MiniMedTM 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Study in Pregnant Women with Type 1 Diabetes.

Background: Evaluate the impact of the MiniMed™ 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system on the glucose profile of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and maternal-neonatal complications. Methods: From April 2021 to September 2022, pregnant women with T1D treated with the AHCL system were included in an observational multicenter retrospective study. Continuous glucose monitoring parameters were analyzed monthly during pregnancy as well as maternal-neonatal complications. Results: Thirteen pregnant women, including a twin pregnancy (age: 33 ± 3 years, hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c]: 7.3% ± 0.7%, insulin doses: 0.72 ± 0.21 U/kg/day) were analyzed. At delivery, gestational age was 37 ± 2 weeks. During first 2 weeks of pregnancy, time in range (TIR, 63-140 mg/dL) was 46% (34-55) and increased to 54% (51-59) (P < 0.01), 64% (48-68) (P < 0.01), and 66% (60-70) (P < 0.001) during the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. During the night, TIR (63-140 mg/dL) was >70% throughout pregnancy. Time below the range <63 mg/dL increased from 0.5% (0-2) to 1.3% (0.7-2.2), 2% (1.2-3.5) (P < 0.05), and 1.3% (1.31-3) (P < 0.05) during the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. At delivery, insulin doses increased to 0.89 ± 0.35 IU/kg/day (P < 0.01), and HbA1c decreased to 6.4% ± 0.6% (P = 0.005). The reported carbohydrate amount increased from 167 ± 363 g/d during early pregnancy to 243 ± 106 g/d (P < 0.01) at delivery. The birthweight was 3134 ± 711 g, with 5/14 macrosomia and 2/14 neonatal hypoglycemia. Moreover, 5/13 patients had a preeclampsia and 9/13 a cesarean section, including three cases of scarred uterus. The Clinical Trial Registration number is: CE-2022-55. Conclusion: The AHCL system provided good glucose control during pregnancy and recommendation targets were reached during the nocturnal period only. The maternal and neonatal complications remained high.

Performance and patients' satisfaction with the A7+TouchCare insulin patch pump system: A randomized controlled non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the performance and patient satisfaction of a new insulin patch pump, the A7+TouchCare (Medtrum), compared with the Omnipod system. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled study enrolled 100 adult patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (A1C ≥ 6.5% and ≤ 9.5%, i.e., 48 to 80 mmol/mol) who were assigned with the Omnipod or with the A7+TouchCare pump for 3 months. The primary study outcome was the glucose management indicator (GMI) calculated with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). RESULTS: Premature withdrawals occurs respectively in 2 and 9 participants in the Omnipod and TouchCare groups. In the Per Protocol analysis, the difference in GMI between groups was 0.002% (95% confidence interval -0.251; 0.255). The non-inferiority was demonstrated since the difference between treatments did not overlap the pre-defined non-inferiority margin (0.4%). There was no significant difference in CGM parameters between groups. On average, patients in both groups were satisfied/very satisfied with the insulin pump system. Patients preferred Omnipod as an insulin management system and especially the patch delivery system but preferred the A7+TouchCare personal diabetes manager to control the system. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the A7+TouchCare insulin pump was as efficient as the Omnipod pump in terms of performance and satisfaction. CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov protocol register (NCT04223973).

Closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes in real-life conditions: a 12-week multicentre, open-label randomised controlled crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop insulin delivery systems are expected to become a standard treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes. We aimed to assess whether the Diabeloop Generation 1 (DBLG1) hybrid closed-loop artificial pancreas system improved glucose control compared with sensor-assisted pump therapy. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, crossover trial, we recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with at least a 2 year history of type 1 diabetes, who had been treated with external insulin pump therapy for at least 6 months, had glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 10% or less (86 mmol/mol), and preserved hypoglycaemia awareness. After a 2-week run-in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a web-based system in randomly permuted blocks of two, to receive insulin via the hybrid closed-loop system (DBLG1; using a machine-learning-based algorithm) or sensor-assisted pump therapy over 12 weeks of free living, followed by an 8-week washout period and then the other intervention for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of time that the sensor glucose concentration was within the target range (3·9-10·0 mmol/L) during the 12 week study period. Efficacy analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned patients who completed both 12 week treatment periods. Safety analyses were done in all patients who were exposed to either of the two treatments at least once during the study. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02987556. FINDINGS: Between March 3, 2017, and June 19, 2017, 71 patients were screened, and 68 eligible patients were randomly assigned to the DBLG1 group (n=33) or the sensor-assisted pump therapy group (n=35), of whom five dropped out in the washout period (n=1 pregnancy; n=4 withdrew consent). 63 patients completed both 12 week treatment periods and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The proportion of time that the glucose concentration was within the target range was significantly higher in the DBLG1 group (68·5% [SD 9·4] than the sensor-assisted pump group (59·4% [10·2]; mean difference 9·2% [95% CI 6·4 to 11·9]; p<0·0001). Five severe hypoglycaemic episodes occurred in the DBLG1 group and three episodes occurred in the sensor-assisted pump therapy group, which were associated with hardware malfunctions or human error. INTERPRETATION: The DBLG1 system improves glucose control compared with sensor-assisted insulin pumps. This finding supports the use of closed-loop technology combined with appropriate health care organisation in adults with type 1 diabetes. FUNDING: French Innovation Fund, Diabeloop.

Preliminary evaluation of a new semi-closed-loop insulin therapy system over the prandial period in adult patients with type 1 diabetes: the WP6.0 Diabeloop study.

There is room for improvement in the algorithms used in closed-loop insulin therapy during the prandial period. This pilot study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the Diabeloop algorithm (model predictive control type) during the postprandial period. This 2-center clinical trial compared interstitial glucose levels over two 5-hour periods (with/without the algorithm) following a calibrated lunch. On the control day, the amount of insulin delivered by the pump was determined according to the patient's usual parameters. On the test day, 50% or 75% of the theoretical bolus required was delivered, while the algorithm, informed of carbohydrate intake, proposed changes to insulin delivery every 15 minutes using modeling to forecast glucose levels. The primary endpoint was percentage of time spent at near normoglycemia (70-180 mg/dl). Twelve patients with type 1 diabetes (9 men, age 35.6 ± 12.7 years, HbA1c 7.3 ± 0.8%) were included. The percentage of time spent in the target range was 84.5 ± 20.8 (test day) versus 69.2 ± 33.9% (control day, P = .11). The percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia < 70 mg/dl was 0.2 ± 0.8 (test) versus 4.4 ± 8.2% (control, P = .18). Interstitial glucose at the end of the test (5 hours) was 127.5 ± 40.1 (test) versus 146 ± 53.5 mg/dl (control, P = .25). The insulin doses did not differ, and no differences were observed between the 50% and 75% boluses. In a semi-closed-loop configuration with manual priming boluses (25% or 50% reduction), the Diabeloop v1 algorithm was as successful as the manual method in determining the prandial bolus, without any exposure to excessive hypoglycemic risk.

The Diabeo software enabling individualized insulin dose adjustments combined with telemedicine support improves HbA1c in poorly controlled type 1 diabetic patients: a 6-month, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter trial (TeleDiab 1 Study).

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that Diabeo software enabling individualized insulin dose adjustments combined with telemedicine support significantly improves HbA(1c) in poorly controlled type 1 diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a six-month open-label parallel-group, multicenter study, adult patients (n = 180) with type 1 diabetes (>1 year), on a basal-bolus insulin regimen (>6 months), with HbA(1c) ≥ 8%, were randomized to usual quarterly follow-up (G1), home use of a smartphone recommending insulin doses with quarterly visits (G2), or use of the smartphone with short teleconsultations every 2 weeks but no visit until point end (G3). RESULTS: Six-month mean HbA(1c) in G3 (8.41 ± 1.04%) was lower than in G1 (9.10 ± 1.16%; P = 0.0019). G2 displayed intermediate results (8.63 ± 1.07%). The Diabeo system gave a 0.91% (0.60; 1.21) improvement in HbA(1c) over controls and a 0.67% (0.35; 0.99) reduction when used without teleconsultation. There was no difference in the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes or in medical time spent for hospital or telephone consultations. However, patients in G1 and G2 spent nearly 5 h more than G3 patients attending hospital visits. CONCLUSIONS: The Diabeo system gives a substantial improvement to metabolic control in chronic, poorly controlled type 1 diabetic patients without requiring more medical time and at a lower overall cost for the patient than usual care.

Usefulness of continuous glucose monitoring for the diagnosis of hypoglycemia after a gastric bypass in a patient previously treated for type 2 diabetes.

Hypoglycemia is rare after a gastric bypass and can be taken for a dumping syndrome. There is no report in the literature of the contribution of continuous glucose monitoring to the diagnosis of hypoglycemia in these circumstances. The present case report shows that continuous glucose monitoring can be a useful tool for the diagnosis and the management of such episodes. Continuous glucose monitoring revealed hypoglycemic episodes in free living circumstances that were not present during 72-h fasting. These episodes followed wide hyperglycemic swings. No such episode resumed over 8 months after specific dietary advices and treatment by 50 mg TID of acarbose. Because hypoglycemia can be difficult to diagnose from dumping syndrome, continuous glucose monitoring is a very useful tool revealing the episodes in free living circumstances and can be used to monitor the treatment success.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections: the impact of baseline A1c.

OBJECTIVE: Rapid-acting insulin analogs (insulin lispro and insulin aspart) have emerged as the meal insulin of choice in both multiple daily insulin injection (MDII) therapy and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) for type 1 diabetes. Thus, a comparison of efficacy between CSII and MDII should be undertaken only in studies that used rapid-acting analogs for both intensive regimens. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of the randomized controlled trials that compared CSII and optimized MDII therapy using rapid-acting analogs in adults with type 1 diabetes. RESULTS: The three studies that met inclusion criteria provided data on 139 patients, representing 596 patient-months for CSII and 529 patient-months for MDII. Mean age was 38.5 years, with duration of diabetes of 18.0 years. The studies differed significantly in mean baseline A1c (7.95, 8.20, and 9.27%). The pooled estimate of treatment effect comparing the percentage reduction in A1c by CSII with that by MDII (CSII - MDII) was 0.35% (95% CI -0.10 to 0.80, P = 0.08) using a random effect to account for heterogeneity between studies. Importantly, the interaction between baseline A1c and treatment modality emerged as an independent predictor of treatment effect (CSII - MDII) (P = 0.002). The relative benefit of CSII over MDII was found to increase with higher baseline A1c. A model derived from these data predicts that in a patient with a baseline A1c of 10%, CSII would reduce the A1c by an additional 0.65% compared with MDII. Conversely, there would be no A1c benefit of CSII compared with MDII if baseline A1c were 6.5%. There was no significant difference between CSII and MDII in the rate of hypoglycemic events. CONCLUSIONS: When using rapid-acting insulin analogs in CSII and MDII regimens in adult patients with type 1 diabetes, insulin pump therapy is associated with better glycemic control, particularly in those individuals with higher baseline A1c. Thus, CSII emerges as an important modality for implementing intensive therapy and may be uniquely advantageous in patients with poor glycemic control.