Assessment of Meal Anticipation for Improving Fully Automated Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Meals are a consistent challenge to glycemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Our objective was to assess the glycemic impact of meal anticipation within a fully automated insulin delivery (AID) system among adults with T1D. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We report the results of a randomized crossover clinical trial comparing three modalities of AID systems: hybrid closed loop (HCL), full closed loop (FCL), and full closed loop with meal anticipation (FCL+). Modalities were tested during three supervised 24-h admissions, where breakfast, lunch, and dinner were consumed per participant's home schedule, at a fixed time, and with a 1.5-h delay, respectively. Primary outcome was the percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) during the breakfast postprandial period for FCL+ versus FCL. RESULTS: Thirty-five adults with T1D (age 44.5 ± 15.4 years; HbA1c 6.7 ± 0.9%; n = 23 women and n = 12 men) were randomly assigned. TIR for the 5-h period after breakfast was 75 ± 23%, 58 ± 21%, and 63 ± 19% for HCL, FCL, and FCL+, respectively, with no significant difference between FCL+ and FCL. For the 2 h before dinner, time below range (TBR) was similar for FCL and FCL+. For the 5-h period after dinner, TIR was similar for FCL+ and FCL (71 ± 34% vs. 72 ± 29%; P = 1.0), whereas TBR was reduced in FCL+ (median 0% [0-0%] vs. 0% [0-0.8%]; P = 0.03). Overall, 24-h control for HCL, FCL, and FCL+ was 86 ± 10%, 77 ± 11%, and 77 ± 12%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although postprandial control remained optimal with hybrid AID, both fully AID solutions offered overall TIR >70% with similar or lower exposure to hypoglycemia. Anticipation did not significantly improve postprandial control in AID systems but also did not increase hypoglycemic risk when meals were delayed.

Accuracy of a Factory-Calibrated Continuous Glucose Monitor in Individuals With Diabetes on Hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVE: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves diabetes management, but its reliability in individuals on hemodialysis is poorly understood and potentially affected by interstitial and intravascular volume variations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We assessed the accuracy of a factory-calibrated CGM by using venous blood glucose measurements (vBGM) during hemodialysis sessions and self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) at home. RESULTS: Twenty participants completed the protocol. The mean absolute relative difference of the CGM was 13.8% and 14.4%, when calculated on SMBG (n = 684) and on vBGM (n = 624), and 98.7% and 100% of values in the Parkes error grid A/B zones, respectively. Throughout 181 days of CGM monitoring, the median time in range (70-180 mg/dL) was 38.5% (interquartile range 29.3-57.9), with 28.7% (7.8-40.6) of the time >250 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: The overall performance of a factory-calibrated CGM appears reasonably accurate and clinically relevant for use in practice by individuals on hemodialysis and health professionals to improve diabetes management.

COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality Among Long-Term Care Facility Residents and Staff in South Carolina.

OBJECTIVES: This study explored differences in COVID-19 incidence, mortality, and timing among long-term care facility (LTCF) residents and staff with those living in the community in South Carolina (SC). DESIGN: Longitudinal secondary data analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adults age ≥18 in SC with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis from 3/15/2020 and 1/2/2021 (n = 307,891). METHODS: COVID-19 data came from the SC Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). We included all COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths among adult residents. Residence and employment in LTCF were confirmed by SCDHEC. Descriptive statistics and trends for cases, hospitalizations, and deaths were calculated. We used Cox proportional hazards to compare COVID-19 mortality in LTCF residents and staff to community dwelling older adults and adults not employed in LTCF, respectively, controlling for age, gender, race, and pre-existing chronic health conditions. RESULTS: LTC residents experienced greater incidence of cases throughout the study period until the week ending on 1/2/21. LTCF residents with COVID-19 were more likely to be hospitalized compared to older adults in the community and 74% more likely to die (HR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.59-1.90), after adjusting. LTC staff experienced greater incidence of cases compared to adults not employed in LTCF until the week ending on 12/26/2020, while experiencing similar incidence of death compared to the similar community members. After adjusting, LTC staff had 0.58 (HR = 0.58; CI: 0.39-0.88) times lower hazard of death compared to community members that did not work in a LTCF. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Narrowing of the gap between LTCF and community-wide infection and mortality rates over the study period suggests that early detection of COVID-19 in LTCFs could serve as a first indicator of disease spread in the greater community. Results also indicate that policies and regulations addressing staff testing and protection may help to slow or prevent spread within facilities.