Driving-Related Glucose Patterns Among Older Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Older adults with type 1 diabetes may face challenges driving safely. Glucose "above-5-to-drive" is often recommended for insulin-treated diabetes to minimize hypoglycemia while driving. However, the effectiveness of this recommendation among older adults has not been evaluated. Older drivers with type 1 diabetes were assessed while using sensor-augmented insulin pumps during a 2-week clinical trial run-in. Twenty-three drivers (median age 69 years [interquartile range; IQR 65-72]; diabetes duration 37 years [20-45]) undertook 618 trips (duration 10 min [5-21]). Most trips (n = 535; 87%) were <30 min duration; 9 trips (1.5%) exceeded 90 min and 3 trips (0.5%) exceeded 120 min. Pre-trip continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was >5.0 mmol/L for 577 trips (93%) and none of these had CGM <3.9 mmol/L during driving (including 8 trips >90 min and 3 trips >120 min). During 41 trips with pre-trip CGM ≤5.0 mmol/L, 11 trips had CGM <3.9 mmol/L. Seventy-one CGM alerts occurred during 60 trips (10%), of which 54 of 71 alerts (76%) were unrelated to hypoglycemia. Our findings support a glucose "above-5-to-drive" recommendation to avoid CGM-detected hypoglycemia among older drivers, including for prolonged drives, and highlight the importance of active CGM low-glucose alerts to prevent hypoglycemia during driving. Driving-related CGM usability and alert functionality warrant investigation. Clinical trial ACTRN1261900515190.

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.

Glucose profiles of older adults with type 1 diabetes using sensor-augmented pump therapy in Australia: pre-randomisation results from the ORACL study.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with type 1 diabetes are recommended modified glucose targets. However, data on the effects of diabetes technology in older age are scarce. We assessed older adults established on sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy during clinical trial run-in and compared their continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) profiles with consensus recommendations. We aimed to provide insight into the applicability of currently recommended CGM-based targets while accounting for current Diabetes UK guidelines. METHODS: In this analysis, adults aged 60 years or older with type 1 diabetes with a duration of at least 10 years and entering the Older Adult Closed Loop (ORACL) trial were studied. The trial was done at two tertiary hospitals in Australia. Individuals who were independent with diabetes self-management, as well as those receiving caregiver assistance for their diabetes management, were eligible for inclusion. Participants underwent baseline clinical assessment, which included medical history and examination, testing for frailty, functional ability, cognitive functioning, psychosocial wellbeing, and subjective sleep quality; fasting venous blood samples were collected for C-peptide, glucose, and glycated haemoglobin A1c measurement. Sensor-augmented pumps, carbohydrate-counting education, and diabetes education were provided to participants by diabetes nurse educators, dietitians, and endocrinologists experienced in type 1 diabetes clinical care. CGM data were subsequently collected for 2 weeks during sensor-augmented pump therapy. The ORACL trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12619000515190. FINDINGS: Our analysis included all 30 participants who completed the ORACL trial run-in-19 (63%) women and 11 (37%) men (mean age 67 years [SD 5], median diabetes duration 38 years [IQR 20-47], and insulin total daily dose 0·55 units [0·41-0·66] per kg bodyweight). Ten (33%) of 30 participants had impaired hypoglycaemia awareness and six (20%) were pre-frail; none were frail. The median CGM time in range 3·9-10·0 mmol/L was 71% (IQR 64-79). The time spent with glucose above 10·0 mmol/L was 27% (18-35) and above 13·9 mmol/L was 3·9% (2·4-10·2). The time with glucose below 3·9 mmol/L was 2·0% (1·2-3·1) and the time below 3·0 mmol/L was 0·2% (0·1-0·4). Only two (7%) of 30 participants met all CGM-based consensus recommendations modified for older adults. Time in hypoglycaemia was lower among the 16 participants with predictive low-glucose alerts enabled than among the 14 participants not using predictive low-glucose alerts (median difference -1·1 percentage points [95% CI -2·0 to -0·1]; p=0·038). This difference was even greater overnight (-2·3 percentage points [-3·2 to -1·0]; p=0·0018). One serious adverse event occurred (elective cardiac stent). INTERPRETATION: Using sensor-augmented pumps after multidisciplinary education, this group of older adults without frailty achieved a time in range far exceeding minimum consensus recommendations. However, the current stringent hypoglycaemia recommendations for all older adults were not met. Predictive low alerts could reduce hypoglycaemia, particularly overnight. Investigation into the effectiveness of CGM-based targets that consider frailty, functional status, and diabetes therapies for older adults is warranted. FUNDING: JDRF and Diabetes Australia.

Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery Versus Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes (ORACL): A Randomized, Crossover Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy among older adults with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This open-label, randomized (1:1), crossover trial compared 4 months of closed-loop versus sensor-augmented pump therapy. Eligible adults were aged ≥60 years, with type 1 diabetes (duration ≥10 years), using an insulin pump. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) time in range (TIR; 3.9-10.0 mmol/L). RESULTS: There were 30 participants (mean age 67 [SD 5] years), with median type 1 diabetes duration of 38 years (interquartile range [IQR] 20-47), randomized (n = 15 to each sequence); all completed the trial. The mean TIR was 75.2% (SD 6.3) during the closed-loop stage and 69.0% (9.1) during the sensor-augmented pump stage (difference of 6.2 percentage points [95% CI 4.4 to 8.0]; P < 0.0001). All prespecified CGM metrics favored closed loop over the sensor-augmented pump; benefits were greatest overnight. Closed loop reduced CGM time <3.9 mmol/L during 24 h/day by 0.5 percentage points (95% CI 0.3 to 1.1; P = 0.0005) and overnight by 0.8 percentage points (0.4 to 1.1; P < 0.0001) compared with sensor-augmented pump. There was no significant difference in HbA1c between closed-loop versus sensor-augmented pump stages (7.3% [IQR, 7.1-7.5] (56 mmol/mol [54-59]) vs. 7.5% [7.1-7.9] (59 mmol/mol [54-62]), respectively; P = 0.13). Three severe hypoglycemia events occurred during the closed-loop stage and two occurred during the sensor-augmented pump stage; no hypoglycemic events required hospitalization. One episode of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred during the sensor-augmented pump stage; no serious adverse events occurred during the closed-loop stage. CONCLUSIONS: Closed-loop therapy is an effective treatment option for older adults with long-duration type 1 diabetes, and no safety issues were identified. These older adults had higher TIR accompanied by less time below range during closed loop than during sensor-augmented pump therapy. Of particular clinical importance, closed loop reduced the time spent in hypoglycemic range overnight.