Multicenter, Randomized Trial of a Bionic Pancreas in Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Currently available semiautomated insulin-delivery systems require individualized insulin regimens for the initialization of therapy and meal doses based on carbohydrate counting for routine operation. In contrast, the bionic pancreas is initialized only on the basis of body weight, makes all dose decisions and delivers insulin autonomously, and uses meal announcements without carbohydrate counting. METHODS: In this 13-week, multicenter, randomized trial, we randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio persons at least 6 years of age with type 1 diabetes either to receive bionic pancreas treatment with insulin aspart or insulin lispro or to receive standard care (defined as any insulin-delivery method with unblinded, real-time continuous glucose monitoring). The primary outcome was the glycated hemoglobin level at 13 weeks. The key secondary outcome was the percentage of time that the glucose level as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring was below 54 mg per deciliter; the prespecified noninferiority limit for this outcome was 1 percentage point. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 219 participants 6 to 79 years of age were assigned to the bionic-pancreas group, and 107 to the standard-care group. The glycated hemoglobin level decreased from 7.9% to 7.3% in the bionic-pancreas group and did not change (was at 7.7% at both time points) in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference at 13 weeks, -0.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to -0.3; P<0.001). The percentage of time that the glucose level as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring was below 54 mg per deciliter did not differ significantly between the two groups (13-week adjusted difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The rate of severe hypoglycemia was 17.7 events per 100 participant-years in the bionic-pancreas group and 10.8 events per 100 participant-years in the standard-care group (P = 0.39). No episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In this 13-week, randomized trial involving adults and children with type 1 diabetes, use of a bionic pancreas was associated with a greater reduction than standard care in the glycated hemoglobin level. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04200313.).

Cost-utility analysis of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus FreeStyle Libre 1 intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) with alert functionality compared with FreeStyle Libre 1 intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) without alerts in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium. METHODS: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. Input data for the simulated baseline cohort were sourced from the randomised ALERTT1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov. REGISTRATION NO: NCT03772600). The age of the participants was 42.9 ± 14.1 years (mean ± SD), and the baseline HbA1c was 57.8 ± 9.5 mmol/mol (7.4 ± 0.9%). Participants using rtCGM showed a reduction in HbA1c of 3.6 mmol/mol (0.36 percentage points) based on the 6-month mean between-group difference. In the base case, both rtCGM and isCGM were priced at €3.92/day (excluding value-added tax [VAT]) according to the Belgian reimbursement system. The analysis was performed from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective over a lifetime time horizon. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life years. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were used to account for parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base case, rtCGM dominated isCGM, resulting in lower diabetes-related complication costs and better health outcomes. The associated main drivers favouring rtCGM were lower HbA1c, fewer severe hypoglycaemic events and reduced fear of hypoglycaemia. The results were robust under a wide range of one-way sensitivity analyses. In models where the price of rtCGM is €5.11/day (a price increase of 30.4%) or €12.34/day (a price increase of 214.8%), rtCGM was cost-neutral or reached an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: When priced similarly, Dexcom G6 rtCGM with alert functionality has both economic and clinical benefits compared with FreeStyle Libre 1 isCGM without alerts in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium, and appears to be a cost-effective glucose monitoring modality. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03772600.

Applying technologies to simplify strategies for exercise in type 1 diabetes.

Challenges and fears related to managing glucose levels around planned and spontaneous exercise affect outcomes and quality of life in people living with type 1 diabetes. Advances in technology, including continuous glucose monitoring, open-loop insulin pump therapy and hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems for exercise management in type 1 diabetes, address some of these challenges. In this review, three research or clinical experts, each living with type 1 diabetes, leverage published literature and clinical and personal experiences to translate research findings into simplified, patient-centred strategies. With an understanding of limitations in insulin pharmacokinetics, variable intra-individual responses to aerobic and anaerobic exercise, and the features of the technologies, six steps are proposed to guide clinicians in efficiently communicating simplified actions more effectively to individuals with type 1 diabetes. Fundamentally, the six steps centre on two aspects. First, regardless of insulin therapy type, and especially needed for spontaneous exercise, we provide an estimate of glucose disposal into active muscle meant to be consumed as extra carbohydrates for exercise ('ExCarbs'; a common example is 0.5 g/kg body mass per hour for adults and 1.0 g/kg body mass per hour for youth). Second, for planned exercise using open-loop pump therapy or HCL systems, we additionally recommend pre-emptive basal insulin reduction or using HCL exercise modes initiated 90 min (1-2 h) before the start of exercise until the end of exercise. Modifications for aerobic- and anaerobic-type exercise are discussed. The burden of pre-emptive basal insulin reductions and consumption of ExCarbs are the limitations of HCL systems, which may be overcome by future innovations but are unquestionably required for currently available systems.

Technology advances in diabetes pregnancy: right technology, right person, right time.

This review outlines some of the extraordinary recent advances in diabetes technology, which are transforming the management of type 1 diabetes before, during and after pregnancy. It highlights recent improvements associated with use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) but acknowledges that neither CGM nor insulin pump therapy are adequate for achieving the pregnancy glucose targets. Furthermore, even hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems that are clinically effective outside of pregnancy may not confer additional benefits throughout pregnancy. To date, there is only one HCL system, the CamAPS FX, with a strong evidence base for use during pregnancy, suggesting that the pregnancy benefits are HCL system specific. This is in stark contrast to HCL system use outside of pregnancy, where benefits are HCL category specific. The CamAPS FX HCL system has a rapidly adaptive algorithm and lower glucose targets with benefits across all maternal glucose categories, meaning that it is applicable for all women with type 1 diabetes, before and during pregnancy. For women of reproductive years living with type 2 diabetes, the relative merits of using non-insulin pharmacotherapies vs diabetes technology (dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors) are unknown. Despite the urgent unmet need and potential benefits, studies of pharmacotherapy and technology use are extremely limited in pregnant women with type 2 diabetes.

Associations between daily step count classifications and continuous glucose monitoring metrics in adults with type 1 diabetes: analysis of the Type 1 Diabetes Exercise Initiative (T1DEXI) cohort.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Adults with type 1 diabetes should perform daily physical activity to help maintain health and fitness, but the influence of daily step counts on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics are unclear. This analysis used the Type 1 Diabetes Exercise Initiative (T1DEXI) dataset to investigate the effect of daily step count on CGM-based metrics. METHODS: In a 4 week free-living observational study of adults with type 1 diabetes, with available CGM and step count data, we categorised participants into three groups-below (<7000), meeting (7000-10,000) or exceeding (>10,000) the daily step count goal-to determine if step count category influenced CGM metrics, including per cent time in range (TIR: 3.9-10.0 mmol/l), time below range (TBR: <3.9 mmol/l) and time above range (TAR: >10.0 mmol/l). RESULTS: A total of 464 adults with type 1 diabetes (mean±SD age 37±14 years; HbA1c 48.8±8.1 mmol/mol [6.6±0.7%]; 73% female; 45% hybrid closed-loop system, 38% standard insulin pump, 17% multiple daily insulin injections) were included in the study. Between-participant analyses showed that individuals who exceeded the mean daily step count goal over the 4 week period had a similar TIR (75±14%) to those meeting (74±14%) or below (75±16%) the step count goal (p>0.05). In the within-participant comparisons, TIR was higher on days when the step count goal was exceeded or met (both 75±15%) than on days below the step count goal (73±16%; both p<0.001). The TBR was also higher when individuals exceeded the step count goals (3.1%±3.2%) than on days when they met or were below step count goals (difference in means -0.3% [p=0.006] and -0.4% [p=0.001], respectively). The total daily insulin dose was lower on days when step count goals were exceeded (0.52±0.18 U/kg; p<0.001) or were met (0.53±0.18 U/kg; p<0.001) than on days when step counts were below the current recommendation (0.55±0.18 U/kg). Step count had a larger effect on CGM-based metrics in participants with a baseline HbA1c ≥53 mmol/mol (≥7.0%). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that, compared with days with low step counts, days with higher step counts are associated with slight increases in both TIR and TBR, along with small reductions in total daily insulin requirements, in adults living with type 1 diabetes. DATA AVAILABILITY: The data that support the findings reported here are available on the Vivli Platform (ID: T1-DEXI; https://doi.org/10.25934/PR00008428 ).

Comparison between a tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery system and a tubeless, on-body sensor-augmented pump in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This study compares the efficacy and safety of a tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery (AID) system with that of a tubeless, on-body sensor-augmented pump (SAP). METHODS: This multicentre, parallel-group, RCT was conducted at 13 tertiary medical centres in South Korea. Adults aged 19-69 years with type 1 diabetes who had HbA1c levels of <85.8 mmol/mol (<10.0%) were eligible. The participants were assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive a tubeless, on-body AID system (intervention group) or a tubeless, on-body SAP (control group) for 12 weeks. Stratified block randomisation was conducted by an independent statistician. Blinding was not possible due to the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was the percentage of time in range (TIR), blood glucose between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/l, as measured by continuous glucose monitoring. ANCOVAs were conducted with baseline values and study centres as covariates. RESULTS: A total of 104 participants underwent randomisation, with 53 in the intervention group and 51 in the control group. The mean (±SD) age of the participants was 40±11 years. The mean (±SD) TIR increased from 62.1±17.1% at baseline to 71.5±10.7% over the 12 week trial period in the intervention group and from 64.7±17.0% to 66.9±15.0% in the control group (difference between the adjusted means: 6.5% [95% CI 3.6%, 9.4%], p<0.001). Time below range, time above range, CV and mean glucose levels were also significantly better in the intervention group compared with the control group. HbA1c decreased from 50.9±9.9 mmol/mol (6.8±0.9%) at baseline to 45.9±7.4 mmol/mol (6.4±0.7%) after 12 weeks in the intervention group and from 48.7±9.1 mmol/mol (6.6±0.8%) to 45.7±7.5 mmol/mol (6.3±0.7%) in the control group (difference between the adjusted means: -0.7 mmol/mol [95% CI -2.0, 0.8 mmol/mol] (-0.1% [95% CI -0.2%, 0.1%]), p=0.366). No diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycaemia events occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The use of a tubeless, on-body AID system was safe and associated with superior glycaemic profiles, including TIR, time below range, time above range and CV, than the use of a tubeless, on-body SAP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) KCT0008398 FUNDING: The study was funded by a grant from the Korea Medical Device Development Fund supported by the Ministry of Science and ICT; the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy; the Ministry of Health and Welfare; and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (grant number: RS-2020-KD000056).

Continuous glucose monitoring with structured education in adults with type 2 diabetes managed by multiple daily insulin injections: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of stand-alone intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) with or without a structured education programme and blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in adults with type 2 diabetes on multiple daily insulin injections (MDI). METHODS: In this 24 week randomised open-label multicentre trial, adults with type 2 diabetes on intensive insulin therapy with HbA1c levels of 58-108 mmol/mol (7.5-12.0%) were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to isCGM with a structured education programme on adjusting insulin dose and timing according to graphical patterns in CGM (intervention group), isCGM with conventional education (control group 1) or BGM with conventional education (control group 2). Block randomisation was conducted by an independent statistician. Due to the nature of the intervention, blinding of participants and investigators was not possible. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline at 24 weeks, assessed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as a covariate. RESULTS: A total of 159 individuals were randomised (n=53 for each group); 148 were included in the full analysis set, with 52 in the intervention group, 49 in control group 1 and 47 in control group 2. The mean (± SD) HbA1c level at baseline was 68.19±10.94 mmol/mol (8.39±1.00%). The least squares mean change (± SEM) from baseline HbA1c at 24 weeks was -10.96±1.35 mmol/mol (-1.00±0.12%) in the intervention group, -6.87±1.39 mmol/mol (-0.63±0.13%) in control group 1 (p=0.0367 vs intervention group) and -6.32±1.42 mmol/mol (-0.58±0.13%) in control group 2 (p=0.0193 vs intervention group). Adverse events occurred in 28.85% (15/52) of individuals in the intervention group, 26.42% (14/53) in control group 1 and 48.08% (25/52) in control group 2. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Stand-alone isCGM offers a greater reduction in HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes on MDI when education on the interpretation of graphical patterns in CGM is provided. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04926623. FUNDING: This study was supported by Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Practical considerations for continuous glucose monitoring in elite athletes with type 1 diabetes mellitus: A narrative review.

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) refers to a metabolic condition where a lack of insulin impairs the usual homeostatic mechanisms to control blood glucose levels. Historically, participation in competitive sport has posed a challenge for those with T1DM, where the dynamic changes in blood glucose during exercise can result in dangerously high (hyperglycaemia) or low blood glucoses (hypoglycaemia) levels. Over the last decade, research and technological development has enhanced the methods of monitoring and managing blood glucose levels, thus reducing the chances of experiencing hyper- or hypoglycaemia during exercise. The introduction of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems means that glucose can be monitored conveniently, without the need for frequent fingerpick glucose checks. CGM devices include a fine sensor inserted under the skin, measuring levels of glucose in the interstitial fluid. Readings can be synchronized to a reader or mobile phone app as often as every 1-5 min. Use of CGM devices is associated with lower HbA1c and a reduction in hypoglycaemic events, promoting overall health and athletic performance. However, there are limitations to CGM, which must be considered when being used by an athlete with T1DM. These limitations can be addressed by individualized education plans, using protective equipment to prevent sensor dislodgement, as well as further research aiming to: (i) account for disparities between CGM and true blood glucose levels during vigorous exercise; (ii) investigate the effects of temperature and altitude on CGM accuracy, and (iii) explore of the sociological impact of CGM use amongst sportspeople without diabetes on those with T1DM.

Long-term assessment of the NHS hybrid closed-loop real-world study on glycaemic outcomes, time-in-range, and quality of life in children and young people with type 1 diabetes.

Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems seamlessly interface continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with insulin pumps, employing specialised algorithms and user-initiated automated insulin delivery. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of HCLs at 12 months post-initiation on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), time-in-range (TIR), hypoglycaemia frequency, and quality of life measures among children and young people (CYP) with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and their caregivers in a real-world setting. Conducted between August 1, 2021, and December 10, 2022, the prospective recruitment took place in eight paediatric diabetes centres across England under the National Health Service England's (NHSE) HCL pilot real-world study. A cohort of 251 CYP (58% males, mean age 12.3 years) with T1DM participated (89% white, 3% Asian, 4% black, 3% mixed ethnicity, and 1% other). The study utilised three HCL systems: (1) Tandem Control-IQ AP system, which uses the Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump (Tandem Diabetes Care, San Diego, CA, USA) with the Dexcom G6® CGM (Dexcom, San Diego, CA, USA) sensor; (2) Medtronic MiniMed™ 780G with the Guardian 4 sensor (Medtronic, Northridge, CA, USA); and (3) the CamAPS FX (CamDiab, Cambridge, UK) with the Ypsomed insulin pump (Ypsomed Ltd, Escrick, UK) and Dexcom G6® CGM.All systems were fully funded by the NHS. Results demonstrated significant improvements in HbA1c (average reduction at 12 months 7 mmol/mol; P < 0.001), time-in-range (TIR) (average increase 13.4%; P < 0.001), hypoglycaemia frequency (50% reduction), hypoglycaemia fear, and quality of sleep (P < 0.001) among CYP over a 12-month period of HCL usage. Additionally, parents and carers experienced improvements in hypoglycaemia fear and quality of sleep after 6 and 12 months of use. In addition to the improvements in glycaemic management, these findings underscore the positive impact of HCL systems on both the well-being of CYP with T1DM and the individuals caring for them.

Time In Tight Range in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: A cross-sectional observational single centre study evaluating efficacy of new advanced technologies.

INTRODUCTION: Early and tight glycaemic control is crucial to prevent long-term complications of Type 1 Diabetes (T1D). The aim of our study was to compare glucose metrics, including Time In Tight Range (TITR), in a real-world setting. METHODS: We performed a single-centre cross-sectional study in 534 children and adolescents with T1D. Participants were divided into four groups (multiple daily injections + real-time Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), multiple daily injections + intermittently scanned CGM, sensor augmented pump (SAP), and Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL). Demographical and clinical data were collected and analysed. RESULTS: The group with AHCL showed significantly higher Time In Range (TIR) (71.31% ± 10.88) than SAP (57.82% ± 14.98; p < 0.001), MDI + rtCGM (54.56% ± 17.04; p < 0.001) and MDI + isCGM (52.17% ± 19.36; p < 0.001) groups with a lower Time Above Range (p < 0.001). The group with AHCL also showed lower Time Below Range than MDI + isCGM and SAP groups (p < 0.01). The overall TITR was 37% ± 14 with 19% of participants who reached a TITR ≥50% with a mean TIR of 81%. AHCL had significantly higher TITR (45.46% ± 11.77) than SAP (36.25% ± 13.53; p < 0.001), MDI + rtCGM (34.03% ± 13.89; p < 0.001) and MDI + isCGM (33.37% ± 15.84; p < 0.001) groups with a lower Coefficient of Variation (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that AHCL ensures a better glycaemic control with an improvement in both TIR and TITR, along with a reduction in CV. Implementation of automated insulin delivery systems should be considered in the treatment of children and adolescents with T1D.

Continuous glucose monitoring in patients with inherited metabolic disorders at risk for Hypoglycemia and Nutritional implications.

Managing Inherited Metabolic Disorders (IMDs) at risk for hypoglycemia, such as Glycogen Storage Diseases (GSDs), Hereditary Fructose Metabolism Disorders (HFMDs) and Congenital Hyperinsulinism (CH), poses challenges in dietary treatments and blood glucose monitoring. The effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) remains a subject of ongoing debate, with IMD guidelines maintaining caution. Therefore, a systematic evaluation is needed to understand the potential benefits of CGM during dietary interventions. A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed according to the PICOS model and PRISMA recommendations on studies published from January 01, 2003, up to October 15, 2023 (PROSPERO CRD42024497744). The risk of bias was assessed using NIH Quality Assessment Tools. Twenty-four studies in GSDs (n = 13), CH (n = 10), and HFMDs (n = 1) were analyzed. In GSDs, Real-time CGM (Rt-CGM) was associated with metabolic benefits during nutritional interventions, proving to be an accurate system for hypoglycemia detection although with some concerns about reliability. Rt-CGM in CH, primarily involving children, also showed potential benefits for glycemic control and metabolic stability with acceptable accuracy, although its use during dietary changes was limited. Few experiences on Flash Glucose Monitoring (FGM) were reported, with some concerns about reliability. Overall, the studies analyzed presented different designs, and their quality was predominantly fair or poor. Heterogeneity and limited consensus on reliability and glycemic targets underscore the need for prospective studies and future recommendations for the use of CGM in optimizing nutritional status and providing personalized dietary education in individuals with IMDs prone to hypoglycemia.

Estimating the cost-effectiveness of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes in England.

OBJECTIVE: We previously showed that intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) reduces HbA1c at 24 weeks compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose with finger pricking (SMBG) in adults with type 1 diabetes and high HbA1c levels (58-97 mmol/mol [7.5%-11%]). We aim to assess the economic impact of isCGM compared with SMBG. METHODS: Participant-level baseline and follow-up health status (EQ-5D-5L) and within-trial healthcare resource-use data were collected. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived at 24 weeks, adjusting for baseline EQ-5D-5L. Participant-level costs were generated. Using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, economic analysis was performed from the National Health Service perspective over a lifetime horizon, discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: Within-trial EQ-5D-5L showed non-significant adjusted incremental QALY gain of 0.006 (95% CI: -0.007 to 0.019) for isCGM compared with SMBG and an adjusted cost increase of £548 (95% CI: 381-714) per participant. The lifetime projected incremental cost (95% CI) of isCGM was £1954 (-5108 to 8904) with an incremental QALY (95% CI) gain of 0.436 (0.195-0.652) resulting in an incremental cost-per-QALY of £4477. In all subgroups, isCGM had an incremental cost-per-QALY better than £20,000 compared with SMBG; for people with baseline HbA1c >75 mmol/mol (9.0%), it was cost-saving. Sensitivity analysis suggested that isCGM remains cost-effective if its effectiveness lasts for at least 7 years. CONCLUSION: While isCGM is associated with increased short-term costs, compared with SMBG, its benefits in lowering HbA1c will lead to sufficient long-term health-gains and cost-savings to justify costs, so long as the effect lasts into the medium term.

Do-it-yourself continuous glucose monitoring in people aged 16 to 69 years with type 1 diabetes: A qualitative study.

AIMS: In many countries, real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) is not funded, and cost presents a barrier to access. A do-it-yourself conversion of intermittently scanned CGM (DIY-CGM) is a cheaper alternative. This qualitative study aimed to explore user experiences with DIY-CGM in people aged 16 to 69 years with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants for semi-structured virtual interviews exploring experiences of DIY-CGM use. Participants were recruited after completing the intervention arm of a crossover randomised controlled trial that evaluated DIY-CGM versus intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM). Participants were previously naive to DIY-CGM and rt-CGM but not isCGM. The DIY-CGM intervention consisted of a Bluetooth bridge connected to isCGM, adding rt-CGM functionality over 8 weeks. Interviews were transcribed, then thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: Interviews were with 12 people aged 16 to 65 years, with T1D: mean age ± SD 43 ± 14 years; baseline mean HbA1c ± SD 60 mmol/mol ± 9.9 (7.6 ± 0.9%) and time in range 59.8% ± 14.8%. Participants perceived that using DIY-CGM improved both glycaemic control and aspects of quality of life. Alarm and trend functionality allowed participants to perceive reduced glycaemic variability overnight and following meals. The addition of a smartwatch increased discrete access to glucose information. There was a high degree of trust in DIY-CGM. Challenges while using DIY-CGM included signal loss during vigorous exercise, alarm fatigue and short battery life. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that for users, DIY-CGM appears to be an acceptable alternative method of rt-CGM.

Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes: A subgroup analysis from the FLASH-UK study.

AIMS: The FLASH-UK trial showed lower HbA1c with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM), as compared with self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), in adults with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c ≥58 mmol/mol (≥7.5%). Here, we present results from the pre-specified subgroup analysis for the 24-week HbA1c (primary outcome) and selected sensor-based secondary outcomes. METHODS: This was a multi-centre, parallel-design, randomised controlled trial. The difference in treatment effect between subgroups (baseline HbA1c [≤75 vs. >75 mmol/mol] [≤9.0 vs >9.0%], treatment modality [pump vs injections], prior participation in structured education, age, educational level, impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia, deprivation index quintile sex, ethnic group and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] detected depression category) were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-six participants (females 44%, mean [SD] baseline HbA1c 71 [9] mmol/mol 8.6 [0.8%], age 44 [15]) were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio to isCGM (n = 78) or SMBG (n = 78). The mean (SD) baseline HbA1c (%) was 8.7 (0.9) in the isCGM group and 8.5 (0.8) in the SMBG group, lowering to 7.9 (0.8) versus 8.3 (0.9), respectively, at 24 weeks (adjusted mean difference -0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.7 to -0.3; p < 0.001]. For HbA1c, there was no impact of treatment modality, prior participation in structured education, deprivation index quintile, sex or baseline depression category. The between-group difference in HbA1c was larger for younger people (a reduction of 2.7 [95% CI 0.3-5.0; p = 0.028] mmol/mol for every additional 15 years of age). Those with HbA1c 76-97 mmol/mol (>9.0%-11.0%) had a marginally non-significant higher reduction in HbA1c of 8.4 mmol/mol (3.3-13.5) compared to 3.1 (0.3-6.0) in those with HbA1c 58-75 mmol/mol (p = 0.08). For 'Time in range' (% 3.9-10 mmol/L), the difference was larger for those with at least a bachelor's degree. For 'Time below range' (% <3.9 mmol/L), the difference was larger for those using injections, older people and those with less than bachelor's degree. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring is generally effective across a range of baseline characteristics.

Identifying the deficiencies of currently available CGM to improve uptake and benefit.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The use of diabetes technologies is increasing worldwide, with health systems facilitating improved access to devices. Continuous glucose monitoring is a complex intervention that provides information on glucose concentration, rate and direction of change, historical data and alerts and alarms for extremes of glucose. These data do not themselves change glycaemia and require translation to a meaningful action for impact. It is, therefore, crucial that such systems advance to better meet the needs of individuals using them. METHODS: Narrative review of the use of, engagement with, limitations and unmet needs of continuous glucose monitoring systems. RESULTS: CGM devices have made a significant contribution to the self-management of diabetes; however, challenges with access and user experience persist, with multiple limitations to uptake and benefit. These limitations include physical size and implementation, with associated stigma, alarm fatigue, sleep disturbance and the challenge of addressing large volumes of real-time data. Greater personalisation throughout the continuous glucose monitoring journey, with a focus on usability, may improve the benefits derived from the device and reduce the burden of self-management. Healthcare professionals may have unconscious biases that affect the provision of continuous glucose monitors due to deprivation, education, age, ethnicity and other characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous glucose monitoring exerts a dose-dependent response; the more it is used, the more effective it is. For optimal use, continuous glucose monitors must not just reduce the burden of management in one dimension but facilitate net improvement in all domains of self-management for all users.

An estimate of the need for continuous glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes with intensive insulin treatment in secondary healthcare.

AIM: To estimate the proportion of persons with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) receiving intensive insulin treatment in the secondary healthcare who could be candidates for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), based on different HbA1c criteria. For comparison, the results are also presented as proportion of persons with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) in the same region. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the Central Denmark Region, we identified all persons with T1DM (n = 6179) and T2DM (n = 4315) who had a minimum of one contact to a diabetes outpatient clinic from September 2021 to September 2022. Insulin regimen and HbA1c measured after a minimum of 2 months with a stable insulin regimen were retrieved from the healthcare administrative electronic platform used in the region. RESULTS: The numbers of persons with T1DM and T2DM with HbA1c meeting the criteria were 5145 and 3090, respectively. The fraction of T2DM with basal-bolus insulin was 35.3%, and the fraction with basal-bolus insulin and HbA1c >53 (7%) mmol/mol or >58 (7.5%) mmol/mol was 20.5% and 16.6%, respectively. These proportions correspond to 19.4%, 14.4% and 11.7% of the persons with T1DM in the same geographical area. CONCLUSION: The proportion of persons with T2DM in secondary healthcare undergoing intensive insulin treatment who could be candidates for CGM corresponded to only a minor fraction of persons with T1DM in the same region, irrespective of any HbA1c criteria applied.

Comparing the glycaemic outcomes between real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) among adults and children with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) versus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) on key glycaemic metrics (co-primary outcomes HbA1c and time-in-range [TIR] 70-180 mg/dL, 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) among people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials were searched. Inclusion criteria were RCTs; T1D populations of any age and insulin regimen; comparing any type of rtCGM with isCGM (only the first generation had been compared to date); and reporting the glycaemic outcomes. Glycaemic outcomes were extracted post-intervention and expressed as mean differences and 95% CIs between the two comparators. Results were pooled using a random-effect meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. The quality of evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Five RCTs met the inclusion criteria (4 parallel and 1 crossover design; 4 with CGM use <8 weeks), involving 446 participants (354 adults; 92 children and adolescents). Overall, meta-analysis showed rtCGM compared to isCGM improved absolute TIR by +7.0% (95% CI: 5.8%-8.3%, I2 = 0%, p < 0.01) accompanied by a favorable effect on time-below-range <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) - 1.7% (95%CI: -3.0% to -0.4%; p = 0.03). No differences were seen regarding HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis highlights that for people with T1D, rtCGM confers benefits over isCGM primarily related to increased TIR, with improvements in hypo- and hyperglycaemia.

Assessing the feasibility of time in tight range (TITR) targets with advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) use in children and adolescents: A single-centre real-world study.

AIMS: Time in Tight Range (TITR) is a novel glycaemic metric in monitoring type 1 diabetes (T1D) management. The aim of this study was to assess the attainability of the TITR target in children and adolescents using the advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL). METHODS: The 2128-day CGM data from 56 children and adolescents with T1D using AHCL (Minimed-780G) were analysed. Time in Range (TIR) (3.9-10 mmol/L), TITR (3.9-7.7 mmol/L), and other glycaemic parameters were separately analysed in terms of whole day, daytime (06.00-23:59), and nighttime (00.00-05.59) results. The participants were divided into two groups by autocorrection rate where Group 1 had a rate of <30% and Group 2 had a rate of ≥30. RESULTS: All glycaemic parameters indicated a better glycaemic outcome in the nighttime with higher TIR and TITR values compared with daytime (for TIR 87.5 ± 9.5% vs. 78.8 ± 8%, p < 0.001, and TITR 68.2 ± 13.5% vs. 57.5 ± 8.8%, p < 0.001). The rates of TITR >50% and >60% were 87% and 52%, respectively. When those with TITR >60% (n: 29) and those without (n: 27) were evaluated in terms of hypoglycaemia, no statistically significant difference was found in time below range (TBR) 3-3.9 mmol/L (0.3% vs. 2.1%, p: 0.084) and TBR < 3 mmol/L (0.47% vs. 0.3%, p: 0.298). Group 1 had a significantly higher TIR and TITR compared to Group 2 (82.6 ± 6.1% vs. 75.6 ± 8.6%, p: 0.008 and 62.1 ± 7.5% vs. 53.8 ± 7.5%, p: 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Most children and adolescents on AHCL achieved the 50% target for TITR whereas more than half achieved the >60% target. A target of >50% for TITR seems realistic in children with T1D using AHCL.

Are we Ready for Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Hospital Setting? Benefits, Challenges, and Practical Approaches for Implementation : Case Vignette: Remote Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Hospitalized Care in Quincy Koala.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: While preliminary evidence for use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) in the hospital setting is encouraging, challenges with currently available devices and technology will need to be overcome as part of real-world integration. This paper reviews the current evidence and guidelines regarding use of rtCGM in the hospital and suggests a practical approach to implementation. RECENT FINDINGS: There is now a considerable body of real-world evidence on the benefits of reducing dysglycemia in the hospital using both traditional point-of-care (POC) glucose testing and rtCGM. Benefits of rtCGM include decreased frequency of hypo- and hyperglycemia with reduced need of frequent POC checks and it is both feasible and well-accepted by nursing staff and providers. If expansion to additional sites is to be considered, practical solutions will need to be offered. Recommendations for an operational workflow and tools are described to guide implementation in the non-ICU setting. Further testing in randomized controlled trials and real-world dissemination and implementation designs is needed, together with industry and technology collaborations, to further streamline the integration into health systems.

Diabetes Technology in People with Type 2 Diabetes: Novel Indications.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetes technology has been continuously evolving. Current versions of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) use minimally invasive designs, monitor glucose values with high accuracy, and can be used to guide insulin dosing. Extensive evidence supports the use of diabetes technology for monitoring and insulin administration in people with type 1 diabetes. However, there is emerging evidence for people with type 2 diabetes. In this review, we present the different technological devices used to monitor glucose and deliver insulin and the evidence supporting their use in people with type 2 diabetes. RECENT FINDINGS: The use of CGMs in people with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin or non-insulin therapies has been associated with improvements in glycemic control and time spent in hypoglycemia. Smart insulin pens and smart connected devices are options to track compliance and guide insulin delivery in people who do not require insulin pump therapy. Mechanical patch pumps can be used to reduce the burden of multiple daily insulin injections. Automated insulin delivery algorithms improve glycemic control without an increase in hypoglycemia. The use of technology in the management of type 2 diabetes generates glycemic data previously inaccessible, reduces barriers for insulin initiation, improves glycemic control, tracks adherence to therapy, and improves user satisfaction.