Combining an Electrochemical Continuous Glucose Sensor With an Insulin Delivery Cannula: A Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Combining a continuous glucose monitor with an insulin delivery cannula (CGM-IS) could benefit clinical outcomes. We evaluated the feasibility of a single-needle insertion electrochemical investigational CGM-IS (Pacific Diabetes Technologies, Portland, Oregon) in type 1 diabetes adults. METHODS: Following 48 hours run-in using a Medtronic 780G in manual mode with a commercial insulin set, 12 participants commenced insulin delivery using the CGM-IS. A standardized test meal was eaten on the mornings of days 1 and 4. Venous samples were collected every 10 minutes one hour prior to and 15 minutes post-meal for four hours. CGM-IS glucose measurements were post-processed with a single capillary blood calibration during warm-up and benchmarked against YSI. A Dexcom G6 sensor was worn post-consent to study end. RESULTS: Mean absolute relative difference (MARD) for the CGM-IS glucose measurements was 9.2% (484 paired data points). Consensus error grid revealed 88.6% within zone A and 100% in A + B. Mean (SD) % bias was -3.5 (11.7) %. There were 35 paired YSI readings <100 mg/dL cutoff and 449 ≥100 mg/dL with 81.4% within ±15 mg/dL or ±15%, and 89.9% within ±20 mg/dL or ±20%. Two cannula occlusions required discontinuation of insulin delivery: one at 70 hours post insertion and another during the day 4 meal test. Mean (SD) Dexcom glucose measurements during run-in and between meal tests was respectively 161.3 ± 27.3 mg/dL versus 158.0 ± 25.6 mg/dL; P = .39 and corresponding mean total daily insulin delivered by the pump was 58.0 ± 25.4 Units versus 57.1 ± 28.8 Units; P = .47. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin delivery and glucose sensing with the investigational CGM-IS was feasible. Longer duration studies are needed.

Improved Satisfaction While Maintaining Safety and High Time in Range (TIR) With a Medtronic Investigational Enhanced Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (e-AHCL) System.

OBJECTIVE: To determine feasibility and compare acceptance of an investigational Medtronic enhanced advanced hybrid closed-loop (e-AHCL) system in adults with type 1 diabetes with earlier iterations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This nonrandomized three-stage (12 weeks each) exploratory study compared e-AHCL (Bluetooth-enabled MiniMed 780G insulin pump with automatic data upload [780G] incorporating an updated algorithm; calibration-free all-in-one disposable sensor; 7-day infusion set) preceded by a run-in (non-Bluetooth 780G [670G V4.0 insulin pump] requiring manual data upload; Guardian Sensor 3 [GS3] requiring calibration; 3-day infusion set), stage 1 (780G; GS3; 3-day infusion set), and stage 2 (780G; calibration-free Guardian Sensor 4; 3-day infusion set). Treatment satisfaction was assessed by Diabetes Technology Questionnaire (DTQ)-current (primary outcome) and other validated treatment satisfaction tools with glucose outcomes by continuous glucose monitoring metrics. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 22 (11 women) participants (baseline HbA1c 6.7%/50 mmol/mol) completed the study. DTQ-current scores favored e-AHCL (123.1 [17.8]) versus run-in (101.6 [24.2]) and versus stage 1 (110.6 [20.8]) (both P < 0.001) but did not differ from stage 2 (119.4 [16.0]; P = 0.271). Diabetes Medication System Rating Questionnaire short-form scores for "Convenience and Efficacy" favored e-AHCL over run-in and all stages. Percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL was greater with e-AHCL versus run-in and stage 2 (+2.9% and +3.6%, respectively; both P < 0.001). Percent times of <70 mg/dL for e-AHCL were significantly lower than run-in, stage 1, and stage 2 (-0.9%, -0.6%, and -0.5%, respectively; all P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: e-AHCL was feasible. User satisfaction increased compared with earlier Medtronic HCL iterations without compromising glucose control.

"Empowering Us": A community-led survey of real-world perspectives of adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring to manage their glucose levels.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct an Australian community-led survey of adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), identifying priorities for, and barriers to, optimal use of advanced glucose management technologies. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 30-question online survey of current or past users of insulin pump therapy (IPT), real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM), or intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) explored perceptions regarding device design, access, education, outcomes, and support. RESULTS: Between November 2021 and January 2022, surveys were completed by 3,380 participants (age [mean ± SD] 45 ± 16 years; 62% female; 20 ± 14 years diabetes), with 55%, 82%, and 55% reporting experience with IPT, RT-CGM, and isCGM, respectively. Overall, most considered diabetes technology '(extremely) important' for maintaining target glucose levels (98%) and reducing hypoglycaemia severity and frequency (93%). For most, technology contributed positively to emotional well-being (IPT 89%; RT-CGM 91%; isCGM 87%), which was associated with device effectiveness in maintaining glucose in range, comfort, and convenience. Barriers included affordability (IPT 68%; RT-CGM 81%; isCGM 69%) and insufficient information for informed choices about device suitability (IPT 39%; RT-CGM 41%; isCGM 36%). CONCLUSIONS: Technology is perceived by adults with T1D as important for managing glycaemia and emotional well-being. Modifiable barriers to use include affordability, and information regarding device suitability.

Driving with Type 1 Diabetes: Real-World Evidence to Support Starting Glucose Level and Frequency of Monitoring During Journeys.

There is limited evidence supporting the recommendation that drivers with insulin-treated diabetes need to start journeys with glucose >90 mg/dL. Glucose levels of drivers with type 1 diabetes were monitored for 3 weeks using masked continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Eighteen drivers (median [IQR] age 40 [35, 51] years; 11 men) undertook 475 trips (duration 15 [13, 21] min). Hypoglycemia did not occur in any trip starting with glucose >90 mg/dL (92%; n = 436). Thirteen drivers recorded at least one trip (total n = 39) starting with glucose <90 mg/dL. Among these, driving glucose was <70 mg/dL in five drivers (38%) during 10 trips (26%). Among five drivers (28%), a ≥ 36 mg/dL drop was observed within 20 min of starting their journey. Journey duration was positively associated with maximum glucose change. These findings support current guidelines to start driving with glucose >90 mg/dL, and to be aware that glucose levels may change significantly within 20 min. A CGM-based, in-vehicle display could provide glucose information and alerts that are compatible with safe driving. Clinical Trial Registration number: ACTRN12617000520336.

Meal-time glycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections vs insulin pump therapy following carbohydrate-counting education and bolus calculator provision.

AIMS: To compare meal-time glycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) managed with multiple daily injections (MDI) vs. insulin pump therapy (IPT), using self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG), following diabetes education. METHODS: Adults with T1D received carbohydrate-counting education and a bolus calculator: MDI (Roche Aviva Expert) and IPT (pump bolus calculator). All then wore 3-weeks of masked-CGM (Enlite, Medtronic). Meal-times were assessed by two approaches: 1) Set time-blocks (breakfast 06:00-10:00hrs; lunch 11:00-15:00hrs; dinner 17:00-21:00hrs) and 2) Bolus-calculator carbohydrate entries signalling meal commencement. Post-meal masked-CGM time-in-range (TIR) 3.9-10.0 mmol/L was the primary outcome. RESULTS: MDI(n = 61) and IPT (n = 59) participants were equivalent in age, sex, diabetes duration and HbA1c. Median (IQR) education time provided did not differ (MDI: 1.1 h (0.75, 1.5) vs. IPT: 1.1 h (1.0, 2.0); p = 0.86). Overall, daytime (06:00-24:00hrs), lunch and dinner TIR did not differ for MDI vs. IPT participants but was greater for breakfast with IPT in both analyses with a mean difference of 12.8%, (95 CI 4.8, 20.9); p = 0.002 (time-block analysis). CONCLUSION: After diabetes education, MDI and IPT use were associated with similar day-time glycemia, though IPT users had significantly greater TIR during the breakfast period. With education, meal-time glucose levels are comparable with use of MDI vs. pumps.

Less Nocturnal Hypoglycemia but Equivalent Time in Range Among Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Using Insulin Pumps Versus Multiple Daily Injections.

Background: This prerandomization analysis from the Australian HCL-Adult trial (registration number: ACTRN12617000520336) compared masked continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics among adults using insulin pumps versus multiple daily injections (MDIs), who were all self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG). Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes, using an insulin pump or MDIs without real-time CGM (and entering a trial of closed-loop technology), were eligible. MDI users were given an insulin dosage calculator. All participants received diabetes and carbohydrate-counting education, then wore masked CGM sensors for 3 weeks. Ethics Approval: HREC-D 088/16 Results: Adults using MDIs (n = 61) versus pump (n = 59) did not differ by age, sex, diabetes duration, insulin total daily dose, or HbA1c at baseline. After education, median (interquartile range) CGM time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was 54% (47, 62) for those using MDIs and 56% (48, 66) for those using pump (P = 0.40). All CGM metrics were equivalent for 24 h/day for MDI and pump users. Overnight, those using MDIs (vs. pump) spent more time with glucose <54 mg/dL (<3.0 mmol/L): 1.4% (0.1, 5.1) versus 0.5% (0.0, 2.0), respectively (P = 0.012). They also had more CGM hypoglycemia episodes (121 vs. 54, respectively; incidence rate ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.48 [1.51, 4.06]; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Adults with type 1 diabetes using pumps versus MDIs in conjunction with SMBG experienced less nocturnal hypoglycemia, measured by masked CGM, after equivalent diabetes and dietary education in conjunction with insulin dosage calculator provision to all. However, both groups had equivalent TIR. This observation may reflect advantages afforded by flexibility in basal insulin delivery provided by pumps.

Six Months of Hybrid Closed-Loop Versus Manual Insulin Delivery With Fingerprick Blood Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate glycemic and psychosocial outcomes with hybrid closed-loop (HCL) versus user-determined insulin dosing with multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump (i.e., standard therapy for most adults with type 1 diabetes). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes using MDI or insulin pump without continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) were randomized to 26 weeks of HCL (Medtronic 670G) or continuation of current therapy. The primary outcome was masked CGM time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL) during the final 3 weeks. RESULTS: Participants were randomized to HCL (n = 61) or control (n = 59). Baseline mean (SD) age was 44.2 (11.7) years, HbA1c was 7.4% (0.9%) (57 [10] mmol/mol), 53% were women, and 51% used MDI. HCL TIR increased from (baseline) 55% (13%) to (26 weeks) 70% (10%) with the control group unchanged: (baseline) 55% (12%) and (26 weeks) 55% (13%) (difference 15% [95% CI 11, 19]; P < 0.0001). For HCL, HbA1c was lower (median [95% CI] difference -0.4% [-0.6, -0.2]; -4 mmol/mol [-7, -2]; P < 0.0001) and diabetes-specific positive well-being was higher (difference 1.2 [95% CI 0.4, 1.9]; P < 0.0048) without a deterioration in diabetes distress, perceived sleep quality, or cognition. Seventeen (9 device-related) versus 13 serious adverse events occurred in the HCL and control groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with type 1 diabetes, 26 weeks of HCL improved TIR, HbA1c, and their sense of satisfaction from managing their diabetes compared with those continuing with user-determined insulin dosing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. For most people living with type 1 diabetes globally, this trial demonstrates that HCL is feasible, acceptable, and advantageous.

Glucose Control in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Using a Medtronic Prototype Enhanced-Hybrid Closed-Loop System: A Feasibility Study.

Background: Experience from first-generation closed-loop (CL) systems informs refinements to enhance glucose control and user acceptance. A next-generation prototype enhanced-hybrid CL (E-HCL) system incorporates iterative changes to the Medtronic MiniMed 670G CL system, including automated correction boluses, lower target glucose level, and user enhancements. The aim was to explore safety, system performance, and glucose control using E-HCL in adults with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Twelve adults underwent this first in-human feasibility study. After a 1-week run-in using open-loop (OL), E-HCL was activated at the start of a supervised 1-week hotel phase, followed by 3 weeks free living at home. Supervised challenges included two meal interventions (unannounced and late meal bolus) and a sensor calibration intervention. Primary outcome was sensor glucose time-in-range (TIR); OL run-in and E-HCL at home were compared by Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: Twelve adults (seven men; median [interquartile range] age 48 [39, 57] years; HbA1c 6.8 [6.2, 7.2]%, 51 [44, 55] mmol/mol; diabetes duration 31 [13, 41] years) completed the protocol. E-HCL resulted in greater TIR (85.3 [79.4, 88.4]% vs. 75.0 [66.6, 83.7]%, P = 0.003) and lower mean sensor glucose (123.0 [119.3, 129.6] mg/dL vs. 143.5 [135.8, 154.5] mg/dL, P = 0.002) than OL. Time spent <70 mg/dL increased using E-HCL (4.4 [3.3, 6.1]% vs. 3.0 [1.8, 3.8]%, P = 0.02) with no difference in time <54 mg/dL (P = 0.64). Time in CL was 99.98 [99.0, 100.0]%. All participants were satisfied using E-HCL. Conclusions: In adults with well-controlled HbA1c levels, a prototype E-HCL resulted in high TIR, few CL exits, and positive user experiences at the expense of increased hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL). E-HCL represents a positive step in the journey toward optimizing glucose control in people living with type 1 diabetes.

Effect of 6 months of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Manual determination of insulin dosing largely fails to optimise glucose control in type 1 diabetes. Automated insulin delivery via closed-loop systems has improved glucose control in short-term studies. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of 6 months' closed-loop compared with manually determined insulin dosing on time-in-target glucose range in adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This open-label, seven-centre, randomised controlled parallel group clinical trial will compare home-based hybrid closed-loop versus standard diabetes therapy in Australia. Adults aged ≥25 years with type 1 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy (via multiple daily injections or insulin pump, total enrolment target n=120) will undertake a run-in period including diabetes and carbohydrate-counting education, clinical optimisation and baseline data collection. Participants will then be randomised 1:1 either to 26 weeks of MiniMed 670G hybrid closed-loop system therapy (Medtronic, Northridge, CA, USA) or continuation of their current diabetes therapy. The hybrid closed-loop system delivers insulin automatically to address basal requirements and correct to target glucose level, while bolus doses for meals require user initiation and carbohydrate estimation. Analysis will be intention to treat, with the primary outcome time in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) during the final 3 weeks of intervention. Secondary outcomes include: other CGM parameters, HbA1c, severe hypoglycaemia, psychosocial well-being, sleep, cognition, electrocardiography, costs, quality of life, biomarkers of vascular health and hybrid closed-loop system performance. Semistructured interviews will assess the expectations and experiences of a subgroup of hybrid closed-loop users. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has Human Research Ethics Committee approval. The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Results will be disseminated at scientific conferences and via peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617000520336; Pre-results.

Moving Toward a Unified Platform for Insulin Delivery and Sensing of Inputs Relevant to an Artificial Pancreas.

Advances in insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring technology have primarily focused on optimizing glycemic control for people with type 1 diabetes. There remains a need to identify ways to minimize the physical burden of this technology. A unified platform with closely positioned or colocalized interstitial fluid glucose sensing and hormone delivery components is a potential solution. Present challenges to combining these components are interference of glucose sensing from proximate insulin delivery and the large discrepancy between the life span of current insulin infusion sets and glucose sensors. Addressing these concerns is of importance given that the future physical burden of this technology is likely to be even greater with the ongoing development of the artificial pancreas, potentially incorporating multiple hormone delivery, glucose sensing redundancy, and sensing of other clinically relevant nonglucose biochemical inputs.