Hybrid closed-loop glucose control with faster insulin aspart compared with standard insulin aspart in adults with type 1 diabetes: A double-blind, multicentre, multinational, randomized, crossover study.

AIM: To evaluate the use of hybrid closed-loop glucose control with faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a double-blind, multinational, randomized, crossover study, 25 adults with T1D using insulin pump therapy (mean ± SD, age 38 ± 9 years, HbA1c 7.4% ± 0.8% [57 ± 8 mmol/mol]) underwent two 8-week periods of unrestricted living comparing hybrid closed-loop with Fiasp and hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin aspart in random order. During both interventions the CamAPS FX closed-loop system incorporating the Cambridge model predictive control algorithm was used. RESULTS: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time sensor glucose was in the target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L; primary endpoint) was not different between interventions (75% ± 8% vs. 75% ± 8% for hybrid closed-loop with Fiasp vs. hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin aspart; mean-adjusted difference -0.6% [95% CI -1.8% to 0.7%]; p < .001 for non-inferiority [non-inferiority margin 5%]). The proportion of time with sensor glucose less than 3.9 mmol/L (median [IQR] 2.4% [1.2%-3.2%] vs. 2.9% [1.7%-4.0%]; p = .01) and less than 3.0 mmol/L (median [IQR] 0.4% [0.2%-0.7%] vs. 0.7% [0.2%-0.9%]; p = .03) was reduced with Fiasp versus standard insulin aspart. There was no difference in mean glucose (8.1 ± 0.8 vs. 8.0 ± 0.8 mmol/L; p = .13) or glucose variability (SD of sensor glucose 2.9 ± 0.5 vs. 2.9 ± 0.5 mmol/L; p = .90). Total daily insulin requirements did not differ (49 ± 15 vs. 49 ± 15 units/day; p = .45). No severe hypoglycaemia or ketoacidosis occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Fiasp in the CamAPS FX closed-loop system may reduce hypoglycaemia without compromising glucose control compared with standard insulin aspart in adults with T1D.

Reduced burden of diabetes and improved quality of life: Experiences from unrestricted day-and-night hybrid closed-loop use in very young children with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the experiences of families with very young children aged 1 to 7 years (inclusive) with type 1 diabetes using day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery. METHODS: Parents/caregivers of 20 children aged 1 to 7 years with type 1 diabetes completed a closed-loop experience survey following two 3-week periods of unrestricted day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin therapy using Cambridge FlorenceM system at home. Benefits, limitations, and improvements of closed-loop technology were explored. RESULTS: Responders reported reduced burden of diabetes management, less time spent managing diabetes, and improved quality of sleep with closed-loop. Ninety percent of the responders felt less worried about their child's glucose control using closed-loop. Size of study devices, battery performance and connectivity issues were identified as areas for improvement. Parents/caregivers wished for more options to input information to the system such as temporary glucose targets. CONCLUSIONS: Parents/caregivers of very young children reported important quality of life benefits associated with using closed-loop, supporting adoption of this technology in this population.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of a Novel U500 Insulin Aspart Formulation: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Crossover Study in People With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of a novel U500 insulin aspart formulation (AT278 U500) compared with insulin aspart (IAsp U100). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This single-center, randomized, double-blind study was conducted in 38 men with type 1 diabetes (body weight ≤100 kg and total insulin dose <1.2 units/kg/day). Participants received a single dose of either AT278 U500 or IAsp U100 (0.3 units/kg s.c.) in a crossover design, followed by an 8-h euglycemic clamp in the absence of basal insulin. RESULTS: With AT278 U500, onset of appearance in serum was 6 min earlier (P < 0.0001) and reached 50% of maximum concentration 23 min faster (P < 0.0001). Insulin exposure with AT278 U500 was 4.0-fold higher within the first 30 min (95% CI 3.29, 4.90), 1.5-fold higher within the first 60 min (95% CI 1.35, 1.76), and statistically superior up to 90 min postdose (P < 0.05). With AT278 U500, onset of action was 10 min earlier (P < 0.0001) and reached 50% of maximum glucose infusion rate 20 min faster (P < 0.0001). The glucose-lowering effect with AT278 U500 was 8.9-fold higher within the first 30 min (95% CI 5.96, 17.46), 2.4-fold higher within the first 60 min (95% CI 1.92, 3.22), and statistically superior up to 2 h postdose (P < 0.0001). Overall insulin exposure and glucose-lowering effect were comparable. No significant safety findings were observed. CONCLUSIONS: AT278 U500 offers rapid-acting characteristics in a reduced dose volume, with accelerated absorption and onset of action compared with IAsp U100 in the studied population.

Psychological Well-Being of Parents of Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes - Baseline Assessment.

Background: Type 1 diabetes in young children is a heavy parental burden. As part of pilot phase of the KIDSAP01 study, we conducted a baseline assessment in parents to study the association between hypoglycemia fear, parental well-being and child behavior. Methods: All parents were invited to fill in baseline questionnaires: hypoglycemia fear survey (HFS), WHO-5, Epworth Sleepiness Scale and Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Results: 24 children (median age: 5-year, range 1-7 years, 63% male, mean diabetes duration: 3 ± 1.7 years) participated. 23/24 parents filled out the questionnaires. We found a higher score for the hypoglycemia fear behavior 33.9 ± 5.6 compared to hypoglycemia worry 34.6 ± 12.2. Median WHO-5 score was 16 (8 - 22) with poor well-being in two parents. Median daytime sleepiness score was high in five parents (>10). For six children a high total behavioral difficulty score (>16) was reported. Pro social behavior score was lower than normal in six children (<6). Parental well-being was negatively associated with HFS total (r = - 0.50, p <.05) and subscale scores (r = - 0.44, p <.05 for HFS-Worry and HFS-Behavior), child behavior (r = - 0.45, p = .05) and positively with child age and diabetes duration (r = 0.58, p <.01, r = 0.6, p <.01). HFS, parental well-being nor daytime sleepiness are associated with the HbA1c. Conclusion: Regular screening of parental well-being, hypoglycemia fear and child behavior should be part of routine care to target early intervention.

What Training, Support, and Resourcing Do Health Professionals Need to Support People Using a Closed-Loop System? A Qualitative Interview Study with Health Professionals Involved in the Closed Loop from Onset in Type 1 Diabetes (CLOuD) Trial.

Background: We explored health professionals' views about the training, support, and resourcing needed to support people using closed-loop technology in routine clinical care to help inform the development of formal guidance. Methods: Interviews were conducted with health professionals (n = 22) delivering the Closed Loop from Onset in Type 1 Diabetes (CLOuD) trial after they had ≥6 months' experience of supporting participants using a closed-loop system. Data were analyzed descriptively. Results: Interviewees described how, compared with other insulin regimens, teaching and supporting individuals to use a closed-loop system could be initially more time-consuming. However, they also noted that after an initial adjustment period, users had less need for initiating contact with the clinical team compared with people using pumps or multiple daily injections. Interviewees highlighted how a lessened need for ad hoc clinical input could result in new challenges; specifically, they had fewer opportunities to reinforce users' diabetes knowledge and skills and detect potential psychosocial problems. They also observed heightened anxiety among some parents due to the constant availability of data and unrealistic expectations about the system's capabilities. Interviewees noted that all local diabetes teams should be empowered to deliver closed-loop system care, but stressed that health professionals supporting closed-loop users in routine care will need comprehensive technology training and standardized clinical guidance. Conclusion: These findings constitute an important starting point for the development of formal guidance to support the rollout of closed-loop technology. Our recommendations, if actioned, will help limit the potential additional burden of introducing closed-loop systems in routine clinical care and help inform appropriate user education and support.