either symptoms or sensor alerts/readings and/or the need to take action to prevent or treat episodes.

Molecular mechanisms linking type 2 diabetes mellitus and late-onset Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and qualitative meta-analysis.

Research evidence indicating common metabolic mechanisms through which type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) increases risk of late-onset Alzheimer's dementia (LOAD) has accumulated over recent decades. The aim of this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive review of common mechanisms, which have hitherto been discussed in separate perspectives, and to assemble and evaluate candidate loci and epigenetic modifications contributing to polygenic risk linkages between T2DM and LOAD. For the systematic review on pathophysiological mechanisms, both human and animal studies up to December 2023 are included. For the qualitative meta-analysis of genomic bases, human association studies were examined; for epigenetic mechanisms, data from human studies and animal models were accepted. Papers describing pathophysiological studies were identified in databases, and further literature gathered from cited work. For genomic and epigenomic studies, literature mining was conducted by formalised search codes using Boolean operators in search engines, and augmented by GeneRif citations in Entrez Gene, and other sources (WikiGenes, etc.). For the systematic review of pathophysiological mechanisms, 923 publications were evaluated, and 138 gene loci extracted for testing candidate risk linkages. 3 57 publications were evaluated for genomic association and descriptions of epigenomic modifications. Overall accumulated results highlight insulin signalling, inflammation and inflammasome pathways, proteolysis, gluconeogenesis and glycolysis, glycosylation, lipoprotein metabolism and oxidation, cell cycle regulation or survival, autophagic-lysosomal pathways, and energy. Documented findings suggest interplay between brain insulin resistance, neuroinflammation, insult compensatory mechanisms, and peripheral metabolic dysregulation in T2DM and LOAD linkage. The results allow for more streamlined longitudinal studies of T2DM-LOAD risk linkages.

Using technology to support diabetes care in hospital: Guidelines from the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care (JBDS-IP) group and Diabetes Technology Network (DTN) UK.

This article summarises the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care (JBDS-IP) Group guidelines on the use of technology to support diabetes care in hospital. The guideline incorporates two main areas: (i) use of wearable technology devices to improve diabetes management in hospital (including continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump therapy) and (ii) information technology. Although it is reasonable to extrapolate from the evidence available, that devices developed to enhance diabetes care outside hospital will show similar benefits, there are challenges posed within the inpatient setting in hospital. This guidance provides a pragmatic approach to supporting self-management in individuals using wearable technology admitted to hospital. Furthermore, it also aims to provide a best practice guide for using information technology to monitor diabetes care and communicate between health professionals.

High incidence of low interstitial fluid glucose among type 2 diabetes patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) despite adhering to appropriate glycated haemoglobin targets-has time come for robust integration of interstitial fluid glucose targets into glycaemic guidelines?

AIM: We aim to compare the burden of Level 1 (<4 mmol/L) and Level 2 (<3 mmol/L) hypoglycaemia between type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with and without chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: T2D subjects with and without CKD (eGFR<60 mL/min/1.73 m2) were recruited from a tertiary-care hospital. Subjects wore the Freestyle Libre-Pro sensor for 2 weeks. The number of hypoglycaemic events and intra-day difference in Level 1 and 2 hypoglycaemias were compared between the cohorts. RESULTS: We recruited 134 subjects: 74 with CKD (44 M:30F) and 60 without CKD (36 M:24F), with no difference in HbA1c between the two cohorts (66 ± 20 vs 64 ± 16 mmol/mol, p = 0.529). The CKD cohort had increased level 1 (OR 1.73, p = 0.011), level 2 hypoglycaemias (OR 2.16, p = 0.002), and glycaemic variability than the non-CKD cohort (35.3 ± 9.5 vs 32.3 ± 6.8%). The CKD cohort had more level 2 hypoglycaemia events nocturnally compared to day at 1.9 ± 3.1 vs. 1.4 ± 2.5 events/person within the two week sensor wearing period (p = 0.022), whereas there was no significant intra-day difference in the number of such events within the non-CKD cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The CKD cohort has a greater burden of hypoglycaemia despite being treated to similar HbA1c targets. The greater number of nocturnal events warrants safety concern. Interstitial fluid glucose targets should be incorporated into the glycaemic guidelines for T2D patients with CKD.

Hypoglycaemia symptom frequency, severity, burden, and utility among adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia: Baseline and 24-week findings from the HypoCOMPaSS study.

AIMS: To determine the frequency, severity, burden, and utility of hypoglycaemia symptoms among adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) at baseline and week 24 following the HypoCOMPaSS awareness restoration intervention. METHODS: Adults (N = 96) with T1D (duration: 29 ± 12 years; 64% women) and IAH completed the Hypoglycaemia Burden Questionnaire (HypoB-Q), assessing experience of 20 pre-specified hypoglycaemia symptoms, at baseline and week 24. RESULTS: At baseline, 93 (97%) participants experienced at least one symptom (mean ± SD 10.6 ± 4.6 symptoms). The proportion recognising each specific symptom ranged from 15% to 83%. At 24 weeks, symptom severity and burden appear reduced, and utility increased. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with T1D and IAH experience a range of hypoglycaemia symptoms. Perceptions of symptom burden or utility are malleable. Although larger scale studies are needed to confirm, these findings suggest that changing the salience of the symptomatic response may be more important in recovering protection from hypoglycaemia through regained awareness than intensifying symptom frequency or severity.

Cost-effectiveness of a Novel Hypoglycaemia Programme: The 'HARPdoc vs BGAT' RCT.

AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of HARPdoc (Hypoglycaemia Awareness Restoration Programme for adults with type 1 diabetes and problematic hypoglycaemia despite optimised care), focussed upon cognitions and motivation, versus BGAT (Blood Glucose Awareness Training), focussed on behaviours and education, as adjunctive treatments for treatment-resistant problematic hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes, in a randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Eligible adults were randomised to either intervention. Quality of life (QoL, measured using EQ-5D-5L); cost of utilisation of health services (using the adult services utilization schedule, AD-SUS) and of programme implementation and curriculum delivery were measured. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as a measure of trial participant outcome and cost-effectiveness was evaluated with reference to the incremental net benefit (INB) of HARPdoc compared to BGAT. RESULTS: Over 24 months mean total cost per participant was £194 lower for HARPdoc compared to BGAT (95% CI: -£2498 to £1942). HARPdoc was associated with a mean incremental gain of 0.067 QALYs/participant over 24 months post-randomisation: an equivalent gain of 24 days in full health. The mean INB of HARPdoc compared to BGAT over 24 months was positive: £1521/participant, indicating comparative cost-effectiveness, with an 85% probability of correctly inferring an INB > 0. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing health cognitions in people with treatment-resistant hypoglycaemia achieved cost-effectiveness compared to an alternative approach through improved QoL and reduced need for medical services, including hospital admissions. Compared to BGAT, HARPdoc offers a cost-effective adjunct to educational and technological solutions for problematic hypoglycaemia.

Associations of clinical, psychological, and sociodemographic characteristics and ecological momentary assessment completion in the 10-week Hypo-METRICS study: Hypoglycaemia MEasurements ThResholds and ImpaCtS.

INTRODUCTION: Reporting of hypoglycaemia and its impact in clinical studies is often retrospective and subject to recall bias. We developed the Hypo-METRICS app to measure the daily physical, psychological, and social impact of hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes in real-time using ecological momentary assessment (EMA). To help assess its utility, we aimed to determine Hypo-METRICS app completion rates and factors associated with completion. METHODS: Adults with diabetes recruited into the Hypo-METRICS study were given validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline. Over 10 weeks, they wore a blinded continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and were asked to complete three daily EMAs about hypoglycaemia and aspects of daily functioning, and two weekly sleep and productivity PROMs on the bespoke Hypo-METRICS app. We conducted linear regression to determine factors associated with app engagement, assessed by EMA and PROM completion rates and CGM metrics. RESULTS: In 602 participants (55% men; 54% type 2 diabetes; median(IQR) age 56 (45-66) years; diabetes duration 19 (11-27) years; HbA1c 57 (51-65) mmol/mol), median(IQR) overall app completion rate was 91 (84-96)%, ranging from 90 (81-96)%, 89 (80-94)% and 94(87-97)% for morning, afternoon and evening check-ins, respectively. Older age, routine CGM use, greater time below 3.0 mmol/L, and active sensor time were positively associated with app completion. DISCUSSION: High app completion across all app domains and participant characteristics indicates the Hypo-METRICS app is an acceptable research tool for collecting detailed data on hypoglycaemia frequency and impact in real-time.

Differential associations of risk factors with severe and non-severe hypoglycaemia: the Hypoglycaemia Assessment Tool prospective observational study in people with insulin-treated type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To assess the differential association of risk factors with severe and non-severe hypoglycaemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Hypoglycaemia Assessment Tool study evaluated the risk of hypoglycaemia over a 4-week period in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) on insulin in 24 countries. Negative binomial regressions were applied to examine the associations of several risk factors with severe and non-severe hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: The median age was 41 years in 5949 patients with T1D and 62 years in 12 914 patients with T2D. The 4-week rates of non-severe hypoglycaemic were 5.57 and 1.40 episodes per person in T1D and T2D, respectively; the corresponding rates for severe hypoglycaemia were 0.94 and 0.30. The excess risk was 42% higher for severe than non-severe hypoglycaemia in females versus males with T2D; 27% higher in patients with T2D with versus without a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM); and 47% lower in patients with T1D with versus without an insulin pump. The excess risk also differed across geographical areas and was marginally lower for severe than non-severe hypoglycaemia for higher values of HbA1c in patients with T2D. Associations with severity of hypoglycaemia were not different for age, diabetes and insulin therapy duration, previous hypoglycaemic episodes and insulin regimen. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of severe versus non-severe hypoglycaemia differs in patients with T1D and T2D; sex, the use of a CGM and insulin pump, and geographical areas were differently associated with one type of hypoglycaemia than the other.

Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring and hypoglycaemia awareness in drivers with diabetes: Insights from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists Nationwide audit.

AIM: Frequent hypoglycaemia results in disruption to usual hypoglycaemic autonomic responses leading to impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia, which is associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia requiring third-party assistance (SH). The UK Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) does not permit car driving if they have either a complete loss of hypoglycaemia awareness or more than one SH event a year. METHODS: The FreeStyle Libre (FSL) Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) Nationwide Audit consists of data collected by clinicians during routine clinical work, submitted into a secure web-based tool held within the National Health Service (NHS) N3 network. Analysis of paired baseline and follow-up data for people with type 1 diabetes who also held a driving licence was undertaken. RESULTS: The study consisted of 6304 people who had data recorded about driving status from 102 UK specialist diabetes centres, of which 4218 held a driving licence: 4178 a group 1, standard licence, 33 a group 2, large lorries and buses, seven a taxi licence; 1819 did not drive. Paired baseline and follow-up data were available for a sub-cohort of 1606/4218. At a mean follow-up of 6.9 months [95% CI (6.8, 7.1)], the Gold score had improved (2.3 ± 1.5 vs. 2.0 ± 1.3 p < .001), and the number of people who experienced an SH episode was also significantly lower (12.1% vs. 2.7%, p < .001). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring may improve impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia and reduce the number of people with type 1 diabetes with a driving licence experiencing a severe hypoglycaemic episode.

High Frequency of Severe Hyperglycemia Observed During Intensive Hematologic Care: A Prospective Study Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

OBJECTIVE: During intensive hematologic care, patients are exposed to high-dose chemotherapy, corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, and total parenteral nutrition. Combined with physiologic stress and increased release of cytokines and hormones, this can lead to dysglycemia, which is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. This prospective study aimed to investigate continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to identify dysglycemia during intensive hematologic care. METHODS: Patients receiving chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy or allogeneic or autologous stem cell transplantation were eligible. Throughout the study, glucose levels were concurrently monitored using CGM and point-of-care (POC) glucose measurements in 60 patients (71% male, median age of 64 [interquartile range, 58-68] years, and 10% with diabetes). RESULTS: Hyperglycemia (glucose level, >10 mmol/L) was prevalent in 93% of patients, of whom 90% had no history of diabetes. Severe hyperglycemia (glucose level, >13.1 mmol/L) was present in 38%. Additionally, hyperglycemia was associated with prolonged hospitalization in patients undergoing chimeric antigen receptor T-cell treatment (ß, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.35) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ß, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.01-0.32). CGM outperformed POC in detecting hyperglycemia (>10 mmol/L: 1060 vs 124, detected 2.8 [interquartile range, 0.7-4.0]) hours earlier. The mean absolute relative difference between CGM and POC was 21.5%, with 99.8% of measurements in the clinical acceptable zone A + B of the Clarke error grid. CONCLUSION: These findings emphasize the potential and importance of glucose monitoring with CGM for improved and earlier detection of hyperglycemia, in this patient population, which seems feasible. Our results suggest a need for further studies into CGM as method to optimize glucose levels, which could improve outcomes in patients receiving intensive hematologic care.

Changes in attitudes to awareness of hypoglycaemia during a hypoglycaemia awareness restoration programme are associated with avoidance of further severe hypoglycaemia episodes within 24 months: the A2A in HypoCOMPaSS study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aims of this study were to assess cognitions relating to hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia before and after the multimodal HypoCOMPaSS intervention, and to determine cognitive predictors of incomplete response (one or more severe hypoglycaemic episodes over 24 months). METHODS: This analysis included 91 adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia who completed the Attitudes to Awareness of Hypoglycaemia (A2A) questionnaire before, 24 weeks and 24 months after the intervention, which comprised a short psycho-educational programme with optimisation of insulin therapy and glucose monitoring. RESULTS: The age and diabetes duration of the participants were 48±12 and 29±12 years, respectively (mean±SD). At baseline, 91% reported one or more severe hypoglycaemic episodes over the preceding 12 months; this decreased to <20% at 24 weeks and after 24 months (p=0.001). The attitudinal barrier 'hyperglycaemia avoidance prioritised' (η2p=0.250, p=0.001) decreased from baseline to 24 weeks, and this decrease was maintained at 24 months (mean±SD=5.3±0.3 vs 4.3±0.3 vs 4.0±0.3). The decrease in 'asymptomatic hypoglycaemia normalised' from baseline (η2p=0.113, p=0.045) was significant at 24 weeks (1.5±0.3 vs 0.8±0.2). Predictors of incomplete hypoglycaemia response (one or more further episodes of severe hypoglycaemia) were higher baseline rates of severe hypoglycaemia, higher baseline scores for 'asymptomatic hypoglycaemia normalised', reduced change in 'asymptomatic hypoglycaemia normalised' scores at 24 weeks, and lower baseline 'hypoglycaemia concern minimised' scores (all p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Participation in the HypoCOMPaSS RCT was associated with improvements in hypoglycaemia-associated cognitions, with 'hyperglycaemia avoidance prioritised' most prevalent. Incomplete prevention of subsequent severe hypoglycaemia episodes was associated with persistence of the cognition 'asymptomatic hypoglycaemia normalised'. Understanding and addressing cognitive barriers to hypoglycaemia avoidance is important in individuals prone to severe hypoglycaemia episodes. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: www.isrctn.org : ISRCTN52164803 and https://eudract.ema.europa.eu : EudraCT2009-015396-27.

UK's Association of British Clinical Diabetologist's Diabetes Technology Network (ABCD-DTN): Best practice guide for hybrid closed-loop therapy.

This best practice guide is written with the aim of providing an overview of current hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems in use within the United Kingdom's (UK) National Health Service (NHS) and to provide education and advice for their management on both an individual and clinical service level. The environment of diabetes technology, and particularly HCL systems, is rapidly evolving. The past decade has seen unprecedented advances in the development of HCL systems. These systems improve glycaemic outcomes and reduce the burden of treatment for people with type 1 diabetes (pwT1D). It is anticipated that access to these systems will increase in England as a result of updates in National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance providing broader support for the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for pwT1D. NICE is currently undertaking multiple-technology appraisal into HCL systems. Based on experience from centres involved in supporting advanced technologies as well as from the recent NHS England HCL pilot, this guide is intended to provide healthcare professionals with UK expert consensus on the best practice for initiation, optimisation and ongoing management of HCL therapy.

Addressing health inequalities in diabetes through research: Recommendations from Diabetes UK's 2022 health inequalities in diabetes workshop.

AIMS: To develop a position statement which identifies research priorities to address health inequalities in diabetes and provides recommendations to researchers and research funders on how best to conduct research in these areas. METHODS: A two-day research workshop was conducted bringing together research experts in diabetes, research experts in health inequalities, healthcare professionals and people living with diabetes. RESULTS: The following key areas were identified as needing increased focus: How can we improve patient and public involvement and engagement to make diabetes research more inclusive of and relevant to diverse communities? How can we improve research design so that the people who could benefit most are represented? How can we use theories from implementation science to facilitate the uptake of research findings into routine practice to reach the populations with highest need? How can we collate and evaluate local innovation projects and disseminate best practice around tackling health inequalities in diabetes? How can we best collect and use data to address health inequalities in diabetes, including the harnessing of real-world and routinely collected data? How could research funders allocate funds to best address health inequalities in diabetes? How do we ensure the research community is representative of the general population? CONCLUSIONS: This position statement outlines recommendations to address the urgent need to tackle health inequalities in diabetes through research and calls on the diabetes research community to act upon these recommendations to ensure future research works to eliminate unfair and avoidable disparities in health.

Impact of glycaemic technologies on quality of life and related outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes: A narrative review.

AIMS: To explore the association between the use of glycaemic technologies and person-reported outcomes (PROs) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: We included T1D and technology publications reporting on PROs since 2014. Only randomised controlled trials and cohort studies that used validated PRO measures (PROMs) were considered. RESULTS: T1D studies reported on a broad range of validated PROMs, mainly as secondary outcome measures. Most studies examined continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM), and the role of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), including sensor-augmented CSII and closed loop systems. Generally, studies demonstrated a positive impact of technology on hypoglycaemia-specific and diabetes-specific PROs, including reduced fear of hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress, and greater satisfaction with diabetes treatment. In contrast, generic PROMs (including measures of health/functional status, emotional well-being, depressive symptoms, and sleep quality) were less likely to demonstrate improvements associated with the use of glycaemic technologies. Several studies showed contradictory findings, which may relate to study design, population and length of follow-up. Differences in PRO findings were apparent between randomised controlled trials and cohort studies, which may be due to different populations studied and/or disparity between trial and real-world conditions. CONCLUSIONS: PROs are usually assessed as secondary outcomes in glycaemic technology studies. Hypoglycaemia-specific and diabetes-specific, but not generic, PROs show the benefits of glycaemic technologies, and deserve a more central role in future studies as well as routine clinical care.

CGM accuracy: Contrasting CE marking with the governmental controls of the USA (FDA) and Australia (TGA): A narrative review.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence updated guidance for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in 2022, recommending that CGM be available to all people living with type 1 diabetes. Manufacturers can trade in the UK with Conformité Européenne (CE) marking without an initial national assessment. The regulatory process for CGM CE marking, in contrast to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) process, is described. Manufacturers operating in the UK provided clinical accuracy studies submitted for CE marking. Critical appraisal of the studies shows several CGM devices have CE marking for wide-ranging indications beyond available data, unlike FDA and TGA approval. The FDA and TGA use tighter controls, requiring comprehensive product-specific clinical data evaluation. In 2018, the FDA published the integrated CGM (iCGM) criteria permitting interoperability. Applying the iCGM criteria to clinical data provided by manufacturers trading in the UK identified several study protocols that minimized glucose variability, thereby improving CGM accuracy on all metrics. These results do not translate into real-life performance. Furthermore, for many CGM devices available in the UK, accuracy reported in the hypoglycaemic range is below iCGM standards, or measurement is absent. We offer a framework to evaluate CGM accuracy studies critically. The review concludes that FDA- and TGA-approved indications match the available clinical data, whereas CE marking indications can have discrepancies. The UK can bolster regulation with UK Conformity Assessed marking from January 2025. However, balanced regulation is needed to ensure innovation and timely technological access are not hindered.

Continuous glucose monitoring-based time-in-range using insulin glargine 300 units/ml versus insulin degludec 100 units/ml in type 1 diabetes: The head-to-head randomized controlled InRange trial.

AIM: To use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based time-in-range (TIR) as a primary efficacy endpoint to compare the second-generation basal insulin (BI) analogues insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) and insulin degludec 100 U/ml (IDeg-100) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: InRange was a 12-week, multicentre, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, open-label study comparing glucose TIR and variability between Gla-300 and IDeg-100 using blinded 20-day CGM profiles. The inclusion criteria consisted of adults with T1D treated with multiple daily injections, using BI once daily and rapid-acting insulin analogues for at least 1 year, with an HbA1c of 7% or higher and of 10% or less at screening. RESULTS: Overall, 343 participants were randomized: 172 received Gla-300 and 171 IDeg-100. Non-inferiority (10% relative margin) of Gla-300 versus IDeg-100 was shown for the primary endpoint (percentage TIR ≥ 70 to ≤ 180 mg/dl): least squares (LS) mean (95% confidence interval) 52.74% (51.06%, 54.42%) for Gla-300 and 55.09% (53.34%, 56.84%) for IDeg-100; LS mean difference (non-inferiority): 3.16% (0.88%, 5.44%) (non-inferiority P = .0067). Non-inferiority was shown on glucose total coefficient of variation (main secondary endpoint): LS mean 39.91% (39.20%, 40.61%) and 41.22% (40.49%, 41.95%), respectively; LS mean difference (non-inferiority) -5.44% (-6.50%, -4.38%) (non-inferiority P < .0001). Superiority of Gla-300 over IDeg-100 was not shown on TIR. Occurrences of self-measured and CGM-derived hypoglycaemia were comparable between treatment groups. Safety profiles were consistent with known profiles, with no unexpected findings. CONCLUSIONS: Using clinically relevant CGM metrics, InRange shows that Gla-300 is non-inferior to IDeg-100 in people with T1D, with comparable hypoglycaemia and safety profiles.

Twelve-month results of the ADAPT randomized controlled trial: Reproducibility and sustainability of advanced hybrid closed-loop therapy outcomes versus conventional therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To reassess the 6-month efficacy and to assess the 12-month sustained efficacy of the MiniMed™ 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop automated insulin delivery (AID) system compared to multiple daily injections plus intermittently scanned glucose monitoring (MDI+isCGM) in people with type 1 diabetes not meeting glucose targets. METHODS: The ADAPT study was a prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomized control trial in people with type 1 diabetes, with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration of at least 8.0% (64 mmol/mol), on MDI+isCGM therapy. After a 6-month study phase, participants randomized at baseline to MDI+isCGM switched to AID (SWITCH) while the others continued AID therapy (SUSTAIN) for an additional 6 months. The primary endpoint of this continuation phase was the within-group change in mean HbA1c between 6 and 12 months, with superiority in the SWITCH group and noninferiority in the SUSTAIN group (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04235504). RESULTS: A total of 39 SWITCH and 36 SUSTAIN participants entered the continuation phase. In the SWITCH group, HbA1c was significantly decreased by -1.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.7% to -1.1%; P < 0.001) from a mean ± SD of 8.9% ± 0.8% (73.9 ± 8.6 mmol/mol) at 6 months to 7.5% ± 0.6% (58.5 ± 6.9 mmol/mol) at 12 months. Mean HbA1c increased by 0.1% (95% CI -0.05% to +0.25%), from 7.3% ± 0.6% (56.5 ± 6.7 mmol/mol) to 7.4% ± 0.8% (57.7 ± 9.1 mmol/mol) in the SUSTAIN group, meeting noninferiority criteria. Three severe hypoglycaemia events occurred in two SWITCH participants during the continuation phase. CONCLUSION: ADAPT study phase glycaemic improvements were reproduced and sustained in the continuation phase, supporting the early adoption of AID therapy in people with type 1 diabetes not meeting glucose targets on MDI therapy.

Beta-cell death and dysfunction drives hyperglycaemia in organ donors.

BACKGROUND: Donor hyperglycaemia following brain death has been attributed to reversible insulin resistance. However, our islet and pancreas transplant data suggest that other mechanisms may be predominant. We aimed to determine the relationships between donor insulin use and markers of beta-cell death and beta-cell function in pancreas donors after brain death. METHODS: In pancreas donors after brain death, we compared clinical and biochemical data in 'insulin-treated' and 'not insulin-treated donors' (IT vs. not-IT). We measured plasma glucose, C-peptide and levels of circulating unmethylated insulin gene promoter cell-free DNA (INS-cfDNA) and microRNA-375 (miR-375), as measures of beta-cell death. Relationships between markers of beta-cell death and islet isolation outcomes and post-transplant function were also evaluated. RESULTS: Of 92 pancreas donors, 40 (43%) required insulin. Glycaemic control and beta-cell function were significantly poorer in IT donors versus not-IT donors [median (IQR) peak glucose: 8 (7-11) vs. 6 (6-8) mmol/L, p = .016; C-peptide: 3280 (3159-3386) vs. 3195 (2868-3386) pmol/L, p = .046]. IT donors had significantly higher levels of INS-cfDNA [35 (18-52) vs. 30 (8-51) copies/ml, p = .035] and miR-375 [1.050 (0.19-1.95) vs. 0.73 (0.32-1.10) copies/nl, p = .05]. Circulating donor miR-375 was highly predictive of recipient islet graft failure at 3 months [adjusted receiver operator curve (SE) = 0.813 (0.149)]. CONCLUSIONS: In pancreas donors, hyperglycaemia requiring IT is strongly associated with beta-cell death. This provides an explanation for the relationship of donor IT with post-transplant beta-cell dysfunction in transplant recipients.

A Roadmap to an Equitable Digital Diabetes Ecosystem.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetes management presents a substantial burden to individuals living with the condition and their families, health care professionals, and health care systems. Although an increasing number of digital tools are available to assist with tasks such as blood glucose monitoring and insulin dose calculation, multiple persistent barriers continue to prevent their optimal use. METHODS: As a guide to creating an equitable connected digital diabetes ecosystem, we propose a roadmap with key milestones that need to be achieved along the way. RESULTS: During the Coronavirus 2019 pandemic, there was an increased use of digital tools to support diabetes care, but at the same time, the pandemic also highlighted problems of inequities in access to and use of these same technologies. Based on these observations, a connected diabetes ecosystem should incorporate and optimize the use of existing treatments and technologies, integrate tasks such as glucose monitoring, data analysis, and insulin dose calculations, and lead to improved and equitable health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Development of this ecosystem will require overcoming multiple obstacles, including interoperability and data security concerns. However, an integrated system would optimize existing devices, technologies, and treatments to improve outcomes.