Participant Experiences of Low-Dose Empagliflozin Use as Adjunct Therapy to Hybrid Closed Loop: Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Very few patient-reported outcomes have been published in regard to opinions of individuals with type 1 diabetes concerning adjunctive therapy. The aim of this subanalysis was to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the thoughts and experiences of participants with type 1 diabetes who have used low doses of empagliflozin as an adjunct to hybrid closed-loop therapy. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were performed with adult participants who completed a double-blinded, crossover, randomized controlled trial using low-dose empagliflozin as an adjunct to hybrid closed-loop therapy. Participant experiences were captured through qualitative and quantitative methods. A descriptive analysis was performed using a qualitative approach; attitudes toward relevant topics were extracted from interview transcripts. RESULTS: Twenty-four participants were interviewed; 15 (63%) perceived differences between interventions despite blinding, due to glycemic control or side effects. Advantages that arose were better glycemic control, in particular postprandially, requiring less insulin, and ease of use. Disadvantages were thought to be adverse effects, increased incidence of hypoglycemia, and increased pill burden. Thirteen (54%) participants were interested in using low-dose empagliflozin beyond the study. CONCLUSIONS: Many participants had positive experiences with low-dose empagliflozin as an adjunct to the hybrid closed-loop therapy. A dedicated study with unblinding would be beneficial to better characterize patient-reported outcomes.

Alleviating carbohydrate counting with a FiASP-plus-pramlintide closed-loop delivery system (artificial pancreas): Feasibility and pilot studies.

AIM: To assess whether a FiASP-and-pramlintide closed-loop system has the potential to replace carbohydrate counting with a simple meal announcement (SMA) strategy (meal priming bolus without carbohydrate counting) without degrading glycaemic control compared with a FiASP closed-loop system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a 24-hour feasibility study comparing a FiASP system with full carbohydrate counting (FCC) with a FiASP-and-pramlintide system with SMA. We conducted a subsequent 12-day outpatient pilot study comparing a FiASP-and-placebo system with FCC, a FiASP-and-pramlintide system with SMA, and a FiASP-and-placebo system with SMA. Basal-bolus FiASP-and-pramlintide were delivered at a fixed ratio (1 U:10 µg). Glycaemic outcomes were measured, surveys evaluated gastrointestinal symptoms and diabetes distress, and participant interviews helped establish a preliminary coding framework to assess user experience. RESULTS: Seven participants were included in the feasibility analysis. Time spent in 3.9-10 mmol/L was similar between both interventions (81%-84%). Four participants were included in the pilot analysis. Time spent in 3.9-10 mmol/L was similar between the FiASP-and-placebo with FCC and FiASP-and-pramlintide with SMA interventions (70%), but was lower in the FiASP-and-placebo with SMA intervention (60%). Time less than 3.9 mmol/L and gastrointestinal symptoms were similar across all interventions. Emotional distress was moderate at baseline, after the FiASP-and-placebo with FCC and SMA interventions, and fell after the FiASP-and-pramlintide with SMA intervention. SMA reportedly afforded participants flexibility and reduced mealtime concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The FiASP-and-pramlintide system has the potential to substitute carbohydrate counting with SMA without degrading glucose control.