Priority setting for children and young people with chronic conditions and disabilities.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this project was to identify the top 10 priorities for childhood chronic conditions and disability (CCD) research from the perspectives of children and young people with lived experience, their parents and caregivers and the professionals who work with them. METHODS: We conducted a three-stage study based on the James Lind Alliance priority-setting partnership methods. It comprised two online surveys (n = 200; n = 201) and a consensus workshop (n = 21) with these three stakeholder groups in Australia. RESULTS: In the first stage, 456 responses were submitted, which were coded and collapsed into 40 overarching themes. In the second stage, 20 themes were shortlisted, which were further refined in stage 3, before the top 10 priorities being selected. Of these, the top three priorities were improving awareness and inclusion in all aspects of their life (school, work and social relationships), improving access to treatments and support and improving the process of diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The top 10 priorities identified reflect the need to focus on the individual, health systems and social aspects of the CCD experience when conducting research in this area. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study was guided by three Advisory Groups, comprising (1) young people living with CCD; (2) parents and caregivers of a child or young person with CCD and (3) professionals working with children and young people with CCD. These groups met several times across the course of the project and provided input into study aims, materials, methods and data interpretation and reporting. Additionally, the lead author and seven members of the author group have lived and experienced CCD.

Hybrid closed-loop therapy with a first-generation system increases confidence and independence in diabetes management in youth with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) therapy improves glycaemic control in adolescents with type 1 diabetes; however, little is known about their lived experience using these systems. The aim of this study was to explore the lived experiences of youth with type 1 diabetes using HCL therapy, and their parents, to provide insight into their lived experiences. METHODS: Adolescents and young adults aged 12-25 years, who used Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G HCL system during a 6-month randomised clinical trial, and their parents, were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview at the end of the study. Open-ended questions were used to explore the lived experiences of families using HCL. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis to determine the main themes. RESULTS: In all, 17 young people with type 1 diabetes mean ± SD age: 17.5 ± 4.2 years, diabetes duration: 11.0 ± 4.9 years and HbA1c 64 ± 9 mmol/mol (8.0 ± 0.8%) and 10 parents were interviewed. Three themes were identified: (1) 'Developing confidence and trust in the system', (2) 'Reduction in anxiety' and (3) 'Issues with device'. They reported a positive experience using HCL, with improvements in glucose levels and increased independence with diabetes management. However, frustration around the number of alarms and notifications associated with the system were also identified as issues. CONCLUSION: Both youth and parents acknowledged the benefits of this first-generation HCL system in improving glycaemic outcomes and in providing flexibility and independence. These lived experiences provide valuable information in the introduction and provision of targeted education with HCL therapy.

Clinical Outcomes with MiniMedTM 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy in 2- to 6-Year-Old Children with Type 1 Diabetes.

Advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) therapy with the Medtronic MiniMed™ 780G system improves glycemia; however, the clinical outcomes in younger children remain less established. This pilot study aimed to explore the continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics in very young children on AHCL. Children between 2 and 7 years of age and on insulin pump therapy were recruited. A 2-week phase in manual mode was followed by a 6-week AHCL phase. CGM metrics were analyzed to review glycemic outcomes. Out of 11 participants enrolled [mean (standard deviation [SD]) age 5.3 (0.8) years], 10 completed the study. Time in closed loop was 96.7 (3.9)%. In AHCL, participants had a mean (SD) time in range of 72.6 (7.4)% and spent 3.0 (1.74)% and 0.63 (0.46)% in time <70 and <54 mg/dL, respectively. AHCL is a feasible option for management of young children with type 1 diabetes.

Glycemic and Psychosocial Outcomes of Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop Therapy in Youth With High HbA1c: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) therapy in a high-risk cohort of youth on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) ± continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with suboptimal glycemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a 6-month multicenter clinical trial, youth with type 1 diabetes with mean and most recent HbA1c > 8.5% (65 mmol/mol) were randomly assigned 1:1 to AHCL or treatment as usual (CSII ± CGM). The primary outcome was the 24-week between-group difference in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes included CGM metrics from masked CGM and psychological measures (youth-reported problem areas in diabetes [PAID], quality of life, anxiety, depression, and hypoglycemia fear) assessed using validated questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 42 participants were randomized (mean [SD] age 16.2 [2.5] years, HbA1c 9.8 [1.1]% or 84 [12] mmol/mol, PAID score 50.3 [19.8]). At study end, the mean (SD) HbA1c was 8.8 (1.1)% or 73 (12) mmol/mol with AHCL and 9.9 (1.2)% or 85 (13.1) mmol/mol with CSII ± CGM, with mean adjusted group difference of -0.77% (95% CI -1.45 to -0.09) or -8.4 mmol/mol (-15.8 to -1.0); P = 0.027. AHCL increased time in range 70-180 mg/dL (difference 19.1%; 95% CI 11.1 to 27.1), reduced time >180 mg/dL (difference -17.7%; 95% CI -26.6 to -8.8), with no increase in time spent <70 mg/dL (difference -0.8%; 95% CI -2.7 to 0.6). There was no evidence for difference in psychosocial outcomes between the two groups at study end. CONCLUSIONS: AHCL should be encouraged in youth with suboptimal glycemia, as AHCL improves glycemia. However, psychological support remains vital, as technology alone may not be able to reduce the burden of diabetes care in this subgroup.

Impact of Hybrid Closed Loop Therapy on Hypoglycemia Awareness in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes and Impaired Hypoglycemia Awareness.

Objective: This study evaluated the efficacy of using a hybrid closed loop (HCL) system in restoring hypoglycemia awareness in individuals with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH). Research Design and Methods: Participants with IAH (Gold score ≥4) were recruited into a randomized crossover pilot study. They participated in two 8-week periods using a HCL system (Medtronic 670G™) (intervention) and standard insulin pump therapy (control). Hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemic clamp studies were undertaken at baseline and at the end of each study period for the evaluation of the counter-regulatory hormonal and symptomatic responses to hypoglycemia. Results: Seventeen participants (mean age [standard deviation] 35.8 years [11.2 years]) were included in the study. Peak epinephrine levels (median, interquartile range [IQR]) in response to hypoglycemia were similar postintervention and control periods; 234.7 pmol/L (109.2; 938.9) versus 188.3 pmol/L (133.7; 402.9), P = 0.233. However, both peak adrenergic and neuroglycopenic symptom scores were higher after intervention; 5.0 (4.5; 9.0) versus 4.0 (4.0; 5.5), P = 0.009, and 8.5 (6.0; 15.0) versus 6.5 (6.0; 7.0) P = 0.014, respectively. Self-reported hypoglycemia awareness improved: median (IQR) Gold score was 4.0 (3.0; 5.5) versus 5.5 (4.5; 6.0); intervention versus control, P = 0.033. Time spent <3.9 and <3.0 mmol/L was lower in the intervention group than in control, P = 0.002. Other patient-reported outcomes (hypoglycemia fear and diabetes treatment satisfaction) did not change. Conclusions: A short-term use of a HCL system failed to demonstrate an improvement in counter-regulatory hormonal responses. However, higher hypoglycemia symptom scores during controlled hypoglycemia, better self-reported hypoglycemia awareness, and less time spent in hypoglycemia suggest the potential benefits of a HCL system in people with IAH. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12616000909426.

Effect of a Hybrid Closed-Loop System on Glycemic and Psychosocial Outcomes in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) therapy has improved glycemic control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes; however, the efficacy of HCL on glycemic and psychosocial outcomes has not yet been established in a long-term randomized clinical trial. Objective: To determine the percentage of time spent in the target glucose range using HCL vs current conventional therapies of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion or multiple daily insulin injections with or without continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Design, Setting, and Participants: This 6-month, multicenter, randomized clinical trial included 172 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes; patients were recruited between April 18, 2017, and October 4, 2019, in Australia. Data were analyzed from July 25, 2020, to February 26, 2021. Interventions: Eligible participants were randomly assigned to either the control group for conventional therapy (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion or multiple daily insulin injections with or without CGM) or the intervention group for HCL therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the percentage of time in range (TIR) within a glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL, measured by 3-week masked CGM collected at the end of the study in both groups. Secondary outcomes included CGM metrics for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and glycemic variability and psychosocial measures collected by validated questionnaires. Results: A total of 135 patients (mean [SD] age, 15.3 [3.1] years; 76 girls [56%]) were included, with 68 randomized to the control group and 67 to the HCL group. Patients had a mean (SD) diabetes duration of 7.7 (4.3) years and mean hemoglobin A1c of 64 (11) mmol/mol, with 110 participants (81%) receiving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and 72 (53%) receiving CGM. In the intention-to-treat analyses, TIR increased from a mean (SD) of 53.1% (13.0%) at baseline to 62.5% (12.0%) at the end of the study in the HCL group and from 54.6% (12.5%) to 56.1% (12.2%) in the control group, with a mean adjusted difference between the 2 groups of 6.7% (95% CI, 2.7%-10.8%; P = .002). Hybrid closed-loop therapy also reduced the time that patients spent in a hypoglycemic (<70 mg/dL) range (difference, -1.9%; 95% CI, -2.5% to -1.3%) and improved glycemic variability (coefficient of variation difference, -5.7%; 95% CI, -10.2% to -0.9%). Hybrid closed-loop therapy was associated with improved diabetes-specific quality of life (difference, 4.4 points; 95% CI, 0.4-8.4 points), with no change in diabetes distress. There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis in either group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, 6 months of HCL therapy significantly improved glycemic control and quality of life compared with conventional therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Trial Registration: ANZCTR identifier: ACTRN12616000753459.

Performance of Medtronic Hybrid Closed-Loop Iterations: Results from a Randomized Trial in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes.

This study investigates the performance of an iteration of the Medtronic hybrid closed-loop (HCL) algorithm, which utilizes sensor glucose values non-adjunctively for bolus advice, recognizes sustained hyperglycemia, suggests insulin bolus correction, and includes more accommodative SmartGuard™ automode parameters that aim to improve function and usability. Adolescents aged 13-17 years with type 1 diabetes >1 year, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.0%-10%, currently using Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion were randomized to the control Medtronic standard HCL algorithm or to the intervention Medtronic HCL with enhancements. Participants attended a 7-day and 7-night nonstructured camp setting. Twelve participants (mean age 15 years, seven males, five females, mean HbA1c 8.55%) completed the study. For the control group, time in target glucose sensor range (3.9-10 mmol/L) was 63.68% ± 10.74% at baseline and changed to 75.85% ± 8.49% during the study (relative Δ19%). Time spent in <2.8 mmol/L was 0.61% ± 0.79% at baseline for the control group and changed to 0.32% ± 0.31% during the study for the control group (relative Δ48%). In the intervention group, time in target glucose sensor range (3.9-10 mmol/L) was 52.15% ± 9.55% at baseline and changed to 74.32% ± 8.41% during the study (relative Δ42%). Time spent in <2.8 mmol/L was 1.07% ± 1.77% at baseline for the intervention group and changed to 0.24% ± 0.14% during the study for the intervention group (relative Δ78%). Mean sensor glucose was 8.05 ± 0.73 mmol/L and 8.22 ± 0.56 mmol/L for the control and intervention participants. SmartGuard automode exit frequency was 0.54 exits per person per day for control and 0.12 exits per person per day for the intervention. Participants were in active SmartGuard automode 97.1% and 98.8% of the time for the control and intervention, respectively. Alarm frequency was 2.1 alarms per person per day for the control arm, and 0.26 alarms per person per day in the intervention arm. Feasibility of the enhanced HCL algorithm was demonstrated with a high proportion of time spent in SmartGuard automode and target glucose range. The iterative changes resulted in less SmartGuard automode exits without compromising glycemic control.

Exploration of the Performance of a Hybrid Closed Loop Insulin Delivery Algorithm That Includes Insulin Delivery Limits Designed to Protect Against Hypoglycemia.

BACKGROUND: Hypoglycemia remains a risk for closed loop insulin delivery particularly following exercise or if the glucose sensor is inaccurate. The aim of this study was to test whether an algorithm that includes a limit to insulin delivery is effective at protecting against hypoglycemia under those circumstances. METHODS: An observational study on 8 participants with type 1 diabetes was conducted, where a hybrid closed loop system (HCL) (Medtronic™ 670G) was challenged with hypoglycemic stimuli: exercise and an overreading glucose sensor. RESULTS: There was no overnight or exercise-induced hypoglycemia during HCL insulin delivery. All daytime hypoglycemia was attributable to postmeal bolused insulin in those participants with a more aggressive carbohydrate factor. CONCLUSION: HCL systems rely on accurate carbohydrate ratios and carbohydrate counting to avoid hypoglycemia. The algorithm that was tested against moderate exercise and an overreading glucose sensor performed well in terms of hypoglycemia avoidance. Algorithm refinement continues in preparation for long-term outpatient trials.

Hypoglycemia does not change the threshold for arousal from sleep in adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Nocturnal hypoglycemia is a significant problem for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. The counterregulatory hormone response to hypoglycemia is blunted in both patients with type 1 diabetes and healthy subjects during sleep. It is not known whether the threshold for arousal from sleep is also modified by hypoglycemia. To address this question we compared the acoustic arousal threshold from sleep during hypoglycemia and euglycemia in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Adolescents with type 1 diabetes were studied on two occasions: under hypoglycemic and euglycemic conditions. During the hypoglycemia night, subjects underwent a hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemic clamp with nadir glucose level of 2.8 mmol/L. Hypoglycemia was initiated during stage 2 sleep and maintained during slow-wave sleep. During the euglycemia night, blood glucose was maintained at 5.5 mmol/L using the same clamp technique. The acoustic arousal threshold was determined during the first cycle of slow-wave sleep. RESULTS: Seven subjects (mean±SE, 14.2±0.8 years old, mean glycosylated hemoglobin 8.1±0.3%, duration of diagnosis 2.5±0.5 years) completed both study nights. Arousal was only noted during acoustic testing and did not occur during hypoglycemia alone. The acoustic arousal threshold during slow-wave sleep was similar under both conditions: 79±8 dB during euglycemia and 71±6 dB (P=0.353) during hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: In adolescents with type 1 diabetes, hypoglycemia does not impair arousal from slow-wave sleep induced by an external auditory stimulus.