Once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa versus once-daily insulin degludec in adults with type 1 diabetes (QWINT-5): a phase 3 randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is a once-weekly basal insulin. This phase 3 study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of efsitora compared with insulin degludec (degludec) in adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: This randomised, 52-week, parallel-design, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority study conducted at 82 global health-care centres, randomly assigned (1:1) adults (ie, those aged ≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 7·0-10·0% (53·0-85·8 mmol/mol) to efsitora (n=343) or, degludec (n=349), both in combination with insulin lispro. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week-26 (non-inferiority margin=0·4%). The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05463744) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Aug 12, 2022, and May 7, 2024, of 893 participants enrolled, 692 (77%) participants were randomly assigned to once-weekly efsitora or once-daily degludec, and 623 (90%) participants completed the study. Mean HbA1c decreased from 7·88% (62·66 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7·41% (57·5 mmol/mol) at week 26 with efsitora and from 7·94% (63·3 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7·36% (56·9 mmol/mol) at week 26 with degludec. Mean HbA1c change from baseline to week 26 was -0·51% with efsitora and -0·56% with degludec (estimated treatment difference 0·052%, 95% CI -0·077 to 0·181; p=0·43), confirming a non-inferiority margin of 0·4% for efsitora compared with degludec. Rates of combined level 2 (<54 mg/dL [3·0 mmol/L]) or level 3 severe hypoglycaemia were higher with efsitora compared with degludec (14·03 vs 11·59 events per patient year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 1·21, 95% CI 1·04 to 1·41; p=0·016) during weeks 0-52, with the highest rates during weeks 0-12. Severe hypoglycaemia incidence was higher with efsitora (35 [10%] of 343) versus degludec (11 [3%] of 349) during weeks 0-52. Overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar across treatment groups. One death not related to the study treatment occurred in the degludec group. INTERPRETATION: In adults with type 1 diabetes, once-weekly efsitora showed non-inferior HbA1c reduction compared with daily insulin degludec. Higher rates of combined level 2 or level 3 hypoglycaemia and greater incidence of severe hypoglycaemia in participants treated with efsitora compared with participants treated with degludec might suggest the need for additional evaluation of efsitora dose initiation and optimisation in people with type 1 diabetes. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Use of continuous glucose monitoring when initiating glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapy in insulin-treated diabetes.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) medications have been shown to be effective in achieving optimal glucose control and reducing all-cause death, cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for heart failure, and end-stage kidney disease in individuals with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, use of these medications has been associated with increased hypoglycaemia risk in patients treated with concomitant antihyperglycaemic medications. The risk is particularly high in patients with T1D due to their loss of glucagon counter-regulatory response. This article reviews the effect of GLP-1RA formulations on the development of hypoglycaemia in individuals with T1D and T2D treated with insulin therapy, discusses the benefits of continuous glucose monitoring with GLP-1RA treatment, and presents strategies for safely initiating GLP-1RA therapy in these individuals.

Impact of continuous glucose monitoring on hospitalizations and glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes: real-world analysis.

AIM: The real-world benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the broad type 2 diabetes (T2D) population are not well studied. Our study evaluated the impact of CGM use on health care resource utilization over 12 months in adults with T2D. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis used Optum's de-identified Market Clarity data of >79 million people to evaluate CGM use in people with T2D who were treated with non-insulin (NIT), basal insulin (BIT) and prandial insulin therapy (PIT). The primary outcomes were changes in all-cause hospitalizations, acute diabetes-related hospitalizations and acute diabetes-related emergency room visits during the 6- and 12-month post-index period following transition from blood glucose monitoring to CGM. A pre-specified subgroup analysis assessed glucose control and medication changes among people with T2D over 1 year. RESULTS: The analysis included 74 679 adults with T2D (NIT; n = 25 269), (BIT; n = 16 264) and (PIT; n = 33 146). Significant reductions in all-cause hospitalizations, acute diabetes-related hospitalizations and acute diabetes-related emergency room visits were observed in the 6-month post-index period that were sustained during the 6-12 month post-index period (NIT, -10.1%, -31.0%, -30.7%; BIT, -13.9%, -47.6%, -28.2%; and PIT, -22.6%, -52.7%, -36.6%, respectively). A subgroup analysis of 6030 people showed mean glycated haemoglobin reductions at approximately 3 months, which were also sustained throughout the post-index period: NIT, -1.1 (0.05)%; BIT, -1.1 (0.06)%; and PIT, -0.9 (0.04)%, p < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: CGM use in real-life across different therapeutic regimens in adults with T2D was associated with reductions in health care resource utilization with improved glucose control over 1 year.

Once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa: Design and rationale for the QWINT phase 3 clinical development programme.

AIMS: Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is a once-weekly basal insulin. This review describes the study design and rationale of the efsitora phase 3 Once Weekly (QW) Insulin Therapy (QWINT) clinical development programme, including the five trials, QWINT-1 through QWINT-5. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The five trials included insulin-naïve adults (QWINT-1 and -2) with type 2 diabetes (T2D), adults with T2D previously treated with basal insulin (QWINT-3 and -4), and QWINT-5 in adults with type 1 diabetes. All five trials were designed as multicentre, randomized, controlled, open-label, treat-to-target studies to investigate the efficacy and safety of efsitora versus active once-daily basal insulin comparators (insulin glargine U100 or insulin degludec U100). The primary objective of each trial is to compare the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 or 52 between efsitora and the active comparator. The key secondary objectives include change in fasting glucose, insulin dose and continuous glucose monitoring variables, and patient-reported outcome questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The QWINT development programme includes a racially and geographically diverse population to provide important information regarding the efficacy and safety of efsitora and its clinical management of people with diabetes.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Improve with a Virtual Diabetes Care Model that Includes Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Background: The objective was to examine patient-reported outcomes (PROs) associated with access to a virtual clinic model for diabetes care. Methods: Adults with diabetes (N = 234) received virtual care, including support for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) over a 6-month study period. Care was led by a Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist and focused on optimizing self-management skills and response to glucose values observed on CGM. After 6 months of CGM use and access to diabetes education, participants could opt in to another 6 months of follow-up with access to the virtual care team. Participants completed PRO surveys and had health and glycemic measures collected at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: Participants with type 1 diabetes (N = 160) were 44 ± 14 years and had mean baseline HbA1c of 61 mmol/mol (7.7%). Participants with type 2 diabetes (N = 74) were 52 ± 12 years and had mean baseline HbA1c of 66 mmol/mol (8.2%). Compared with baseline levels, at 6 months participants experienced less depression, diabetes distress, and hypoglycemic fears while also experiencing greater satisfaction with glucose monitoring, diabetes technology and specifically with CGM, and confidence for managing hypoglycemic (p < 0.05). For participants with type 1 diabetes, more time in the target range for glucose levels (70-180 mg/dL) was associated with less depression, diabetes distress, and hypoglycemic fears. Conclusions: PROs improved for adults with diabetes utilizing virtual diabetes care, including support for CGM use. Paired with the glycemic improvements observed in this virtual clinic study, there were robust benefits on the quality of life of adults with diabetes. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04765358.

Automated insulin delivery: benefits, challenges, and recommendations. A Consensus Report of the Joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.

A technological solution for the management of diabetes in people who require intensive insulin therapy has been sought for decades. The last 10 years have seen substantial growth in devices that can be integrated into clinical care. Driven by the availability of reliable systems for continuous glucose monitoring, we have entered an era in which insulin delivery through insulin pumps can be modulated based on sensor glucose data. Over the past few years, regulatory approval of the first automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has been granted, and these systems have been adopted into clinical care. Additionally, a community of people living with type 1 diabetes has created its own systems using a do-it-yourself approach by using products commercialised for independent use. With several AID systems in development, some of which are anticipated to be granted regulatory approval in the near future, the joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association has created this consensus report. We provide a review of the current landscape of AID systems, with a particular focus on their safety. We conclude with a series of recommended targeted actions. This is the fourth in a series of reports issued by this working group. The working group was jointly commissioned by the executives of both organisations to write the first statement on insulin pumps, which was published in 2015. The original authoring group was comprised by three nominated members of the American Diabetes Association and three nominated members of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Additional authors have been added to the group to increase diversity and range of expertise. Each organisation has provided a similar internal review process for each manuscript prior to submission for editorial review by the two journals. Harmonisation of editorial and substantial modifications has occurred at both levels. The members of the group have selected the subject of each statement and submitted the selection to both organisations for confirmation.

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.

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.

Roadmap to the Effective Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Innovation, Investigation, and Implementation.

For 25 years, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been evolving into what it is now: a key tool to both measure individuals' glycemic status and to help guide their day-to-day management of diabetes. Through a series of engineering innovations, clinical investigations, and efforts to optimize workflow implementation, the use of CGM is helping to transform diabetes care. This article presents a roadmap to the effective use of CGM that outlines past, present, and possible future advances in harnessing the potential of CGM to improve the lives of many people with diabetes, with an emphasis on ensuring that CGM technology is available to all who could benefit from its use.

A comparison of two hybrid closed-loop systems in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes (FLAIR): a multicentre, randomised, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Management of type 1 diabetes is challenging. We compared outcomes using a commercially available hybrid closed-loop system versus a new investigational system with features potentially useful for adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: In this multinational, randomised, crossover trial (Fuzzy Logic Automated Insulin Regulation [FLAIR]), individuals aged 14-29 years old, with a clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes with a duration of at least 1 year, using either an insulin pump or multiple daily insulin injections, and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of 7·0-11·0% (53-97 mmol/mol) were recruited from seven academic-based endocrinology practices, four in the USA, and one each in Germany, Israel, and Slovenia. After a run-in period to teach participants how to use the study pump and continuous glucose monitor, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated sequence, with a permuted block design (block sizes of two and four), stratified by baseline HbA1c and use of a personal MiniMed 670G system (Medtronic) at enrolment, to either use of a MiniMed 670G hybrid closed-loop system (670G) or the investigational advanced hybrid closed-loop system (Medtronic) for the first 12-week period, and then participants were crossed over with no washout period, to the other group for use for another 12 weeks. Masking was not possible due to the nature of the systems used. The coprimary outcomes, measured with continuous glucose monitoring, were proportion of time that glucose levels were above 180 mg/dL (>10·0 mmol/L) during 0600 h to 2359 h (ie, daytime), tested for superiority, and proportion of time that glucose levels were below 54 mg/dL (<3·0 mmol/L) calculated over a full 24-h period, tested for non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin 2%). Analysis was by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all participants randomly assigned to treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03040414, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between June 3 and Aug 22, 2019, 113 individuals were enrolled into the trial. Mean age was 19 years (SD 4) and 70 (62%) of 113 participants were female. Mean proportion of time with daytime glucose levels above 180 mg/dL (>10·0 mmol/L) was 42% (SD 13) at baseline, 37% (9) during use of the 670G system, and 34% (9) during use of the advanced hybrid closed-loop system (mean difference [advanced hybrid closed-loop system minus 670G system] -3·00% [95% CI -3·97 to -2·04]; p<0·0001). Mean 24-h proportion of time with glucose levels below 54 mg/dL (<3·0 mmol/L) was 0·46% (SD 0·42) at baseline, 0·50% (0·35) during use of the 670G system, and 0·46% (0·33) during use of the advanced hybrid closed-loop system (mean difference [advanced hybrid closed-loop system minus 670G system] -0·06% [95% CI -0·11 to -0·02]; p<0·0001 for non-inferiority). One severe hypoglycaemic event occurred in the advanced hybrid closed-loop system group, determined to be unrelated to study treatment, and none occurred in the 670G group. INTERPRETATION: Hyperglycaemia was reduced without increasing hypoglycaemia in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes using the investigational advanced hybrid closed-loop system compared with the commercially available MiniMed 670G system. Testing an advanced hybrid closed-loop system in populations that are underserved due to socioeconomic factors and testing during pregnancy and in individuals with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia would advance the effective use of this technology FUNDING: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Interindividual variability in average glucose-glycated haemoglobin relationship in type 1 diabetes and implications for clinical practice.

AIM: Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) can fail to reflect average glucose levels, potentially compromising management decisions. We analysed variability in the relationship between mean glucose and HbA1c in individuals with diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three months of continuous glucose monitoring and HbA1c data were obtained from 216 individuals with type 1 diabetes. Universal red blood cell glucose transporter-1 Michaelis constant KM and individualized apparent glycation ratio (AGR) were calculated and compared across age, racial and gender groups. RESULTS: The mean age (range) was 30 years (8-72) with 94 younger than 19 years, 78 between 19 and 50 years, and 44 were >50 years. The group contained 120 women and 96 men with 106 white and 110 black individuals. The determined KM value was 464 mg/dl and AGR was (mean ± SD) 72.1 ± 7 ml/g. AGR, which correlated with red blood cell lifespan marker, was highest in those aged >50 years at 75.4 ± 6.9 ml/g, decreasing to 73.2 ± 7.8 ml/g in 19-50 years, with a further drop to 71.0 ± 5.8 ml/g in the youngest group (p <0 .05). AGR differed between white and black groups (69.9 ± 5.8 and 74.2 ± 7.1 ml/g, respectively; p < .001). In contrast, AGR values were similar in men and women (71.5 ± 7.5 and 72.5 ± 6.6 ml/g, respectively; p = .27). Interestingly, interindividual AGR variation within each group was at least four-fold higher than average for between-group variation. CONCLUSIONS: In this type 1 diabetes cohort, ethnicity and age, but not gender, alter the HbA1c-glucose relationship with even larger interindividual variations found within each group than between groups. Clinical application of personalized HbA1c-glucose relationships has the potential to optimize glycaemic care in the population with diabetes.

Effect of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 on time in range: SWITCH PRO, a crossover study of basal insulin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes and risk factors for hypoglycaemia.

AIMS: To compare time in range (TIR) with use of insulin degludec U100 (degludec) versus insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in people with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized, crossover, multicentre trial comparing degludec and glargine U100 in basal insulin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes and ≥1 hypoglycaemia risk factor. There were two treatment periods, each with 16-week titration and 2-week maintenance phases (with evaluation of glucose using blinded professional continuous glucose monitoring). The once-weekly titration (target: 3.9-5.0 mmol/L) was based on pre-breakfast self-measured blood glucose. The primary endpoint was percentage of TIR (3.9─10.0 mmol/L). Secondary endpoints included overall and nocturnal percentage of time in tight glycaemic range (3.9-7.8 mmol/L), and mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and glucose levels. RESULTS: At baseline, participants (n = 498) had a mean (SD) age of 62.8 (9.8) years, a diabetes duration of 15.1 (7.7) years and an HbA1c level of 59.6 (11.0) mmol/mol (7.6 [1.0]%). Noninferiority and superiority were confirmed for degludec versus glargine U100 for the primary endpoint, with a mean TIR of 72.1% for degludec versus 70.7% for glargine U100 (estimated treatment difference [ETD] 1.43% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12, 2.74; P = 0.03] or 20.6 min/d). Overall time in tight glycaemic range favoured degludec versus glargine U100 (ETD 1.5% [95% CI: 0.15, 2.89] or 21.9 min/d). Degludec also reduced nocturnal time below range (TBR; <3.9 mmol/L) compared with glargine U100 (ETD -0.88% [95% CI: -1.34, -0.42] or 12.7 min/night; post hoc) and significantly fewer nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes of <3.0 mmol/L were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Degludec, compared with glargine U100, provided more TIR and time in tight glycaemic range, and reduced nocturnal TBR in insulin-treated people with type 2 diabetes.

Beyond A1C-Standardization of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Reporting: Why It Is Needed and How It Continues to Evolve.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems are becoming part of standard care for type 1 diabetes, and their use is increasing for type 2 diabetes. Consensus has been reached on standardized metrics for reporting CGM data, with time in range of 70-180 mg/dL and time below 54 mg/dL recognized as the key metrics of focus for diabetes management. The ambulatory glucose profile report has emerged as the standard for visualization of CGM data and will continue to evolve to incorporate other elements such as insulin, food, and exercise data to support glycemic management.

Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Basal Insulin: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to be beneficial for adults with type 2 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy, but its use in type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin has not been well studied. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of CGM in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin in primary care practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at 15 centers in the US (enrollment from July 30, 2018, to October 30, 2019; follow-up completed July 7, 2020) and included adults with type 2 diabetes receiving their diabetes care from a primary care clinician and treated with 1 or 2 daily injections of long- or intermediate-acting basal insulin without prandial insulin, with or without noninsulin glucose-lowering medications. Interventions: Random assignment 2:1 to CGM (n = 116) or traditional blood glucose meter (BGM) monitoring (n = 59). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level at 8 months. Key secondary outcomes were CGM-measured time in target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL, time with glucose level at greater than 250 mg/dL, and mean glucose level at 8 months. Results: Among 175 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 57 [9] years; 88 women [50%]; 92 racial/ethnic minority individuals [53%]; mean [SD] baseline HbA1c level, 9.1% [0.9%]), 165 (94%) completed the trial. Mean HbA1c level decreased from 9.1% at baseline to 8.0% at 8 months in the CGM group and from 9.0% to 8.4% in the BGM group (adjusted difference, -0.4% [95% CI, -0.8% to -0.1%]; P = .02). In the CGM group, compared with the BGM group, the mean percentage of CGM-measured time in the target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL was 59% vs 43% (adjusted difference, 15% [95% CI, 8% to 23%]; P < .001), the mean percentage of time at greater than 250 mg/dL was 11% vs 27% (adjusted difference, -16% [95% CI, -21% to -11%]; P < .001), and the means of the mean glucose values were 179 mg/dL vs 206 mg/dL (adjusted difference, -26 mg/dL [95% CI, -41 to -12]; P < .001). Severe hypoglycemic events occurred in 1 participant (1%) in the CGM group and in 1 (2%) in the BGM group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin, continuous glucose monitoring, as compared with blood glucose meter monitoring, resulted in significantly lower HbA1c levels at 8 months. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03566693.

Diabetes digital app technology: benefits, challenges, and recommendations. A consensus report by the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Diabetes Technology Working Group.

Digital health technology, especially digital and health applications ('apps'), have been developing rapidly to help people manage their diabetes. Numerous health-related apps provided on smartphones and other wireless devices are available to support people with diabetes who need to adopt either lifestyle interventions or medication adjustments in response to glucose-monitoring data. However, regulations and guidelines have not caught up with the burgeoning field to standardise how mobile health apps are reviewed and monitored for patient safety and clinical validity. The available evidence on the safety and effectiveness of mobile health apps, especially for diabetes, remains limited. The European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) have therefore conducted a joint review of the current landscape of available diabetes digital health technology (only stand-alone diabetes apps, as opposed to those that are integral to a regulated medical device, such as insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring systems, and automated insulin delivery systems) and practices of regulatory authorities and organisations. We found that, across the USA and Europe, mobile apps intended to manage health and wellness are largely unregulated unless they meet the definition of medical devices for therapeutic and/or diagnostic purposes. International organisations, including the International Medical Device Regulators Forum and WHO, have made strides in classifying different types of digital health technology and integrating digital health technology into the field of medical devices. As the diabetes digital health field continues to develop and become more fully integrated into everyday life, we wish to ensure that it is based on the best evidence for safety and efficacy. As a result, we bring to light several issues that the diabetes community, including regulatory authorities, policymakers, professional organisations, researchers, people with diabetes and healthcare professionals, needs to address to ensure that diabetes health technology can meet its full potential. These issues range from inadequate evidence on app accuracy and clinical validity to lack of training provision, poor interoperability and standardisation, and insufficient data security. We conclude with a series of recommended actions to resolve some of these shortcomings.

Glucose management for exercise using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) systems in type 1 diabetes: position statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) endorsed by JDRF and supported by the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

Physical exercise is an important component in the management of type 1 diabetes across the lifespan. Yet, acute exercise increases the risk of dysglycaemia, and the direction of glycaemic excursions depends, to some extent, on the intensity and duration of the type of exercise. Understandably, fear of hypoglycaemia is one of the strongest barriers to incorporating exercise into daily life. Risk of hypoglycaemia during and after exercise can be lowered when insulin-dose adjustments are made and/or additional carbohydrates are consumed. Glycaemic management during exercise has been made easier with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) systems; however, because of the complexity of CGM and isCGM systems, both individuals with type 1 diabetes and their healthcare professionals may struggle with the interpretation of given information to maximise the technological potential for effective use around exercise (i.e. before, during and after). This position statement highlights the recent advancements in CGM and isCGM technology, with a focus on the evidence base for their efficacy to sense glucose around exercise and adaptations in the use of these emerging tools, and updates the guidance for exercise in adults, children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Graphical abstract.

Advances in technology for management of type 1 diabetes.

Technological advances have had a major effect on the management of type 1 diabetes. In addition to blood glucose meters, devices used by people with type 1 diabetes include insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, and, most recently, systems that combine both a pump and a monitor for algorithm-driven automation of insulin delivery. In the next 5 years, as many advances are expected in technology for the management of diabetes as there have been in the past 5 years, with improvements in continuous glucose monitoring and more available choices of systems that automate insulin delivery. Expansion of the use of technology will be needed beyond endocrinology practices to primary-care settings and broader populations of patients. Tools to support decision making will also need to be developed to help patients and health-care providers to use the output of these devices to optimise diabetes management.

Automated insulin dosing guidance to optimise insulin management in patients with type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin therapy is most effective if dosage titrations are done regularly and frequently, which is seldom practical for most clinicians, resulting in an insulin titration gap. The d-Nav Insulin Guidance System (Hygieia, Livonia, MI, USA) is a handheld device that is used to measure glucose, determine glucose patterns, and automatically determine the appropriate next insulin dose. We aimed to determine whether the combination of the d-Nav device and health-care professional support is superior to health-care professional support alone. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled study, we recruited patients from three diabetes centres in the USA (in Detroit MI; Minneapolis, MN; and Des Moines IA). Patients were eligible if they were aged 21-70 years, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration of 7·5% or higher (≥58 mmol/mol) and 11% or lower (≤97 mmol/mol), and had been using the same insulin regimen for the previous 3 months. Exclusion criteria included body-mass index of 45 kg/m2 or higher; severe cardiac, hepatic, or renal impairment; and more than two severe hypoglycaemic events in the past year. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), with randomisation blocked within each site, to either d-Nav and health-care professional support (intervention group) or health-care professional support alone (control group). Both groups were contacted seven times (three face-to-face and four phone visits) during 6 months of follow-up. The primary objective was to compare average change in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months. Safety was assessed by the frequency of hypoglycaemic events. The primary objective and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. We used Student's t test to assess the primary outcome for statistical significance. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02424500. FINDINGS: Between Feb 2, 2015, and March 17, 2017, 236 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 181 (77%) were enrolled and randomly assigned to the intervention (n=93) and control (n=88) groups. At baseline, mean HbA1c was 8·7% (SD 0·8; 72 mmol/mol [SD 8·8]) in the intervention group and 8·5% (SD 0·8; 69 mmol/mol [SD 8·8]) in the control group. The mean decrease in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months was 1·0% (SD 1·0; 11 mmol/mol [SD 11]) in the intervention group, and 0·3% (SD 0·9; 3·3 mmol/mol [9·9]) in the control group (p<0·0001). The frequency of hypoglycaemic events per month was similar between the groups (0·29 events per month [SD 0·48] in the intervention group vs 0·29 [SD 1·12] in the control group; p=0·96). INTERPRETATION: The combination of automated insulin titration guidance with support from health-care professionals offers superior glycaemic control compared with support from health-care professionals alone. Such a solution facilitated safe and effective insulin titration in a large group of patients with type 2 diabetes, and now needs to be evaluated across large health-care systems to confirm these findings and study cost-effectiveness. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Glucose management for exercise using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) systems in type 1 diabetes: position statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) endorsed by JDRF and supported by the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

Physical exercise is an important component in the management of type 1 diabetes across the lifespan. Yet, acute exercise increases the risk of dysglycaemia, and the direction of glycaemic excursions depends, to some extent, on the intensity and duration of the type of exercise. Understandably, fear of hypoglycaemia is one of the strongest barriers to incorporating exercise into daily life. Risk of hypoglycaemia during and after exercise can be lowered when insulin-dose adjustments are made and/or additional carbohydrates are consumed. Glycaemic management during exercise has been made easier with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) systems; however, because of the complexity of CGM and isCGM systems, both individuals with type 1 diabetes and their healthcare professionals may struggle with the interpretation of given information to maximise the technological potential for effective use around exercise (ie, before, during and after). This position statement highlights the recent advancements in CGM and isCGM technology, with a focus on the evidence base for their efficacy to sense glucose around exercise and adaptations in the use of these emerging tools, and updates the guidance for exercise in adults, children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

Closed-loop insulin delivery in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, 12-week randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The achievement of glycaemic control remains challenging for patients with type 1 diabetes. We assessed the effectiveness of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in people with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, multinational, single-period, parallel randomised controlled trial, participants were recruited from diabetes outpatient clinics at four hospitals in the UK and two centres in the USA. We randomly assigned participants with type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older treated with insulin pump and with suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·5-10·0%) to receive either hybrid closed-loop therapy or sensor-augmented pump therapy over 12 weeks of free living. Training on study insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring took place over a 4-week run-in period. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned using central randomisation software. Allocation to the two study groups was unblinded, and randomisation was stratified within centre by low (<8·5%) or high (≥8·5%) HbA1c. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range of 3·9-10·0 mmol/L at 12 weeks post randomisation. Analyses of primary outcome and safety measures were done in all randomised patients. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02523131, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: From May 12, 2016, to Nov 17, 2017, 114 individuals were screened, and 86 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive hybrid closed-loop therapy (n=46) or sensor-augmented pump therapy (n=40; control group). The proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range was significantly higher in the closed-loop group (65%, SD 8) compared with the control group (54%, SD 9; mean difference in change 10·8 percentage points, 95% CI 8·2 to 13·5; p<0·0001). In the closed-loop group, HbA1c was reduced from a screening value of 8·3% (SD 0·6) to 8·0% (SD 0·6) after the 4-week run-in, and to 7·4% (SD 0·6) after the 12-week intervention period. In the control group, the HbA1c values were 8·2% (SD 0·5) at screening, 7·8% (SD 0·6) after run-in, and 7·7% (SD 0·5) after intervention; reductions in HbA1c percentages were significantly greater in the closed-loop group compared with the control group (mean difference in change 0·36%, 95% CI 0·19 to 0·53; p<0·0001). The time spent with glucose concentrations below 3·9 mmol/L (mean difference in change -0·83 percentage points, -1·40 to -0·16; p=0·0013) and above 10·0 mmol/L (mean difference in change -10·3 percentage points, -13·2 to -7·5; p<0·0001) was shorter in the closed-loop group than the control group. The coefficient of variation of sensor-measured glucose was not different between interventions (mean difference in change -0·4%, 95% CI -1·4% to 0·7%; p=0·50). Similarly, total daily insulin dose was not different (mean difference in change 0·031 U/kg per day, 95% CI -0·005 to 0·067; p=0·09) and bodyweight did not differ (mean difference in change 0·68 kg, 95% CI -0·34 to 1·69; p=0·19). No severe hypoglycaemia occurred. One diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group due to infusion set failure. Two participants in each study group had significant hyperglycaemia, and there were 13 other adverse events in the closed-loop group and three in the control group. INTERPRETATION: Hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery improves glucose control while reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia across a wide age range in patients with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes. FUNDING: JDRF, NIHR, and Wellcome Trust.