Six-Month Randomized, Multicenter Trial of Closed-Loop Control in Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop systems that automate insulin delivery may improve glycemic outcomes in patients with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: In this 6-month randomized, multicenter trial, patients with type 1 diabetes were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with a closed-loop system (closed-loop group) or a sensor-augmented pump (control group). The primary outcome was the percentage of time that the blood glucose level was within the target range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 10.0 mmol per liter), as measured by continuous glucose monitoring. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients underwent randomization; 112 were assigned to the closed-loop group, and 56 were assigned to the control group. The age range of the patients was 14 to 71 years, and the glycated hemoglobin level ranged from 5.4 to 10.6%. All 168 patients completed the trial. The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the glucose level was within the target range increased in the closed-loop group from 61±17% at baseline to 71±12% during the 6 months and remained unchanged at 59±14% in the control group (mean adjusted difference, 11 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 14; P<0.001). The results with regard to the main secondary outcomes (percentage of time that the glucose level was >180 mg per deciliter, mean glucose level, glycated hemoglobin level, and percentage of time that the glucose level was <70 mg per deciliter or <54 mg per deciliter [3.0 mmol per liter]) all met the prespecified hierarchical criterion for significance, favoring the closed-loop system. The mean difference (closed loop minus control) in the percentage of time that the blood glucose level was lower than 70 mg per deciliter was -0.88 percentage points (95% CI, -1.19 to -0.57; P<0.001). The mean adjusted difference in glycated hemoglobin level after 6 months was -0.33 percentage points (95% CI, -0.53 to -0.13; P = 0.001). In the closed-loop group, the median percentage of time that the system was in closed-loop mode was 90% over 6 months. No serious hypoglycemic events occurred in either group; one episode of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group. CONCLUSIONS: In this 6-month trial involving patients with type 1 diabetes, the use of a closed-loop system was associated with a greater percentage of time spent in a target glycemic range than the use of a sensor-augmented insulin pump. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; iDCL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03563313.).

Clinical Implementation of the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System: Key Considerations for Training and Onboarding People With Diabetes.

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, which connect an insulin pump, continuous glucose monitoring system, and software algorithm to automate insulin delivery based on real-time glycemic data, hold promise for improving outcomes and reducing therapeutic burden for people with diabetes. This article reviews the features of the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System and how it compares to other AID systems available on or currently under review for the U.S. market. It also provides practical guidance for clinicians on how to effectively train and onboard people with diabetes on the Omnipod 5 System, including how to personalize therapy and optimize glycemia. Many people with diabetes receive their diabetes care in primary care settings rather than in a diabetes specialty clinic. Therefore, it is important that primary care providers have access to resources to support the adoption of AID technologies such as the Omnipod 5 System.

Sleep and diabetes-specific psycho-behavioral outcomes of a new automated insulin delivery system in young children with type 1 diabetes and their parents.

BACKGROUND: Data on the use of Control-IQ, the latest FDA-approved automated insulin delivery (AID) system for people with T1D 6 years of age or older is still scarce, particularly regarding nonglycemic outcomes. Children with T1D and their parents are at higher risk for sleep disturbances. This study assesses sleep, psycho-behavioral and glycemic outcomes of AID compared to sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAP) therapy in young children with T1D and their parents. METHODS: Thirteen parents and their young children (ages 7-10) on insulin pump therapy were enrolled. Children completed an initial 4-week study with SAP using their own pump and a study CGM followed by a 4-week phase of AID. Sleep outcomes for parents and children were evaluated through actigraphy watches. Several questionnaires were administered at baseline and at the end of each study phase. CGM data were used to assess glycemic outcomes. RESULTS: Actigraphy data did not show any significant change from SAP to AID, except a reduction of number of parental awakenings during the night (p = 0.036). Parents reported statistically significant improvements in Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index total score (p = 0.009), Hypoglycemia Fear Survey total score (p = 0.011), diabetes-related distress (p = 0.032), and depression (p = 0.023). While on AID, time in range (70-180 mg/dL) significantly increased compared to SAP (p < 0.001), accompanied by a reduction in hyperglycemia (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that use of AID has a positive impact on glycemic outcomes in young children as well as sleep and diabetes-specific quality of life outcomes in their parents.

Predicting the Risk of Developing Type 1 Diabetes Using a One-Week Continuous Glucose Monitoring Home Test With Classification Enhanced by Machine Learning: An Exploratory Study.

BACKGROUND: Detection of two or more autoantibodies (Ab) in the blood might describe those individuals at increased risk of developing type 1 diabetes (T1D) during the following years. The aim of this exploratory study is to propose a high versus low T1D risk classifier using machine learning technology based on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) home data. METHODS: Forty-two healthy relatives of people with T1D with mean ± SD age of 23.8 ± 10.5 years, HbA1c (glycated hemoglobin) of 5.3% ± 0.3%, and BMI (body mass index) of 23.2 ± 5.2 kg/m2 with zero (low risk; N = 21), and ≥2 (high risk; N = 21) Ab, were enrolled in an NIH (National Institutes of Health)-funded TrialNet ancillary study. Participants wore a CGM for a week and consumed three standardized liquid mixed meals (SLMM) instead of three breakfasts. Glycemic features were extracted from two-hour post-SLMM CGM traces, compared across groups, and used in four supervised machine learning Ab risk status classifiers. Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) algorithm was used for feature selection; classifiers were evaluated through 10-fold cross-validation, using the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC-ROC) to select the best classification model. RESULTS: The percent time of glucose >180 mg/dL (T180), glucose range, and glucose CV (coefficient of variation) were the only significant differences between the glycemic features in the two groups with P values of .040, .035, and .028 respectively. The linear SVM (Support Vector Machine) model with RFE features achieved the best performance of classifying low-risk versus high-risk individuals with AUC-ROC = 0.88. CONCLUSIONS: A machine learning technology, combining a potentially self-administered one-week CGM home test, has the potential to reliably assess the T1D risk.

Neural-Net Artificial Pancreas: A Randomized Crossover Trial of a First-in-Class Automated Insulin Delivery Algorithm.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) is now integral to the clinical practice of type 1 diabetes (T1D). The objective of this pilot-feasibility study was to introduce a new regulatory and clinical paradigm-a Neural-Net Artificial Pancreas (NAP)-an encoding of an AID algorithm into a neural network that approximates its action and assess NAP versus the original AID algorithm. Methods: The University of Virginia Model-Predictive Control (UMPC) algorithm was encoded into a neural network, creating its NAP approximation. Seventeen AID users with T1D were recruited and 15 participated in two consecutive 20-h hotel sessions, receiving in random order either NAP or UMPC. Their demographic characteristics were ages 22-68 years old, duration of diabetes 7-58 years, gender 10/5 female/male, White Non-Hispanic/Black 13/2, and baseline glycated hemoglobin 5.4%-8.1%. Results: The time-in-range (TIR) difference between NAP and UMPC, adjusted for entry glucose level, was 1 percentage point, with absolute TIR values of 86% (NAP) and 87% (UMPC). The two algorithms achieved similar times <70 mg/dL of 2.0% versus 1.8% and coefficients of variation of 29.3% (NAP) versus 29.1 (UMPC)%. Under identical inputs, the average absolute insulin-recommendation difference was 0.031 U/h. There were no serious adverse events on either controller. NAP had sixfold lower computational demands than UMPC. Conclusion: In a randomized crossover study, a neural-network encoding of a complex model-predictive control algorithm demonstrated similar performance, at a fraction of the computational demands. Regulatory and clinical doors are therefore open for contemporary machine-learning methods to enter the AID field. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT05876273.

Adaptive Biobehavioral Control: A Pilot Analysis of Human-Machine Coadaptation in Type 1 Diabetes.

Background: While it is well recognized that an automated insulin delivery (AID) algorithm should adapt to changes in physiology, it is less understood that the individual would also have to adapt to the AID system. The adaptive biobehavioral control (ABC) method presented here attempts to compensate for this deficiency by including AID into an information cloud-based ecosystem. Methods: The Web Information Tool (WIT) implements the ABC concept via the following: (1) a Physiological Adaptation Module (PAM) that tracks metabolic changes and adapts AID parameters accordingly and (2) a Behavioral Adaptation Module (BAM) that provides information feedback. The safety of WIT (primary outcome) was assessed in an 8-week randomized, two-arm parallel pilot study. All participants used the Control-IQ® AID system enhanced with PAM, but only those in the Experimental group had access to BAM. Secondary glycemic outcomes were computed using the 2-week baseline period and the last 2 weeks of treatment. Results: Thirty participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D) completed all study procedures (17 female/13 male; age: 40 ± 14 years; HbA1c: 6.6% ± 0.5%). No severe hypoglycemia, DKA, or other serious adverse events were reported. Comparing the Experimental and Control groups, no significant difference was observed in time in range (70-180 mg/dL): 74.6% vs 73.8%, adjusted mean difference: 2.65%, 95% CI (-1.12%,6.41%), P = 0.161. Time in 70-140 mg/dL was significantly higher in the Experimental group: 50.7% vs 49.2%, 5.71% (0.44%,10.97%), P = 0.035, without increased time below range: 0.54% (-0.09%,1.17%), P = 0.089. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that it is safe to integrate an AID system into the WIT ecosystem. Validation in a full-scale study is ongoing.

Efficacy and Safety of a Tubeless AID System Compared With Pump Therapy With CGM in the Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes in Adults With Suboptimal Glycemia: A Randomized, Parallel-Group Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of the tubeless Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System compared with pump therapy with a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) in adults with type 1 diabetes with suboptimal glycemic outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 13-week multicenter, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial performed in the U.S. and France, adults aged 18-70 years with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c 7-11% (53-97 mmol/mol) were randomly assigned (2:1) to intervention (tubeless AID) or control (pump therapy with CGM) following a 2-week standard therapy period. The primary outcome was a treatment group comparison of time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) during the trial period. RESULTS: A total of 194 participants were randomized, with 132 assigned to the intervention and 62 to the control. TIR during the trial was 4.2h/day higher in the intervention compared with the control group (mean difference 17.5% [95% CI 14.0%, 21.1%]; P < 0.0001). The intervention group had a greater reduction in HbA1c from baseline compared with the control group (mean ± SD -1.24 ± 0.75% [-13.6 ± 8.2 mmol/mol] vs. -0.68 ± 0.93% [-7.4 ± 10.2 mmol/mol], respectively; P < 0.0001), accompanied by a significantly lower time <70 mg/dL (1.18 ± 0.86% vs. 1.75 ± 1.68%; P = 0.005) and >180 mg/dL (37.6 ± 11.4% vs. 54.5 ± 15.4%; P < 0.0001). All primary and secondary outcomes were met. No instances of diabetes-related ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the tubeless AID system led to improved glycemic outcomes compared with pump therapy with CGM among adults with type 1 diabetes, underscoring the clinical benefit of AID and bolstering recommendations to establish AID systems as preferred therapy for this population.

Two Years with a Tubeless Automated Insulin Delivery System: A Single-Arm Multicenter Trial in Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Background: The Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System was shown to be safe and effective following 3 months of use in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D); however, data on the durability of these results are limited. This study evaluated the long-term safety and effectiveness of Omnipod 5 use in people with T1D during up to 2 years of use. Materials and Methods: After a 3-month single-arm, multicenter, pivotal trial in children (6-13.9 years) and adolescents/adults (14-70 years), participants could continue system use in an extension phase. HbA1c was measured every 3 months for up to 15 months; continuous glucose monitor metrics were collected for up to 2 years. Results: Participants (N = 224) completed median (interquartile range) 22.3 (21.7, 22.7) months of AID. HbA1c was reduced in the pivotal trial from 7.7% ± 0.9% in children and 7.2% ± 0.9% in adolescents/adults to 7.0% ± 0.6% and 6.8% ± 0.7%, respectively, (P < 0.0001), and was maintained at 7.2% ± 0.7% and 6.9% ± 0.6% after 15 months (P < 0.0001 from baseline). Time in target range (70-180 mg/dL) increased from 52.4% ± 15.6% in children and 63.6% ± 16.5% in adolescents/adults at baseline to 67.9% ± 8.0% and 73.8% ± 10.8%, respectively, during the pivotal trial (P < 0.0001) and was maintained at 65.9% ± 8.9% and 72.9% ± 11.3% during the extension (P < 0.0001 from baseline). One episode of diabetic ketoacidosis and seven episodes of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the extension. Children and adolescents/adults spent median 96.1% and 96.3% of time in Automated Mode, respectively. Conclusion: Our study supports that long-term use of the Omnipod 5 AID System can safely maintain improvements in glycemic outcomes for up to 2 years of use in people with T1D. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT04196140.

Multicenter Evaluation of Ultra-Rapid Lispro Insulin with Control-IQ Technology in Adults, Adolescents, and Children with Type 1 Diabetes.

Objective: To evaluate the safety and explore the efficacy of use of ultra-rapid lispro (URLi, Lyumjev) insulin in the Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ 1.5 technology in children, teenagers, and adults living with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: At 14 U.S. diabetes centers, youth and adults with T1D completed a 16-day lead-in period using lispro in a t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ 1.5 technology, followed by a 13-week period in which URLi insulin was used in the pump. Results: The trial included 179 individuals with T1D (age 6-75 years). With URLi, 1.7% (3 participants) had a severe hypoglycemia event over 13 weeks attributed to override boluses or a missed meal. No diabetic ketoacidosis events occurred. Two participants stopped URLi use because of infusion-site discomfort, and one stopped after developing a rash. Mean time 70-180 mg/dL increased from 65% ± 15% with lispro to 67% ± 13% with URLi (P = 0.004). Mean insulin treatment satisfaction questionnaire score improved from 75 ± 13 at screening to 80 ± 11 after 13 weeks of URLi use (mean difference = 6; 95% confidence interval 4-8; P < 0.001), with the greatest improvement reported for confidence avoiding symptoms of high blood sugar. Mean treatment-related impact measure-diabetes score improved from 74 ± 12 to 80 ± 12 (P < 0.001), and mean TRIM-Diabetes Device (score improved from 82 ± 11 to 86 ± 12 (P < 0.001). Conclusions: URLi use in the Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ 1.5 technology was safe for adult and pediatric participants with T1D, with quality-of-life benefits of URLi use perceived by the study participants. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT05403502.

Predicting Immunological Risk for Stage 1 and Stage 2 Diabetes Using a 1-Week CGM Home Test, Nocturnal Glucose Increments, and Standardized Liquid Mixed Meal Breakfasts, with Classification Enhanced by Machine Learning.

Background: Predicting the risk for type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a significant challenge. We use a 1-week continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) home test to characterize differences in glycemia in at-risk healthy individuals based on autoantibody presence and develop a machine-learning technology for CGM-based islet autoantibody classification. Methods: Sixty healthy relatives of people with T1D with mean ± standard deviation age of 23.7 ± 10.7 years, HbA1c of 5.3% ± 0.3%, and body mass index of 23.8 ± 5.6 kg/m2 with zero (n = 21), one (n = 18), and ≥2 (n = 21) autoantibodies were enrolled in an National Institutes of Health TrialNet ancillary study. Participants wore a CGM for a week and consumed three standardized liquid mixed meals (SLMM) instead of three breakfasts. Glycemic outcomes were computed from weekly, overnight (12:00-06:00), and post-SLMM CGM traces, compared across groups, and used in four supervised machine-learning autoantibody status classifiers. Classifiers were evaluated through 10-fold cross-validation using the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC-ROC) to select the best classification model. Results: Among all computed glycemia metrics, only three were different across the autoantibodies groups: percent time >180 mg/dL (T180) weekly (P = 0.04), overnight CGM incremental AUC (P = 0.005), and T180 for 75 min post-SLMM CGM traces (P = 0.004). Once overnight and post-SLMM features are incorporated in machine-learning classifiers, a linear support vector machine model achieved the best performance of classifying autoantibody positive versus autoantibody negative participants with AUC-ROC ≥0.81. Conclusion: A new technology combining machine learning with a potentially self-administered 1-week CGM home test can help improve T1D risk detection without the need to visit a hospital or use a medical laboratory. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT02663661.

A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trial Outcomes for the t:slim X2 Insulin Pump with Control-IQ Technology in Youth and Adults from Age 2 to 72.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of hybrid-closed loop Control-IQ technology (Control-IQ) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in subgroups based on baseline characteristics such as race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), prestudy insulin delivery modality (pump or multiple daily injections), and baseline glycemic control. Methods: Data were pooled and analyzed from 3 RCTs comparing Control-IQ to a Control group using continuous glucose monitoring in 369 participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D) from age 2 to 72 years old. Results: Time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) in the Control-IQ group (n = 256) increased from 57% ± 17% at baseline to 70% ± 11% during follow-up, and in the Control group (n = 113) was 56% ± 15% and 57% ± 14%, respectively (adjusted treatment group difference = 11.5%, 95% confidence interval +9.7% to +13.2%, P < 0.001), an increase of 2.8 h/day on average. Significant reductions in mean glucose, hyperglycemia metrics, hypoglycemic metrics, and HbA1c were also observed. A statistically similar beneficial treatment effect on time in range 70-180 mg/dL was observed across the full age range irrespective of race-ethnicity, household income, prestudy continuous glucose monitor use, or prestudy insulin delivery method. Participants with the highest baseline HbA1c levels showed the greatest improvements in TIR and HbA1c. Conclusion: This pooled analysis of Control-IQ RCTs demonstrates the beneficial effect of Control-IQ in T1D across a broad spectrum of participant characteristics, including racial-ethnic minority, lower SES, lack of prestudy insulin pump experience, and high HbA1c levels. The greatest benefit was observed in participants with the worst baseline glycemic control in whom the auto-bolus feature of the Control-IQ algorithm appears to have substantial impact. Since no subgroups were identified that did not benefit from Control-IQ, hybrid-closed loop technology should be strongly considered for all youth and adults with T1D. Clinical Trials Registry: clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03563313, NCT03844789, and NCT04796779.

Outcomes in Pump- and CGM-Baseline Use Subgroups in the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the potential benefits of automated insulin delivery (AID) among individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in sub-populations of baseline device use determined by continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use status and insulin delivery via multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a six-month randomized, multicenter trial, 168 individuals were assigned to closed-loop control (CLC, Control-IQ, Tandem Diabetes Care), or sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. The trial included a two- to eight-week run-in phase to train participants on study devices. The participants were stratified into four subgroups: insulin pump and CGM (pump+CGM), pump-only, MDI and CGM (MDI+CGM), and MDI users without CGM (MDI-only) users. We compared glycemic outcomes among four subgroups. RESULTS: At baseline, 61% were pump+CGM users, 18% pump-only users, 10% MDI+CGM users, and 11% MDI-only users. Mean time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) improved from baseline in the four subgroups using CLC: pump+CGM, 62% to 73%; pump-only, 61% to 70%; MDI+CGM, 54% to 68%; and MDI-only, 61% to 69%. The reduction in time below 70 mg/dL from baseline was comparable among the four subgroups. No interaction effect was detected with baseline device use for TIR (P = .67) or time below (P = .77). On the System Usability Questionnaire, scores were high at 26 weeks for all subgroups: pump+CGM: 87.2 ± 12.1, pump-only: 89.4 ± 8.2, MDI+CGM 87.2 ± 9.3, MDI: 78.1 ± 15. CONCLUSIONS: There was a consistent benefit in patients with T1D when using CLC, regardless of baseline insulin delivery modality or CGM use. These data suggest that this CLC system can be considered across a wide range of patients.

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.

Automated Insulin Delivery with Remote Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Hospitalized Patients with Diabetes: A Multicenter, Single-Arm, Feasibility Trial.

Introduction: Multiple daily injection insulin therapy frequently fails to meet hospital glycemic goals and is prone to hypoglycemia. Automated insulin delivery (AID) with remote glucose monitoring offers a solution to these shortcomings. Research Design and Methods: In a single-arm multicenter pilot trial, we tested the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of the Omnipod 5 AID System with real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for up to 10 days in hospitalized patients with insulin-requiring diabetes on nonintensive care unit medical-surgical units. Primary endpoints included the proportion of time in automated mode and percent time-in-range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) among participants with >48 h of CGM data. Safety endpoints included incidence of severe hypoglycemia and diabetes-related ketoacidosis (DKA). Additional glycemic endpoints, CGM accuracy, and patient satisfaction were also explored. Results: Twenty-two participants were enrolled; 18 used the system for a total of 96 days (mean 5.3 ± 3.1 days per patient), and 16 had sufficient CGM data required for analysis. Median percent time in automated mode was 95% (interquartile range 92%-98%) for the 18 system users, and the 16 participants with >48 h of CGM data achieved an overall TIR of 68% ± 16%, with 0.17% ± 0.3% time <70 mg/dL and 0.06% ± 0.2% time <54 mg/dL. Sensor mean glucose was 167 ± 21 mg/dL. There were no DKA or severe hypoglycemic events. All participants reported satisfaction with the system at study end. Conclusions: The use of AID with a disposable tubeless patch-pump along with remote real-time CGM is feasible in the hospital setting. These results warrant further investigation in randomized trials.

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.

Glycemic Outcomes in Baseline Hemoglobin A1C Subgroups in the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial.

Using a closed-loop system significantly improves time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). In a 6-month RCT, 112 subjects were randomly assigned to closed-loop control (Tandem Control-IQ) after obtaining 2 weeks of baseline Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data from sensor-augmented pump therapy. We compared glycemic outcomes from baseline to end of study among subgroups classified by baseline HbA1c levels. All HbA1c subgroups showed an improvement in TIR due to reduction of both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. Those with HbA1c <6.5% improved mostly by reducing nocturnal hypoglycemia due to the automated basal insulin adjustments. Those with HbA1c ≥8.5% improved mostly by reducing daytime and nocturnal hyperglycemia due to both automated basal insulin adjustments and correction boluses during the day. There does not appear to be any reason to exclude individuals with T1D from automated insulin delivery based on their HbA1c. Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT03563313.