Real-world lived experience of older adults with type 1 diabetes after an automated insulin delivery trial.

AIMS: First-generation closed-loop automated insulin delivery improves glycaemia and psychosocial outcomes among older adults with type 1 diabetes in clinical trials. However, no study has previously assessed real-world lived experience of older adults using closed-loop therapy outside a trial environment. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with older adults who were pre-existing insulin pump users and previously completed the OldeR Adult Closed-Loop (ORACL) randomised trial. Interviews focused on perceptions of diabetes technology use, and factors influencing decisions regarding continuation. RESULTS: Twenty-eight participants, mean age 70 years (SD 5), were interviewed at median 650 days (IQR 608-694) after their final ORACL trial visit. At interview, 23 participants (82%) were still using a commercial closed-loop system (requiring manual input for prandial insulin bolus doses). Themes discussed in interviews relating to closed-loop system use included sustained psychosocial benefits, cost and retirement considerations and usability frustrations relating to sensor accuracy and system alarms. Of the five participants who had discontinued, reasons included cost, continuous glucose monitoring-associated difficulties and usability frustrations. Cost was the largest consideration regarding continued use; most participants considered the increased ease of diabetes management to be worth the associated costs, though cost was prohibitive for some. CONCLUSIONS: Almost 2 years after completing a closed-loop clinical trial, closed-loop automated insulin delivery remains the preferred type 1 diabetes therapy for the majority of older adult participants. Chronological age is not a barrier to real-world successful use of diabetes technology. Identifying age-related barriers, and solutions, to diabetes technology use among older adults is warranted.

What difference does sleep make? Continuous glucose monitoring metrics during fixed-overnight time versus sleep periods among older adults with type 1 diabetes.

Hypoglycaemia during sleep is a common and clinically important issue for people living with insulin-treated diabetes. Continuous glucose monitoring devices can help to identify nocturnal hypoglycaemia and inform treatment strategies. However, sleep is generally inferred, with diabetes researchers and physicians using a fixed-overnight period as a proxy for sleep-wake status when analysing and interpretating continuous glucose monitoring data. No study to date has validated such an approach with established sleep measures. Continuous glucose monitoring and research-grade actigraphy devices were worn and sleep diaries completed for 2 weeks by 28 older adults (mean age 67 years [SD 5]; 17 (59%) women) with type 1 diabetes. Using continuous glucose monitoring data from a total of 356 nights, fixed-overnight (using the recommended period of 00:00 hours-06:00 hours) and objectively-measured sleep periods were compared. The fixed-overnight period approach missed a median 57 min per night (interquartile range: 49-64) of sleep for each participant, including five continuous glucose monitoring-detected hypoglycaemia episodes during objectively-measured sleep. Twenty-seven participants (96%) had at least 1 night with continuous glucose monitoring time-in-range and time-above-range discrepancies both ≥ 10 percentage points, a clinically significant discrepancy. The utility of fixed-overnight time continuous glucose monitoring as a proxy for sleep-awake continuous glucose monitoring is inadequate as it consistently excludes actual sleep time, obscures glycaemic patterns, and misses sensor hypoglycaemia episodes during sleep. The use of validated measures of sleep to aid interpretation of continuous glucose monitoring data is encouraged.

Lived experience of older adults with type 1 diabetes using closed-loop automated insulin delivery in a randomised trial.

AIM: To explore the lived experience of older adults with type 1 diabetes using closed-loop automated insulin delivery, an area previously receiving minimal attention. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults aged 60 years or older with long-duration type 1 diabetes who participated in a randomised, open-label, two-stage crossover trial comparing first-generation closed-loop therapy (MiniMed 670G) versus sensor-augmented pump therapy. Interview recordings were transcribed, thematically analysed and assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-one older adults participated in interviews after using closed-loop therapy. Twenty were functionally independent, without frailty or major cognitive impairment; one was dependent on caregiver assistance, including for diabetes management. Quality of life benefits were identified, including improved sleep and reduced diabetes-related psychological burden, in the context of experiencing improved glucose levels. Gaps between expectations and reality of closed-loop therapy were also experienced, encountering disappointment amongst some participants. The cost was perceived as a barrier to continued closed-loop access post-trial. Usability issues were identified, such as disruptive overnight alarms and sensor inaccuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The lived experience of older adults without frailty or major cognitive impairment using first-generation closed-loop therapy was mainly positive and concordant with glycaemic benefits found in the trial. Older adults' lived experience using automated insulin delivery beyond trial environments requires exploration; moreover, the usability needs of older adults should be considered during future device development.

Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery Effects on Glycemia During Sleep and Sleep Quality in Older Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Results from the ORACL Trial.

Sleep-related effects of closed-loop therapy among older adults with type 1 diabetes have not been well established. In the OldeR Adult Closed-Loop (ORACL) randomized, crossover trial of first-generation closed-loop therapy (MiniMed 670G), participants wore actigraphy and completed sleep diaries for 14-day periods at stage end. During objectively measured sleep (actigraphy) with closed-loop versus sensor-augmented pump therapy, glucose time-in-range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was greater (90.3% vs. 78.7%, respectively; difference 8.2 percentage points [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.5 to 13.0]; P = 0.008), and there were fewer sensor hypoglycemia episodes (18 vs. 43, respectively; incident rate ratio 0.40 [95% CI 0.20 to 0.55]; P = 0.007). Sleep quality recorded daily was worse with closed-loop therapy (P = 0.006); Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index did not differ. There were 30% more system alarms during monitored sleep with closed-loop therapy (P < 0.001). First-generation closed-loop therapy has important glycemic benefits during sleep for older adults, with deterioration in some sleep quality measures. Sleep quality warrants prioritization and investigation during advancement of closed-loop technology.