Women's and Partners' Experiences with a Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery System to Manage Type 1 Diabetes in the Postpartum Period.

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop insulin delivery has the potential to offer women with type 1 diabetes a break from intense diabetes self-care efforts during postpartum. AIMS: To explore the views and opinions of hybrid closed-loop users and their partners in the first 24 weeks postpartum. METHODS: This qualitative study was embedded in a controlled study of women with type 1 diabetes randomized to (MiniMed™ 670G/770G) closed-loop insulin delivery or sensor augmented pump use 1-11 weeks 6 days postpartum, with all on closed-loop from 12 to 24 weeks postpartum. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 study participants and their partners at 12 and 24 weeks postpartum. Thematic analyses were used to examine participants' and partners' experiences. RESULTS: Participants' positive perceptions of the closed-loop use related to reduced hypoglycemia, in contrast to previous experiences with nonautomated insulin delivery. These were balanced against frustrations with the system allowing blood glucose levels to be above what they desired. Closed-loop use did not influence infant feeding choice. Yet, infant feeding and care impacted participants' diabetes management. Partners expressed uncertainty about the closed-loop taking away control from participants who were highly skilled with diabetes self-management. CONCLUSIONS: Participants reported that the closed-loop resulted in less time spent in hypoglycemia; compared to previously used nonautomated insulin delivery. Yet, participants desired greater understanding into the workings of the closed-loop algorithm. This study provides potential users with realistic expectations about the user experience with the MiniMed™ 670G/770G closed-loop in the postpartum period.

Cost-effectiveness of the tandem t: Slim X2 with control-IQ technology automated insulin delivery system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in Sweden.

AIMS: The present analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of treatment with the Tandem t: slim X2 insulin pump with Control IQ technology (CIQ) in children with type 1 diabetes in Sweden. METHODS: A four-state Markov model and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of CIQ use compared with treatment with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in conjunction with CGM. Data sources included clinical input data from a recent retrospective, observational study, cost data from local diabetes supply companies and government agencies, and published literature. Outcomes measures were quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at 10, 20 and 30-year time horizons based on cost per QALY and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: A total of 84 type 1 diabetes children were included (CIQ, n = 37; MDI, n = 19; CSII, n = 28). For all time horizons, the use of CIQ was a dominant strategy (e.g. more effective and less costly) compared with MDI or CSII use: 10-year ICER, SEK -88,010.37 and SEK -91,723.92; 20-year ICER, SEK -72,095.33 and SEK -87,707.79; and 30-year ICER, SEK -65,573.01 and SEK -85,495.68, respectively. PSA confirmed that CIQ use was less costly compared with MDI and CSII. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of CIQ use in children with type 1 diabetes is cost-saving, besides previously shown improved glycaemic control, and increased quality of life. Further investigations are needed to more fully elucidate the cost-effectiveness of these technologies in different countries with existing differences in payment models.

Refining Insulin on Board with netIOB for Automated Insulin Delivery.

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems enhance glucose management by lowering mean glucose level, reducing hyperglycemia, and minimizing hypoglycemia. One feature of most AID systems is that they allow the user to view "insulin on board" (IOB) to help confirm a recent bolus and limit insulin stacking. This metric, along with viewing glucose concentrations from a continuous glucose monitoring system, helps the user understand bolus insulin action and the future "threat" of hypoglycemia. However, the current presentation of IOB in AID systems can be misleading, as it does not reflect true insulin action or automatic, dynamic insulin adjustments. This commentary examines the evolution of IOB from a bolus-specific metric to its contemporary use in AID systems, highlighting its limitations in capturing real-time insulin modulation during varying physiological states.

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.

Simplified Meal Management in Adults Using an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System.

Background: The advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm combines automated basal rates and corrections yet requires meal announcement for optimal performance, which poses a challenge for some. We aimed to compare glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using the MiniMedTM 780G AHCL system, utilizing simplified meal announcement versus precise carbohydrate (CHO) counting. Methods: In a study involving 14 adults with T1D, we evaluated glycemic control during a 13-week "precise phase," followed by two 3- to 4-week simplified meal announcement phases: "fixed one-step" (preset of one personalized fixed CHO amount) and "multistep" (entry of multiples of one, two, or three of these presets depending on meal size estimate). Results: The mean age was 45.7 ± 12.4, and 10 participants were male (71%). Mean baseline HbA1c was 6.8% ± 1.2% and time in range (TIR) was 67.5% ± 16.7%. Comparing the fixed one-step to the precise study phase, TIR was similar (75.4 ± 13% vs. 77.7 ± 9%, P = 0.12), and glucose management indicator (GMI) was slightly higher (6.8 ± 0.4 vs. 6.6 ± 0, P = 0.01). Furthermore, there was less level 1 and 2 hypoglycemia (1.6 ± 1% vs. 2.8 ± 2%, P = 0.03 and 0.3 ± 5% vs. 0.65 ± 1%, P = 0.08) but slightly more level 1 and 2 hyperglycemia (17.1 ± 8% vs. 15.0 ± 7%, P = 0.05 and 5.5 ± 5% vs. 3.6 ± 3%, P = 0.04). When comparing the multistep with the precise phase, GMI was identical (6.6%) and TIR superior (80.5 ± 10% vs. 77.7 ± 9%, P = 0.02). Additionally, there was less level 1 hypoglycemia (1.9 ± 1% vs. 2.8 ± 2%, P = 0.01) and a trend for less level 2 hypoglycemia (0.4 ± 0.7% vs. 0.65 ± 1%, P = 0.08). Conclusions: A simplified meal announcement strategy for adults using the MiniMed 780G system, relying on three increments of a fixed one-step CHO amount, may offer a way to improve glycemic control and ease self-care. For patients with more limitations, using one fixed one-step CHO amount could be a safe alternative to meeting most consensus glycemic targets.

Case series of using automated insulin delivery to improve glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes and end stage kidney disease on haemodialysis.

Automated insulin delivery (AID) in people with type 1 diabetes (pwT1D) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) on haemodialysis (HD) has not been reported previously. We describe practical considerations and our findings in four pwT1D on HD for ESKD where AID was safely implemented, with significant improvements in time in range.

Real-Life Use of Automated Insulin Delivery in Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this work is to document performance of automated insulin delivery (AID) during real-life use in type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of continuous glucose monitoring and insulin delivery data from 796 individuals with T2D, who transitioned from 1-month predictive low-glucose suspend (PLGS) use to 3-month AID use, in real-life settings. Primary outcome was change of time in range (TIR = 70-180 mg/dL) from PLGS to AID. Secondary outcomes included time above/below range (TAR/TBR) and total daily insulin (TDI). RESULTS: Compared with PLGS, AID increased TIR on average from 63.2% to 72.6%, decreased TAR from 36.2% to 26.8%, and increased TDI from 70.2 to 76.3 U (all P < .001), without significant change to TBR. Glycemic improvements were more pronounced in those with worse glycemic control during PLGS use (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Real-life use of AID led to a rapid and sustained improvement of glycemic control in individuals with T2D.

Navigating the Unique Challenges of Automated Insulin Delivery Systems to Facilitate Effective Uptake, Onboarding, and Continued Use.

Advances in diabetes technologies have enabled automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, which have demonstrated benefits to glycemia, psychosocial outcomes, and quality of life for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Despite the many demonstrated benefits, AID systems come with their own unique challenges: continued user attention and effort, barriers to equitable access, personal costs vs benefits, and integration of the system into daily life. The purpose of this narrative review is to identify challenges and opportunities for supporting uptake and onboarding of AID systems to ultimately support sustained AID use. Setting realistic expectations, providing comprehensive training, developing willingness to adopt new treatments and workflows, upskilling of diabetes team members, and increasing flexibility of care to tailor care to individual needs, preferences, lifestyle, and personal goals will be most effective in facilitating effective, widespread, person-centered implementation of AID systems.

[Position paper: Open-source technology in the treatment of people living with diabetes mellitus-an Austrian perspective : Technology Committee of the Austrian Diabetes Association]. / Positionspapier: Open-source-Technologie in der Behandlung von Menschen mit Diabetes mellitus ­ eine österreichische Perspektive : Technologieausschuss der Österreichischen Diabetes Gesellschaft.

People living with diabetes mellitus can be supported in the daily management by diabetes technology with automated insulin delivery (AID) systems to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and improve glycemic control as well as the quality of life. Due to barriers in the availability of AID-systems, the use and development of open-source AID-systems have internationally increased. This technology provides a necessary alternative to commercially available products, especially when approved systems are inaccessible or insufficiently adapted to the specific needs of the users. Open-source technology is characterized by worldwide free availability of codes on the internet, is not officially approved and therefore the use is on the individual's own responsibility. In the clinical practice a lack of expertise with open-source AID technology and concerns about legal consequences, lead to conflict situations for health-care professionals (HCP), sometimes resulting in the refusal of care of people living with diabetes mellitus. This position paper provides an overview of the available evidence and practical guidance for HCP to minimize uncertainties and barriers. People living with diabetes mellitus must continue to be supported in education and diabetes management, independent of the chosen diabetes technology including open-source technology. Check-ups of the metabolic control, acute and chronic complications and screening for diabetes-related diseases are necessary and should be regularly carried out, regardless of the chosen AID-system and by a multidisciplinary team with appropriate expertise.

Newer Outpatient Diabetes Therapies and Technologies.

New diabetes drugs such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide/GLP-1 RAs have emerged to show hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) reduction, weight loss, and cardiovascular benefits. Similarly, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors' benefits span from HbA1c decrease to cardiovascular and renoprotective effects. Diabetes technology has expanded to include type 2 diabetes mellitus, with literature supporting its use in T2DM on any insulin regimen. Connected insulin pens and insulin delivery devices have opened new solutions to insulin users and automated insulin delivery systems have become the standard of care therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus.

Safety and Psychological Outcomes of Tandem t:Slim X2 Insulin Pump with Control-IQ Technology in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review.

The Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump is a second-generation automated insulin delivery system with Control-IQ technology. It consists of an X2 insulin pump, an integrated Dexcom sensor, and an embedded 'Control-IQ' algorithm, which predicts glucose levels 30 min in the future, adapting the programmed basal insulin rates to get glucose levels between 112.5 and 160 mg/dl (8.9 mmol/l). The system delivers automatic correction boluses of insulin when glucose levels are predicted to rise > 180 mg/dl (10 mmol/l). It has been commercially available since 2016. We reviewed the current evidence about the psychological, safety, and exercise-related outcomes of this device in children, adolescents, and young adults living with type 1 diabetes. We screened 552 papers, but only 21 manuscripts were included in this review. Fear of hypoglycemia is significantly reduced in young people with diabetes and their parents. Interestingly, diabetes-related distress is decreased; thus, the system is well accepted by the users. The sleeping quality of subjects living with diabetes and their caregivers is improved to a lesser extent as well. Despite the small number of data, this system is associated with a low rate of exercise-related hypoglycemia. Finally, evidence from the literature shows that this system is safe and effective in improving psychological personal outcomes. Even if further steps toward the fully closed loop are still mandatory, this second-generation automated insulin delivery system reduces the burden of diabetes. It properly addresses most psychological issues in children, adolescents, and young adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus; thus, it appears to be well accepted.

Frequency of Rebound Hyperglycemia in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Treated with Different Insulin Delivery Modalities.

Background: For people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), ensuring fast and effective recovery from hypoglycemia while avoiding posthypoglycemic hyperglycemia (rebound hyperglycemia, RH) can be challenging. The objective of this study was to investigate the frequency of RH across different treatment modalities and its impact on glycemic control. Methods: This cross-sectional real-world study included adults with T1D using continuous glucose monitoring and attending the outpatient clinic at Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen. RH was defined as ≥1 sensor glucose value (SG) >10.0 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) starting within 2 h of an antecedent SG <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL). The severity of the RH events was calculated as area under the curve (AUC) and separately for users of multiple daily injections (MDIs), unintegrated insulin pumps, sensor augmented pumps (SAPs), and automated insulin delivery (AID), respectively. Results: Across the four groups, SAP and AID users had the highest incidence of RH (2.06 ± 1.65 and 2.08 ± 1.49 events per week, respectively) and a similar percentage of hypoglycemic events leading to RH events (41.3 ± 22.8% and 39.6 ± 20.1%, respectively). The AID users with RH events were significantly shorter compared with MDI users (122 ± 72 vs. 185 ± 135 min; P < 0.0001). Overall, severity of RH was inversely associated with more advanced technology (P < 0.001) and inversely associated (P < 0.001) with time in target range (TIR). Conclusions: Groups with insulin suspension features experienced the highest frequency of RH; however, AID users tended to experience shorter and less severe RH events. The association between the severity of RH events and TIR suggests that RH should be assessed and used in the guidance of hypoglycemia management.

Advances in diabetes technology to improve the lives of people with cystic fibrosis.

People with cystic fibrosis (CF) are at risk for dysglycaemia caused by progressive beta cell dysfunction and destruction due to pancreatic exocrine disease and fibrosis. CF-related diabetes (CFRD) is a unique form of diabetes that has distinctive features from both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Recent advances in diabetes technology may be of particular benefit in this population given the complex, multi-system organ involvement and challenging health issues that people with CFRD often face. This review summarises how diabetes technologies, such as continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin delivery devices: (1) have improved our understanding of CFRD, including how hyperglycaemia affects clinical outcomes in people with CF; (2) may be helpful in the screening and diagnosis of CFRD; and (3) offer promise for improving the management of CFRD and easing the burden that this diagnosis can add to an already medically complicated patient population.

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.

The use of technology in type 2 diabetes and prediabetes: a narrative review.

The increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes, which represents 90% of diabetes cases globally, is a major public health concern. Improved glucose management reduces the risk of vascular complications and mortality; however, only a small proportion of the type 2 diabetes population have blood glucose levels within the recommended treatment targets. In recent years, diabetes technologies have revolutionised the care of people with type 1 diabetes, and it is becoming increasingly evident that people with type 2 diabetes can also benefit from these advances. In this review, we describe the current knowledge regarding the role of technologies for people living with type 2 diabetes and the evidence supporting their use in clinical practice. We conclude that continuous glucose monitoring systems deliver glycaemic benefits for individuals with type 2 diabetes, whether treated with insulin or non-insulin therapy; further data are required to evaluate the role of these systems in those with prediabetes (defined as impaired glucose tolerance and/or impaired fasting glucose and/or HbA1c levels between 39 mmol/mol [5.7%] and 47 mmol/mol [6.4%]). The use of insulin pumps seems to be safe and effective in people with type 2 diabetes, especially in those with an HbA1c significantly above target. Initial results from studies exploring the impact of closed-loop systems in type 2 diabetes are promising. We discuss directions for future research to fully understand the potential benefits of integrating evidence-based technology into care for people living with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes.

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.

Use of diabetes technology in children.

Children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers face numerous challenges navigating the unpredictability of this complex disease. Although the burden of managing diabetes remains significant, new technology has eased some of the load and allowed children with type 1 diabetes to achieve tighter glycaemic management without fear of excess hypoglycaemia. Continuous glucose monitor use alone improves outcomes and is considered standard of care for paediatric type 1 diabetes management. Similarly, automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have proven to be safe and effective for children as young as 2 years of age. AID use improves not only blood glucose levels but also quality of life for children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers and should be strongly considered for all youth with type 1 diabetes if available and affordable. Here, we review key data on the use of diabetes technology in the paediatric population and discuss management issues unique to children and adolescents.

Automated Insulin Delivery Technology in the Hospital: Update on Safety and Efficacy Data.

OBJECTIVE: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems are a rapidly growing component in the area of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy. As more patients use these systems in the outpatient setting, it is important to assess safety if their use is allowed to continue in the inpatient setting. METHODS: Analysis was conducted of the records of patients using AID technology upon admission to our hospital between June 2020 and December 2022. Adverse events and glycemic control of AID users were compared with patients using non-AID systems and with patients who had CSII discontinued. RESULTS: There were 185 patients analyzed: 64 on AID, 86 on non-AID, and 35 who had CSII discontinued. The number of patients on AID increased over the course of the observation period, whereas non-AID users decreased. Pairwise comparisons indicated that patient-stay mean glucose levels and percentage of hypoglycemic events were similar between all groups, but the percentage of patient hyperglycemic measurements was significantly lower in the AID cohort. No adverse events (diabetic ketoacidosis, pump site complications, equipment malfunction) were reported in any either CSII cohort. CONCLUSION: The type of CSII technology encountered in the hospital is shifting from non-AID toward AID technologies. This analysis supports earlier findings that outpatient AID systems can be successfully transitioned into the inpatient setting. Further study is needed to define if AID systems offer any advantage in glycemic control.