Multicenter Evaluation of Ultra-Rapid Lispro Insulin with Control-IQ Technology in Adults, Adolescents, and Children with Type 1 Diabetes.

Objective: To evaluate the safety and explore the efficacy of use of ultra-rapid lispro (URLi, Lyumjev) insulin in the Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ 1.5 technology in children, teenagers, and adults living with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: At 14 U.S. diabetes centers, youth and adults with T1D completed a 16-day lead-in period using lispro in a t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ 1.5 technology, followed by a 13-week period in which URLi insulin was used in the pump. Results: The trial included 179 individuals with T1D (age 6-75 years). With URLi, 1.7% (3 participants) had a severe hypoglycemia event over 13 weeks attributed to override boluses or a missed meal. No diabetic ketoacidosis events occurred. Two participants stopped URLi use because of infusion-site discomfort, and one stopped after developing a rash. Mean time 70-180 mg/dL increased from 65% ± 15% with lispro to 67% ± 13% with URLi (P = 0.004). Mean insulin treatment satisfaction questionnaire score improved from 75 ± 13 at screening to 80 ± 11 after 13 weeks of URLi use (mean difference = 6; 95% confidence interval 4-8; P < 0.001), with the greatest improvement reported for confidence avoiding symptoms of high blood sugar. Mean treatment-related impact measure-diabetes score improved from 74 ± 12 to 80 ± 12 (P < 0.001), and mean TRIM-Diabetes Device (score improved from 82 ± 11 to 86 ± 12 (P < 0.001). Conclusions: URLi use in the Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ 1.5 technology was safe for adult and pediatric participants with T1D, with quality-of-life benefits of URLi use perceived by the study participants. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT05403502.

Beneficial Effects of Control-IQ Automated Insulin Delivery in Basal-Bolus and Basal-Only Insulin Users With Type 2 Diabetes.

The t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology (Control-IQ) advanced hybrid closed-loop automated insulin delivery system was evaluated in this prospective single-arm trial. Thirty adults with type 2 diabetes using the Control-IQ system showed substantial glycemic improvement with no increase in hypoglycemia. Mean time in range (70-180 mg/dL) improved 15%, representing an increase of 3.6 hours/day, and mean glucose decreased by 22 mg/dL.

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) and user experiences of young children with type 1 diabetes using t:slim X2 insulin pump with control-IQ technology.

OBJECTIVE: Examine patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after the use of t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology (CIQ) in young children with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Children with type 1 diabetes, ages 2 to < 6 years (n = 102), were randomly assigned 2:1 to either CIQ or standard care (SC) with pump or multiple daily injections (MDI) plus continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for 13 weeks. Both groups were offered to use CIQ for an additional 13 weeks after the randomized control trial's (RCT) completion. Guardians completed PRO questionnaires at baseline, 13-, and 26-weeks examining hypoglycemia concerns, quality of life, parenting stress, and sleep. At 26 weeks, 28 families participated in user-experience interviews. Repeated measures analyses compared PRO scores between systems used. RESULT: Comparing CIQ vs SC, responses on all 5 PRO surveys favored the CIQ group, showing that CIQ was superior to SC at 26 weeks (p values < 0.05). User-experience interviews indicated significant benefits in optimized glycemic control overall and nighttime control (28 of 28 families endorsed). All but 2/28 families noted substantial reduction in management burden resulting in less mental burden and all but 4 stated that they wanted their children to continue using CIQ. CONCLUSIONS: Families utilizing CIQ experienced glycemic benefits coupled with substantial benefits in PROs, documented in surveys and interviews. Families utilizing CIQ had reduced hypoglycemia concerns and parenting stress, and improved quality of life and sleep. These findings demonstrate the benefit of CIQ in young children with type 1 diabetes that goes beyond documented glycemic benefit.

Trial of Hybrid Closed-Loop Control in Young Children with Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop control systems of insulin delivery may improve glycemic outcomes in young children with type 1 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of initiating a closed-loop system virtually are unclear. METHODS: In this 13-week, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, children who were at least 2 years of age but younger than 6 years of age who had type 1 diabetes to receive treatment with a closed-loop system of insulin delivery or standard care that included either an insulin pump or multiple daily injections of insulin plus a continuous glucose monitor. The primary outcome was the percentage of time that the glucose level was in the target range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter, as measured by continuous glucose monitoring. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of time that the glucose level was above 250 mg per deciliter or below 70 mg per deciliter, the mean glucose level, the glycated hemoglobin level, and safety outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 102 children underwent randomization (68 to the closed-loop group and 34 to the standard-care group); the glycated hemoglobin levels at baseline ranged from 5.2 to 11.5%. Initiation of the closed-loop system was virtual in 55 patients (81%). The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the glucose level was within the target range increased from 56.7±18.0% at baseline to 69.3±11.1% during the 13-week follow-up period in the closed-loop group and from 54.9±14.7% to 55.9±12.6% in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference, 12.4 percentage points [equivalent to approximately 3 hours per day]; 95% confidence interval, 9.5 to 15.3; P<0.001). We observed similar treatment effects (favoring the closed-loop system) on the percentage of time that the glucose level was above 250 mg per deciliter, on the mean glucose level, and on the glycated hemoglobin level, with no significant between-group difference in the percentage of time that the glucose level was below 70 mg per deciliter. There were two cases of severe hypoglycemia in the closed-loop group and one case in the standard-care group. One case of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving young children with type 1 diabetes, the glucose level was in the target range for a greater percentage of time with a closed-loop system than with standard care. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; PEDAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04796779.).

Outcomes in Pump- and CGM-Baseline Use Subgroups in the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the potential benefits of automated insulin delivery (AID) among individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in sub-populations of baseline device use determined by continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use status and insulin delivery via multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a six-month randomized, multicenter trial, 168 individuals were assigned to closed-loop control (CLC, Control-IQ, Tandem Diabetes Care), or sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. The trial included a two- to eight-week run-in phase to train participants on study devices. The participants were stratified into four subgroups: insulin pump and CGM (pump+CGM), pump-only, MDI and CGM (MDI+CGM), and MDI users without CGM (MDI-only) users. We compared glycemic outcomes among four subgroups. RESULTS: At baseline, 61% were pump+CGM users, 18% pump-only users, 10% MDI+CGM users, and 11% MDI-only users. Mean time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) improved from baseline in the four subgroups using CLC: pump+CGM, 62% to 73%; pump-only, 61% to 70%; MDI+CGM, 54% to 68%; and MDI-only, 61% to 69%. The reduction in time below 70 mg/dL from baseline was comparable among the four subgroups. No interaction effect was detected with baseline device use for TIR (P = .67) or time below (P = .77). On the System Usability Questionnaire, scores were high at 26 weeks for all subgroups: pump+CGM: 87.2 ± 12.1, pump-only: 89.4 ± 8.2, MDI+CGM 87.2 ± 9.3, MDI: 78.1 ± 15. CONCLUSIONS: There was a consistent benefit in patients with T1D when using CLC, regardless of baseline insulin delivery modality or CGM use. These data suggest that this CLC system can be considered across a wide range of patients.

A Pilot randomized trial to examine effects of a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system on neurodevelopmental and cognitive outcomes in adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive and neuropsychological function and alterations in brain structure and function in children. This proof-of-concept pilot study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03428932) examined whether MRI-derived indices of brain development and function and standardized IQ scores in adolescents with T1D could be improved with better diabetes control using a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system. Eligibility criteria for participation in the study included age between 14 and 17 years and a diagnosis of T1D before 8 years of age. Randomization to either a hybrid closed-loop or standard diabetes care group was performed after pre-qualification, consent, enrollment, and collection of medical background information. Of 46 participants assessed for eligibility, 44 met criteria and were randomized. Two randomized participants failed to complete baseline assessments and were excluded from final analyses. Participant data were collected across five academic medical centers in the United States. Research staff scoring the cognitive assessments as well as those processing imaging data were blinded to group status though participants and their families were not. Forty-two adolescents, 21 per group, underwent cognitive assessment and multi-modal brain imaging before and after the six month study duration. HbA1c and sensor glucose downloads were obtained quarterly. Primary outcomes included metrics of gray matter (total and regional volumes, cortical surface area and thickness), white matter volume, and fractional anisotropy. Estimated power to detect the predicted treatment effect was 0.83 with two-tailed, α = 0.05. Adolescents in the hybrid closed-loop group showed significantly greater improvement in several primary outcomes indicative of neurotypical development during adolescence compared to the standard care group including cortical surface area, regional gray volumes, and fractional anisotropy. The two groups were not significantly different on total gray and white matter volumes or cortical thickness. The hybrid closed loop group also showed higher Perceptual Reasoning Index IQ scores and functional brain activity more indicative of neurotypical development relative to the standard care group (both secondary outcomes). No adverse effects associated with study participation were observed. These results suggest that alterations to the developing brain in T1D might be preventable or reversible with rigorous glucose control. Long term research in this area is needed.

Accuracy of Three Commercial Home-Use Hemoglobin A1c Tests.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic and the rapid expansion of telemedicine have increased the need for accurate and reliable capillary hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing. Nevertheless, validation studies of commercially available products suitable for home use have been in short supply. Methods: Three commercial home-use capillary blood sample HbA1c tests (Home Access, CoreMedica, and A1cNow+) were evaluated in 219 participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (4-80 years years of age, HbA1c 5.1%-13.4% [32-123 mmol/mol]) at four clinical sites. Comparisons were made between HbA1c measurements from the commercial tests and paired venous samples for which HbA1c was measured at two central reference laboratories. The primary outcome was percentage of commercial HbA1c values within 5% of the corresponding reference values. Results: HbA1c values were within 5% (relative difference) of paired reference values for 82% of Home Access samples, 29% of CoreMedica samples, and 46% of A1cNow+ samples. Absolute differences were within 0.3% of the reference value for 75% of Home Access samples, 28% of CoreMedica samples, and 44% of A1cNow+ samples and exceeded 0.5% for 8%, 55%, and 37%, respectively. Conclusions: None of the commercial home-use HbA1c tests produced the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program goal of ≥90% measurements within 5% of a DCCT venous reference. However, the Home Access product performed substantially better than the CoreMedica or A1cNow+ products. Telemedicine is likely to persist as a mainstay of diabetes care well after the COVID-19 era. As such, accurate home-based HbA1c assessment represents an urgent need for the diabetes community.

Outpatient Randomized Crossover Comparison of Zone Model Predictive Control Automated Insulin Delivery with Weekly Data Driven Adaptation Versus Sensor-Augmented Pump: Results from the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial 4.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have proven effective in increasing time-in-range during both clinical trials and real-world use. Further improvements in outcomes for single-hormone (insulin only) AID may be limited by suboptimal insulin delivery settings. Methods: Adults (≥18 years of age) with type 1 diabetes were randomized to either sensor-augmented pump (SAP) (inclusive of predictive low-glucose suspend) or adaptive zone model predictive control AID for 13 weeks, then crossed over to the other arm. Each week, the AID insulin delivery settings were sequentially and automatically updated by an adaptation system running on the study phone. Primary outcome was sensor glucose time-in-range 70-180 mg/dL, with noninferiority in percent time below 54 mg/dL as a hierarchical outcome. Results: Thirty-five participants completed the trial (mean age 39 ± 16 years, HbA1c at enrollment 6.9% ± 1.0%). Mean time-in-range 70-180 mg/dL was 66% with SAP versus 69% with AID (mean adjusted difference +2% [95% confidence interval: -1% to +6%], P = 0.22). Median time <70 mg/dL improved from 3.0% with SAP to 1.6% with AID (-1.5% [-2.4% to -0.5%], P = 0.002). The adaptation system decreased initial basal rates by a median of 4% (-8%, 16%) and increased initial carbohydrate ratios by a median of 45% (32%, 59%) after 13 weeks. Conclusions: Automated adaptation of insulin delivery settings with AID use did not significantly improve time-in-range in this very well-controlled population. Additional study and further refinement of the adaptation system are needed, especially in populations with differing degrees of baseline glycemic control, who may show larger benefits from adaptation.

Insulin Pump Infusion Set Failures Associated with Prolonged Hyperglycemia: Frequency and Relationship to Age and Type of Infusion Set During 22,741 Infusion Set Wears.

Background: Although insulin pump infusion set failures are common, studies assessing the failure rate are limited. Methods: Data were analyzed from two clinical trials, in which 263 participants aged 6-72 years used 22,741 infusion sets. The frequency of removal due to prolonged hyperglycemia (continuous glucose monitor measuring >300 mg/dL immediately before removal and >250 mg/dL continuously for at least 2 h before removal with at least 90 min >300 mg/dL out of the prior 120 min) was determined. Differences in failure rates among age groups and infusion set types were evaluated. Results: Among 22,741 infusion sets, 748 (3.3%) were removed before 72 h in association with prolonged hyperglycemia. The percentage replaced within 48 h and within 24 h with prolonged hyperglycemia were 1.8% and 1.0%, respectively. Mean duration of continuous time >250 mg/dL before removal was 5.1 ± 3.7 h. Using a less restrictive definition of failure related to hyperglycemia, 1688 (7.4%) sets were removed before 72 h with a glucose level >300 mg/dL at the time of removal. The frequency of insulin set failure with prolonged hyperglycemia was lower in adults ≥18 years old (1.9%) than in those 14-17 years old (5.8%, P < 0.001) or 6-13 years old (4.4%, P = 0.002). The 90° Teflon sets had the highest frequency of prolonged hyperglycemia failure within 72 h (4.0%) compared with the angled Teflon set frequency (1.3%, P = 0.01) or the steel set frequency (1.9%, P = 0.006). Conclusions: Based on the data from these 22,741 infusion sets, infusion set changes associated with prolonged hyperglycemia occur on average about four times a year, with the frequency being higher in youth than adults. The frequency also appears to be higher with straight Teflon sets compared with angled Teflon sets and steel sets. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT03563313.

Insulin Delivery and Glucose Variability Throughout the Menstrual Cycle on Closed Loop Control for Women with Type 1 Diabetes.

Objective: To analyze insulin delivery and glycemic metrics throughout the menstrual cycle for women with type 1 diabetes using closed loop control (CLC) insulin delivery. Methods: Menstruating women using a CLC system in a clinical trial were invited to record their menstrual cycles through a cycle-tracking application. Sixteen participants provided data for this secondary analysis over three or more complete cycles. Insulin delivery and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data were analyzed in relation to reported cycle phases. Results: Insulin delivery and CGM metrics remained consistent during cycle phases. Intraparticipant variability of CGM metrics and weight-based insulin delivery did not change through cycle phases. Conclusions: For this sample of menstruating women with type 1 diabetes using a CLC system, insulin delivery and glycemic metrics remained stable throughout menstrual cycle phases. Additional studies in this population are needed, particularly among women who report variable glycemic control during their cycles. Trial Registration: NCT03591354.

Glycemic Outcomes in Baseline Hemoglobin A1C Subgroups in the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial.

Using a closed-loop system significantly improves time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). In a 6-month RCT, 112 subjects were randomly assigned to closed-loop control (Tandem Control-IQ) after obtaining 2 weeks of baseline Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data from sensor-augmented pump therapy. We compared glycemic outcomes from baseline to end of study among subgroups classified by baseline HbA1c levels. All HbA1c subgroups showed an improvement in TIR due to reduction of both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. Those with HbA1c <6.5% improved mostly by reducing nocturnal hypoglycemia due to the automated basal insulin adjustments. Those with HbA1c ≥8.5% improved mostly by reducing daytime and nocturnal hyperglycemia due to both automated basal insulin adjustments and correction boluses during the day. There does not appear to be any reason to exclude individuals with T1D from automated insulin delivery based on their HbA1c. Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT03563313.

Discontinued Use of the Loop Insulin Dosing System: A Mixed-Methods Investigation.

Background: Loop is an open-source automated insulin dosing system that allows users unrivaled control over system settings that affect future glucose prediction. Thousands use Loop, but little is known about those who discontinue. Methods: In a large observational study, 874 Loop participants completed surveys and provided glycemic data, 46 (5.3%) of those self-identified as discontinuing Loop use during the observation window, 45 completed a discontinued use survey, 22 provided system settings data, and 19 participated in semistructured interviews about their discontinuation. Qualitative data were transcribed, coded, and analyzed. Results: Older age and not trusting Loop were associated with discontinued use, although no other demographic or clinical characteristics were significant correlates. The most endorsed reasons were "I decided to try something else" (27.8%) followed by "It just didn't help as much as I thought it would" (22.2%). Qualitative analyses revealed prominent themes centered upon mental and emotional burden and adjusting settings. Other reasons for discontinued use included fear of disapproval of Loop use from diabetes provider, barriers to acquiring component devices, a desire to try new/different technologies, concerns that Loop could not accommodate specific exercise or low insulin dose regimens, and worry about Loop use during pregnancy. It was noted that burdens might be alleviated by enhanced technical assistance and expert guidance. Conclusions: Although the majority of individuals in the Loop observational study continued use, those who discontinued reported similar challenges. Technical support and education specific to setting calculations could expand Loop benefits, alleviate burden, and support sustained use among new Loop users. Clinical Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03838900).

Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Randomized Trial of Closed-Loop Control: The Pivotal International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial.

Background: Closed-loop control (CLC) has been shown to improve glucose time in range and other glucose metrics; however, randomized trials >3 months comparing CLC with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy are limited. We recently reported glucose control outcomes from the 6-month international Diabetes Closed-Loop (iDCL) trial; we now report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in this iDCL trial. Methods: Participants were randomized 2:1 to CLC (N = 112) versus SAP (N = 56) and completed questionnaires, including Hypoglycemia Fear Survey, Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), Hypoglycemia Awareness, Hypoglycemia Confidence, Hyperglycemia Avoidance, and Positive Expectancies of CLC (INSPIRE) at baseline, 3, and 6 months. CLC participants also completed Diabetes Technology Expectations and Acceptance and System Usability Scale (SUS). Results: The Hypoglycemia Fear Survey Behavior subscale improved significantly after 6 months of CLC compared with SAP. DDS did not differ except for powerless subscale scores, which worsened at 3 months in SAP. Whereas Hypoglycemia Awareness and Hyperglycemia Avoidance did not differ between groups, CLC participants showed a tendency toward improved confidence in managing hypoglycemia. The INSPIRE questionnaire showed favorable scores in the CLC group for teens and parents, with a similar trend for adults. At baseline and 6 months, CLC participants had high positive expectations for the device with Diabetes Technology Acceptance and SUS showing high benefit and low burden scores. Conclusion: CLC improved some PROs compared with SAP. Participants reported high benefit and low burden with CLC. Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT03563313.

An Evaluation of Two Capillary Sample Collection Kits for Laboratory Measurement of HbA1c.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the conduct of clinic visits. We conducted a study to evaluate two academic laboratories' fingerstick capillary blood collection kits suitable for home use for laboratory measurement of HbA1c. Methods: Four clinical sites recruited 240 participants (aged 4-80 years, HbA1c 5.1%-13.5%). Capillary blood samples were obtained by the participant or parent using collection kits from two laboratories (University of Minnesota Advanced Research and Diagnostic Laboratory (ARDL) and Children's Mercy Hospital Laboratory (CMH)) and mailed under varying shipping conditions by United States Postal Service to the laboratories. Comparisons were made between HbA1c measurements from capillary samples and contemporaneously obtained venous samples. The primary outcome was percentage of capillary HbA1c values within 5% of the corresponding venous values. Results: HbA1c values were within 5% of venous values for 96% of ARDL kit specimens shipped with a cold pack and 98% without a cold pack and 99% and 99%, respectively, for the CMH kits. R2 values were 0.98, 0.99, 0.99, and 0.99, respectively. Results appeared similar across HbA1c levels and for pediatric and adult participants. Usability survey scores were high. Conclusions: Capillary blood collection kits, suitable for home use, from two academic laboratories, were demonstrated to be easy to use and provided results that are comparable with those obtained from venous specimens. Based on these results, there is strong evidence that HbA1c measurements from capillary specimens obtained with these specific kits can be used interchangeably with HbA1c measurements from venous specimens for clinical research and clinical care.

Closed-Loop Insulin Therapy Improves Glycemic Control in Adolescents and Young Adults: Outcomes from the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of closed-loop control (CLC) insulin delivery system in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Research Design and Methods: Prespecified subanalysis of outcomes in adolescents and young adults aged 14-24 years old with type 1 diabetes in a previously published 6-month multicenter randomized trial. Participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to CLC (Tandem Control-IQ) or sensor augmented pump (SAP, various pumps+Dexcom G6 CGM) and followed for 6 months. Results: Mean age of the 63 participants was 17 years, median type 1 diabetes duration was 7 years, and mean baseline HbA1c was 8.1%. All 63 completed the trial. Time in range (TIR) increased by 13% with CLC versus decreasing by 1% with SAP (adjusted treatment group difference = +13% [+3.1 h/day]; 95% confidence interval [CI] 9-16, P < 0.001), which largely reflected a reduction in time >180 mg/dL (adjusted difference -12% [-2.9 h/day], P < 0.001). Time <70 mg/dL decreased by 1.6% with CLC versus 0.3% with SAP (adjusted difference -0.7% [-10 min/day], 95% CI -1.0% to -0.2%, P = 0.002). CLC use averaged 89% of the time for 6 months. The mean adjusted difference in HbA1c after 6 months was 0.30% in CLC versus SAP (95% CI -0.67 to +0.08, P = 0.13). There was one diabetic ketoacidosis episode in the CLC group. Conclusions: CLC use for 6 months was substantial and associated with improved TIR and reduced hypoglycemia in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Thus, CLC has the potential to improve glycemic outcomes in this challenging age group. The clinical trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03563313).

Clinical Management and Pump Parameter Adjustment of the Control-IQ Closed-Loop Control System: Results from a 6-Month, Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Data are limited on the need for and benefits of pump setting optimization with automated insulin delivery. We examined clinical management of a closed-loop control (CLC) system and its relationship to glycemic outcomes. Materials and Methods: We analyzed personal parameter adjustments in 168 participants in a 6-month multicenter trial of CLC with Control-IQ versus sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. Preset parameters (BR = basal rates, CF = correction factors, CR = carbohydrate ratios) were optimized at randomization, 2 and 13 weeks, for safety issues, participant concerns, or initiation by participants' usual diabetes care team. Time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was compared in the week before and after parameter changes. Results: In 607 encounters for parameter changes, there were fewer adjustments for CLC than SAP (3.4 vs. 4.1/participant). Adjustments involved BR (CLC 69%, SAP 80%), CR (CLC 68%, SAP 50%), CF (CLC 44%, SAP 41%), and overnight parameters (CLC 62%, SAP 75%). TIR before and after adjustments was 71.2% and 71.3% for CLC and 61.0% and 62.9% for SAP. The highest baseline HbA1c CLC subgroup had the largest TIR improvement (51.2% vs. 57.7%). When a CR was made more aggressive in the CLC group, postprandial time >180 mg/dL was 43.1% before the change and 36.0% after the change. The median postprandial time <70 mg/dL before making CR less aggressive was 1.8%, and after the change was 0.7%. Conclusions: No difference in TIR was detected with parameter changes overall, but they may have an effect in higher HbA1c subgroups or following user-directed boluses, suggesting that changes may matter more in suboptimal control or during discrete periods of the day. Clinical Trials Registration number: NCT03563313.

A Real-World Prospective Study of the Safety and Effectiveness of the Loop Open Source Automated Insulin Delivery System.

Objective: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Loop Do-It-Yourself automated insulin delivery system. Research Design and Methods: A prospective real-world observational study was conducted, which included 558 adults and children (age range 1-71 years, mean HbA1c 6.8% ± 1.0%) who initiated Loop either on their own or with community-developed resources and provided data for 6 months. Results: Mean time-in-range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) increased from 67% ± 16% at baseline (before starting Loop) to 73% ± 13% during the 6 months (mean change from baseline 6.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.9%-7.4%; P < 0.001). TIR increased in both adults and children, across the full range of baseline HbA1c, and in participants with both high- and moderate-income levels. Median time <54 mg/dL was 0.40% at baseline and changed by -0.05% (95% CI -0.09% to -0.03%, P < 0.001). Mean HbA1c was 6.8% ± 1.0% at baseline and decreased to 6.5% ± 0.8% after 6 months (mean difference = -0.33%, 95% CI -0.40% to -0.26%, P < 0.001). The incidence rate of reported severe hypoglycemia events was 18.7 per 100 person-years, a reduction from the incidence rate of 181 per 100 person-years during the 3 months before the study. Among the 481 users providing Loop data at 6 months, median continuous glucose monitoring use was 96% (interquartile range [IQR] 91%-98%) and median time Loop modulating basal insulin was at least 83% (IQR 73%-88%). Conclusions: The Loop open source system can be initiated with community-developed resources and used safely and effectively by adults and children with type 1 diabetes.

Glycemic Outcomes of Use of CLC Versus PLGS in Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Limited information is available about glycemic outcomes with a closed-loop control (CLC) system compared with a predictive low-glucose suspend (PLGS) system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: After 6 months of use of a CLC system in a randomized trial, 109 participants with type 1 diabetes (age range, 14-72 years; mean HbA1c, 7.1% [54 mmol/mol]) were randomly assigned to CLC (N = 54, Control-IQ) or PLGS (N = 55, Basal-IQ) groups for 3 months. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitor (CGM)-measured time in range (TIR) for 70-180 mg/dL. Baseline CGM metrics were computed from the last 3 months of the preceding study. RESULTS: All 109 participants completed the study. Mean ± SD TIR was 71.1 ± 11.2% at baseline and 67.6 ± 12.6% using intention-to-treat analysis (69.1 ± 12.2% using per-protocol analysis excluding periods of study-wide suspension of device use) over 13 weeks on CLC vs. 70.0 ± 13.6% and 60.4 ± 17.1% on PLGS (difference = 5.9%; 95% CI 3.6%, 8.3%; P < 0.001). Time >180 mg/dL was lower in the CLC group than PLGS group (difference = -6.0%; 95% CI -8.4%, -3.7%; P < 0.001) while time <54 mg/dL was similar (0.04%; 95% CI -0.05%, 0.13%; P = 0.41). HbA1c after 13 weeks was lower on CLC than PLGS (7.2% [55 mmol/mol] vs. 7.5% [56 mmol/mol], difference -0.34% [-3.7 mmol/mol]; 95% CI -0.57% [-6.2 mmol/mol], -0.11% [1.2 mmol/mol]; P = 0.0035). CONCLUSIONS: Following 6 months of CLC, switching to PLGS reduced TIR and increased HbA1c toward their pre-CLC values, while hypoglycemia remained similarly reduced with both CLC and PLGS.