Rapid Adoption of Telemedicine Along with Emergent Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors in the Ambulatory Care of Young Persons with New-Onset Type 1 Diabetes in the Time of COVID-19: A Case Series.

Aims: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused strain on hospital systems and potential delay in diagnosis of type 1 diabetes (T1D). Outpatient diagnosis and treatment of metabolically stable young persons with new-onset T1D have been shown to be equivalent to inpatient. We describe an approach to outpatient management of newly diagnosed T1D during the COVID-19 pandemic using an interdisciplinary team, telemedicine, and diabetes technologies including rapid implementation of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Methods: Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, new-onset cases of T1D were tracked. After laboratory confirmation of diagnosis and metabolic stability, patients and families were referred for ambulatory initiation of insulin therapy and diabetes education. These cases were reviewed using data extracted from the electronic health record, comments from multidisciplinary team members, and cloud-based glucose data. Results: We report on seven young people with new-onset T1D without diabetic ketoacidosis from April to June 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ages ranged 9-23 years with presenting hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values 10-14.5%. Initial evaluation was generally face-to-face, followed by frequent telemedicine visits. Five patients had a family history of T1D. Two patients had access to at-home HbA1c kits prompting evaluation in the absence of symptoms. Four patients required emergency department evaluation. Five patients presented with ketosis. All patients were prescribed CGM at the first visit, most starting within 1 month. Conclusions: Technology is extraordinarily useful for the care of young persons with new-onset T1D in the ambulatory setting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Large observational studies are needed to better understand outcomes of an outpatient, technology-focused approach.

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.

Improvement in Mean CGM Glucose in Young People with Type 1 Diabetes During 1 Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic likely affected youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). We used electronic health record-extracted data to compare continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics during 1 year of the pandemic with those of the previous year. The sample comprised CGM users, aged 1 to <18 years, with T1D duration ≥6 months (age <6 years) or ≥1 year (age ≥6 years). The prepandemic sample comprised 641 youth (52% female, aged 12.3 ± 3.5, T1D duration 6.0 ± 3.5 years). The pandemic sample comprised 648 youth (52% female, age 13.3 ± 3.5, duration 6.7 ± 3.8 years), with care delivered primarily through telemedicine. Mean CGM glucose was 6.3 mg/dL lower during the pandemic (187.3 ± 35.6) versus prepandemic (193.6 ± 33.0) (P < 0.001). A higher percentage of youth achieved glucose management indicator <7% during the pandemic than the prior year (P < 0.001). Lower CGM glucose values were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies are needed to assess how changes in health care delivery, including telemedicine, and lifestyle during this time may have supported this improvement.

A Comparison of Postprandial Glucose Control in the Medtronic Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Versus 670G.

Background: We recently reported that use of an "advanced" hybrid closed-loop system reduced hyperglycemia without increasing hypoglycemia compared to a first-generation system. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate whether this improved performance was specifically related to better mealtime glycemic control. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of postprandial glycemic control in an open-label, multinational, randomized crossover trial of 112 participants with type 1 diabetes, aged 14-29, of the Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed-loop system (670G) versus the Medtronic advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system, for 12 weeks each. We compared glycemic and insulin delivery metrics over a 3 h horizon across all meals to assess system performance and outcomes. Results: Overall meal size and premeal insulin on board were similar during run-in and between 670G and AHCL arms. Compared with 670G arm, premeal, peak, and mean glucose levels were numerically lower in the AHCL arm (167 ± 23, 231 ± 23, and 177 ± 20 mg/dL vs. 175 ± 23, 235 ± 23, and 180 ± 19 mg/dL, respectively), with a trend to lower hyperglycemia level 2 in AHCL arm. Adjusting for premeal glucose level, all postmeal outcomes between 670G and AHCL were statistically similar. Prandial insulin delivery also was similar in both treatment arms (21 ± 9 vs. 23 ± 10 U), with a shift in basal/bolus ratio from 28%/71% in 670G arm to 20%/80% in AHCL arm. Conclusions: Reduced hyperglycemia with AHCL compared to 670G was not related to early postprandial glycemic excursions after adjusting for premeal glucose level (<3 h after meal), but likely to later (>3 h) postprandial or overnight improvements. Further refinements to mealtime bolus algorithms and strategies may more optimally control prandial glycemic excursions.

Safety and Glycemic Outcomes With a Tubeless Automated Insulin Delivery System in Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes: A Single-Arm Multicenter Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Very young children with type 1 diabetes often struggle to achieve glycemic targets, putting them at risk for long-term complications and creating an immense management burden for caregivers. We conducted the first evaluation of the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System in this population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 80 children aged 2.0-5.9 years used the investigational system in a single-arm study for 13 weeks following 14 days of baseline data collection with their usual therapy. RESULTS: There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis. By study end, HbA1c decreased by 0.55% (6.0 mmol/mol) (P < 0.0001). Time with sensor glucose levels in target range 70-180 mg/dL increased by 10.9%, or 2.6 h/day (P < 0.0001), while time with levels <70 mg/dL declined by median 0.27% (P = 0.0204). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the automated insulin delivery system was safe, and participants experienced improved glycemic measures and reduced hypoglycemia during the study phase compared with baseline.

Closed-Loop Insulin Therapy Improves Glycemic Control in Adolescents and Young Adults: Outcomes from the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of closed-loop control (CLC) insulin delivery system in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Research Design and Methods: Prespecified subanalysis of outcomes in adolescents and young adults aged 14-24 years old with type 1 diabetes in a previously published 6-month multicenter randomized trial. Participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to CLC (Tandem Control-IQ) or sensor augmented pump (SAP, various pumps+Dexcom G6 CGM) and followed for 6 months. Results: Mean age of the 63 participants was 17 years, median type 1 diabetes duration was 7 years, and mean baseline HbA1c was 8.1%. All 63 completed the trial. Time in range (TIR) increased by 13% with CLC versus decreasing by 1% with SAP (adjusted treatment group difference = +13% [+3.1 h/day]; 95% confidence interval [CI] 9-16, P < 0.001), which largely reflected a reduction in time >180 mg/dL (adjusted difference -12% [-2.9 h/day], P < 0.001). Time <70 mg/dL decreased by 1.6% with CLC versus 0.3% with SAP (adjusted difference -0.7% [-10 min/day], 95% CI -1.0% to -0.2%, P = 0.002). CLC use averaged 89% of the time for 6 months. The mean adjusted difference in HbA1c after 6 months was 0.30% in CLC versus SAP (95% CI -0.67 to +0.08, P = 0.13). There was one diabetic ketoacidosis episode in the CLC group. Conclusions: CLC use for 6 months was substantial and associated with improved TIR and reduced hypoglycemia in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Thus, CLC has the potential to improve glycemic outcomes in this challenging age group. The clinical trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03563313).

Glycemic Outcomes of Use of CLC Versus PLGS in Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Limited information is available about glycemic outcomes with a closed-loop control (CLC) system compared with a predictive low-glucose suspend (PLGS) system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: After 6 months of use of a CLC system in a randomized trial, 109 participants with type 1 diabetes (age range, 14-72 years; mean HbA1c, 7.1% [54 mmol/mol]) were randomly assigned to CLC (N = 54, Control-IQ) or PLGS (N = 55, Basal-IQ) groups for 3 months. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitor (CGM)-measured time in range (TIR) for 70-180 mg/dL. Baseline CGM metrics were computed from the last 3 months of the preceding study. RESULTS: All 109 participants completed the study. Mean ± SD TIR was 71.1 ± 11.2% at baseline and 67.6 ± 12.6% using intention-to-treat analysis (69.1 ± 12.2% using per-protocol analysis excluding periods of study-wide suspension of device use) over 13 weeks on CLC vs. 70.0 ± 13.6% and 60.4 ± 17.1% on PLGS (difference = 5.9%; 95% CI 3.6%, 8.3%; P < 0.001). Time >180 mg/dL was lower in the CLC group than PLGS group (difference = -6.0%; 95% CI -8.4%, -3.7%; P < 0.001) while time <54 mg/dL was similar (0.04%; 95% CI -0.05%, 0.13%; P = 0.41). HbA1c after 13 weeks was lower on CLC than PLGS (7.2% [55 mmol/mol] vs. 7.5% [56 mmol/mol], difference -0.34% [-3.7 mmol/mol]; 95% CI -0.57% [-6.2 mmol/mol], -0.11% [1.2 mmol/mol]; P = 0.0035). CONCLUSIONS: Following 6 months of CLC, switching to PLGS reduced TIR and increased HbA1c toward their pre-CLC values, while hypoglycemia remained similarly reduced with both CLC and PLGS.