Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: In persons with type 1 diabetes and high glycated hemoglobin levels, the benefits of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring with optional alarms for high and low blood glucose levels are uncertain. METHODS: In a parallel-group, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving participants with type 1 diabetes and glycated hemoglobin levels between 7.5% and 11.0%, we investigated the efficacy of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring as compared with participant monitoring of blood glucose levels with fingerstick testing. The primary outcome was the glycated hemoglobin level at 24 weeks, analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary outcomes included sensor data, participant-reported outcome measures, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 156 participants were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (the intervention group, 78 participants) or to monitor their own blood glucose levels with fingerstick testing (the usual-care group, 78 participants). At baseline, the mean (±SD) age of the participants was 44±15 years, and the mean duration of diabetes was 21±13 years; 44% of the participants were women. The mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 8.7±0.9% in the intervention group and 8.5±0.8% in the usual-care group; these levels decreased to 7.9±0.8% and 8.3±0.9%, respectively, at 24 weeks (adjusted mean between-group difference, -0.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.7 to -0.3; P<0.001). The time per day that the glucose level was in the target range was 9.0 percentage points (95% CI, 4.7 to 13.3) higher or 130 minutes (95% CI, 68 to 192) longer in the intervention group than in the usual-care group, and the time spent in a hypoglycemic state (blood glucose level, <70 mg per deciliter [<3.9 mmol per liter]) was 3.0 percentage points (95% CI, 1.4 to 4.5) lower or 43 minutes (95% CI, 20 to 65) shorter in the intervention group. Two participants in the usual-care group had an episode of severe hypoglycemia, and 1 participant in the intervention group had a skin reaction to the sensor. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with type 1 diabetes and high glycated hemoglobin levels, the use of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring with optional alarms for high and low blood glucose levels resulted in significantly lower glycated hemoglobin levels than levels monitored by fingerstick testing. (Funded by Diabetes UK and others; FLASH-UK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03815006.).

Technology in the management of diabetes in hospitalised adults.

Suboptimal glycaemic management in hospitals has been associated with adverse clinical outcomes and increased financial costs to healthcare systems. Despite the availability of guidelines for inpatient glycaemic management, implementation remains challenging because of the increasing workload of clinical staff and rising prevalence of diabetes. The development of novel and innovative technologies that support the clinical workflow and address the unmet need for effective and safe inpatient diabetes care delivery is still needed. There is robust evidence that the use of diabetes technology such as continuous glucose monitoring and closed-loop insulin delivery can improve glycaemic management in outpatient settings; however, relatively little is known of its potential benefits and application in inpatient diabetes management. Emerging data from clinical studies show that diabetes technologies such as integrated clinical decision support systems can potentially mediate safer and more efficient inpatient diabetes care, while continuous glucose sensors and closed-loop systems show early promise in improving inpatient glycaemic management. This review aims to provide an overview of current evidence related to diabetes technology use in non-critical care adult inpatient settings. We highlight existing barriers that may hinder or delay implementation, as well as strategies and opportunities to facilitate the clinical readiness of inpatient diabetes technology in the future.

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.

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.

Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery for Glycemic Control in Noncritical Care.

BACKGROUND: In patients with diabetes, hospitalization can complicate the achievement of recommended glycemic targets. There is increasing evidence that a closed-loop delivery system (artificial pancreas) can improve glucose control in patients with type 1 diabetes. We wanted to investigate whether a closed-loop system could also improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes who were receiving noncritical care. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label trial conducted on general wards in two tertiary hospitals located in the United Kingdom and Switzerland, we assigned 136 adults with type 2 diabetes who required subcutaneous insulin therapy to receive either closed-loop insulin delivery (70 patients) or conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy, according to local clinical practice (66 patients). The primary end point was the percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was within the target range of 100 to 180 mg per deciliter (5.6 to 10.0 mmol per liter) for up to 15 days or until hospital discharge. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was in the target range was 65.8±16.8% in the closed-loop group and 41.5±16.9% in the control group, a difference of 24.3±2.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.6 to 30.0; P<0.001); values above the target range were found in 23.6±16.6% and 49.5±22.8% of the patients, respectively, a difference of 25.9±3.4 percentage points (95% CI, 19.2 to 32.7; P<0.001). The mean glucose level was 154 mg per deciliter (8.5 mmol per liter) in the closed-loop group and 188 mg per deciliter (10.4 mmol per liter) in the control group (P<0.001). There was no significant between-group difference in the duration of hypoglycemia (as defined by a sensor glucose measurement of <54 mg per deciliter; P=0.80) or in the amount of insulin that was delivered (median dose, 44.4 U and 40.2 U, respectively; P=0.50). No episode of severe hypoglycemia or clinically significant hyperglycemia with ketonemia occurred in either trial group. CONCLUSIONS: Among inpatients with type 2 diabetes receiving noncritical care, the use of an automated, closed-loop insulin-delivery system resulted in significantly better glycemic control than conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy, without a higher risk of hypoglycemia. (Funded by Diabetes UK and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01774565 .).

Automated insulin dosing systems: Advances after a century of insulin.

The daily complexities of insulin therapy and glucose variability in type 1 diabetes still pose significant challenges, despite advancements in modern insulin analogues. Minimising hypoglycaemia and optimising time spent within target glucose range are recommended to reduce the risk of diabetes-related complications and distress. Access to structured education and adjuvant diabetes technologies, such as insulin pumps and glucose sensors, are recommended by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to enable people with type 1 diabetes achieve their glycaemic goals. One hundred years after the discovery of insulin, automated insulin dosing (AID, a.k.a. closed loop or artificial pancreas) systems are a reality with a number of systems available and being used in usual clinical practice. Evidence from randomised clinical trials and real-world prospective studies support efficacy, effectiveness and safety of AID systems. Qualitative evaluations reveal treatment satisfaction and positive effects on quality of life. Current insulin-only AID systems still require carbohydrate and activity announcement (hybrid closed loop) due to the inherent pharmacokinetic limitations of rapid-acting insulin analogies. Ultra-rapid acting insulin and adjunctive use of other therapies (e.g. glucagon, pramlitide) are being evaluated to achieve full closed loop. Open-source AID (OS-AID) systems have been developed by the diabetes community, driven by a desire for safety and to accelerate technological advancement. In addition to effectiveness and safety, real-world prospective studies suggest that OS-AID systems fulfil unmet needs of commercially approved systems. The development, ongoing challenges and expectations of AID are outlined in this review.

Day-to-day variability of insulin requirements in the inpatient setting: Observations during fully closed-loop insulin delivery.

The aim of this study was to characterize the variability of exogenous insulin requirements during fully closed-loop insulin delivery in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes or new-onset hyperglycaemia, and to determine patient-related characteristics associated with higher variability of insulin requirements. We retrospectively analysed data from two fully closed-loop inpatient studies involving adults with type 2 diabetes or new-onset hyperglycaemia requiring insulin therapy. The coefficient of variation quantified day-to-day variability of exogenous insulin requirements during up to 15 days using fully automated closed-loop insulin delivery. Data from 535 days in 67 participants were analysed. The coefficient of variation of day-to-day exogenous insulin requirements was 30% ± 16%, and was higher between nights than between any daytime period (56% ± 29% overnight [11:00 pm to 4:59 am] compared with 41% ± 21% in the morning [5:00 am to 10:59 am], 39% ± 15% in the afternoon [11:00 am to 4:59 pm] and 45% ± 19% during the evening [5:00 pm to 10:59 pm]; all P < 0.01). There is high day-to-day variability of exogenous insulin requirements in inpatients, particularly overnight, and diabetes management approaches should account for this variability.

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.

Glucose management for exercise using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) systems in type 1 diabetes: position statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) endorsed by JDRF and supported by the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

Physical exercise is an important component in the management of type 1 diabetes across the lifespan. Yet, acute exercise increases the risk of dysglycaemia, and the direction of glycaemic excursions depends, to some extent, on the intensity and duration of the type of exercise. Understandably, fear of hypoglycaemia is one of the strongest barriers to incorporating exercise into daily life. Risk of hypoglycaemia during and after exercise can be lowered when insulin-dose adjustments are made and/or additional carbohydrates are consumed. Glycaemic management during exercise has been made easier with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) systems; however, because of the complexity of CGM and isCGM systems, both individuals with type 1 diabetes and their healthcare professionals may struggle with the interpretation of given information to maximise the technological potential for effective use around exercise (i.e. before, during and after). This position statement highlights the recent advancements in CGM and isCGM technology, with a focus on the evidence base for their efficacy to sense glucose around exercise and adaptations in the use of these emerging tools, and updates the guidance for exercise in adults, children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Graphical abstract.

Glucose management for exercise using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) systems in type 1 diabetes: position statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) endorsed by JDRF and supported by the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

Physical exercise is an important component in the management of type 1 diabetes across the lifespan. Yet, acute exercise increases the risk of dysglycaemia, and the direction of glycaemic excursions depends, to some extent, on the intensity and duration of the type of exercise. Understandably, fear of hypoglycaemia is one of the strongest barriers to incorporating exercise into daily life. Risk of hypoglycaemia during and after exercise can be lowered when insulin-dose adjustments are made and/or additional carbohydrates are consumed. Glycaemic management during exercise has been made easier with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) systems; however, because of the complexity of CGM and isCGM systems, both individuals with type 1 diabetes and their healthcare professionals may struggle with the interpretation of given information to maximise the technological potential for effective use around exercise (ie, before, during and after). This position statement highlights the recent advancements in CGM and isCGM technology, with a focus on the evidence base for their efficacy to sense glucose around exercise and adaptations in the use of these emerging tools, and updates the guidance for exercise in adults, children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

Fully closed-loop insulin delivery improves glucose control of inpatients with type 2 diabetes receiving hemodialysis.

Inpatient diabetes management of those on hemodialysis poses a major challenge. In a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial, we compared the efficacy of fully automated closed-loop insulin delivery vs. usual care in patients undergoing hemodialysis while in hospital. Compared to control patients receiving conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy, those patients receiving closed-loop insulin delivery significantly increased the proportion of time when a continuous glucose monitor was in the target range of 5.6-10.0 mmol/l by 37.6 percent without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. Thus, closed-loop insulin delivery offers a novel way to achieve effective and safe glucose control in this vulnerable patient population.

Closed-loop insulin delivery in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, 12-week randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The achievement of glycaemic control remains challenging for patients with type 1 diabetes. We assessed the effectiveness of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in people with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, multinational, single-period, parallel randomised controlled trial, participants were recruited from diabetes outpatient clinics at four hospitals in the UK and two centres in the USA. We randomly assigned participants with type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older treated with insulin pump and with suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·5-10·0%) to receive either hybrid closed-loop therapy or sensor-augmented pump therapy over 12 weeks of free living. Training on study insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring took place over a 4-week run-in period. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned using central randomisation software. Allocation to the two study groups was unblinded, and randomisation was stratified within centre by low (<8·5%) or high (≥8·5%) HbA1c. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range of 3·9-10·0 mmol/L at 12 weeks post randomisation. Analyses of primary outcome and safety measures were done in all randomised patients. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02523131, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: From May 12, 2016, to Nov 17, 2017, 114 individuals were screened, and 86 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive hybrid closed-loop therapy (n=46) or sensor-augmented pump therapy (n=40; control group). The proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range was significantly higher in the closed-loop group (65%, SD 8) compared with the control group (54%, SD 9; mean difference in change 10·8 percentage points, 95% CI 8·2 to 13·5; p<0·0001). In the closed-loop group, HbA1c was reduced from a screening value of 8·3% (SD 0·6) to 8·0% (SD 0·6) after the 4-week run-in, and to 7·4% (SD 0·6) after the 12-week intervention period. In the control group, the HbA1c values were 8·2% (SD 0·5) at screening, 7·8% (SD 0·6) after run-in, and 7·7% (SD 0·5) after intervention; reductions in HbA1c percentages were significantly greater in the closed-loop group compared with the control group (mean difference in change 0·36%, 95% CI 0·19 to 0·53; p<0·0001). The time spent with glucose concentrations below 3·9 mmol/L (mean difference in change -0·83 percentage points, -1·40 to -0·16; p=0·0013) and above 10·0 mmol/L (mean difference in change -10·3 percentage points, -13·2 to -7·5; p<0·0001) was shorter in the closed-loop group than the control group. The coefficient of variation of sensor-measured glucose was not different between interventions (mean difference in change -0·4%, 95% CI -1·4% to 0·7%; p=0·50). Similarly, total daily insulin dose was not different (mean difference in change 0·031 U/kg per day, 95% CI -0·005 to 0·067; p=0·09) and bodyweight did not differ (mean difference in change 0·68 kg, 95% CI -0·34 to 1·69; p=0·19). No severe hypoglycaemia occurred. One diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group due to infusion set failure. Two participants in each study group had significant hyperglycaemia, and there were 13 other adverse events in the closed-loop group and three in the control group. INTERPRETATION: Hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery improves glucose control while reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia across a wide age range in patients with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes. FUNDING: JDRF, NIHR, and Wellcome Trust.

Hypoglycaemia incidence and recovery during home use of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes.

Glucose excursion was assessed prior to and post hypoglycaemia to increase understanding of hypoglycaemia incidence and recovery during hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery. We retrospectively analysed data from 60 adults with type 1 diabetes who received, in a crossover randomized design, day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery and insulin pump therapy, the latter with or without real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Over 4-week study periods, we identified hypoglycaemic episodes, defined as sensor glucose <3.0 mmol/L, and analysed sensor glucose relative to the onset of hypoglycaemia. We identified 377 hypoglycaemic episodes during hybrid closed-loop intervention vs 662 during control intervention (P < .001), with a predominant reduction of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. The slope of sensor glucose prior to hypoglycaemia was steeper during closed-loop intervention than during control intervention (P < .01), while insulin delivery was reduced (P < .01). During both day and night, participants recovered from hypoglycaemia faster when treated by closed-loop intervention. At 120 minutes post hypoglycaemia, sensor glucose levels were higher during closed-loop intervention compared to the control period (P < .05). In conclusion, closed-loop intervention reduces the risk of hypoglycaemia, particularly overnight, with swift recovery from hypoglycaemia leading to higher 2-hour post-hypoglycaemia glucose levels.

Closed-loop for type 1 diabetes - an introduction and appraisal for the generalist.

BACKGROUND: Rapid progress over the past decade has been made with the development of the 'Artificial Pancreas', also known as the closed-loop system, which emulates the feedback glucose-responsive functionality of the pancreatic beta cell. The recent FDA approval of the first hybrid closed-loop system makes the Artificial Pancreas a realistic therapeutic option for people with type 1 diabetes. In anticipation of its advent into clinical care, we provide a primer and appraisal of this novel therapeutic approach in type 1 diabetes for healthcare professionals and non-specialists in the field. DISCUSSION: Randomised clinical studies in outpatient and home settings have shown improved glycaemic outcomes, reduced risk of hypoglycaemia and positive user attitudes. User input and interaction with existing closed-loop systems, however, are still required. Therefore, management of user expectations, as well as training and support by healthcare providers are key to ensure optimal uptake, satisfaction and acceptance of the technology. An overview of closed-loop technology and its clinical implications are discussed, complemented by our extensive hands-on experience with closed-loop system use during free daily living. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of the artificial pancreas into clinical practice represents a milestone towards the goal of improving the care of people with type 1 diabetes. There remains a need to understand the impact of user interaction with the technology, and its implication on current diabetes management and care.