Real-world outcomes of Omnipod DASH system use in people with type 1 diabetes: Evidence from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) study.

AIMS: To evaluate real-world outcomes in people with Type 1 Diabetes (PwT1D) initiated on Omnipod DASH® Insulin Management System. METHODS: Anonymized clinical data were submitted to a secure web-based tool within the National Health Service network. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), sensor-derived glucometrics, total daily dose of insulin (TDD), and patient-reported outcome changes between baseline and follow-up were assessed. Individuals were classified to "new-to-pump" (switched from multiple daily injections) and "established-on-pump" (switched from a tethered insulin pump) groups. RESULTS: 276 individuals from 11 centers [66.7 % female; 92 % White British; median age 41 years (IQR 20-50); diabetes duration 20 years (IQR 11-31); 49.3 % within "new-to-pump" group] were included. Baseline HbA1c was 8.0 ± 1.3 % (64 ± 14 mmol/mol). At follow-up [3 years (IQR 1.5-3.2)], HbA1c reduced by 0.3 % [(3 mmol/mol); p = 0.002] across the total population, 0.4 % [(5 mmol/mol); p = 0.001] in those "new-to-pump" and remained unchanged in those "established-on-pump". TDD decreased in the "new-to-pump" cohort (baseline:44.9 ± 21.0units vs follow-up:38.1 ± 15.4units, p = 0.002). Of those asked, 141/143 (98.6 %) stated Omnipod DASH had a positive impact on quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Omnipod DASH was associated with improvements in HbA1c in PwT1D "new-to-pump" and maintained previous HbA1c levels in those "established-on-pump". User satisfaction in all groups and TDD reduction in those "new-to-pump" were reported.

Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes and Above-Target HbA1c: A Real-world Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: We explored longitudinal changes associated with switching to hybrid closed-loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems in adults with type 1 diabetes and elevated HbA1c levels despite the use of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) and insulin pump therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We undertook a pragmatic, preplanned observational study of participants included in the National Health Service England closed-loop pilot. Adults using isCGM and insulin pump across 31 diabetes centers in England with an HbA1c ≥8.5% who were willing to commence HCL therapy were included. Outcomes included change in HbA1c, sensor glucometrics, diabetes distress score, Gold score (hypoglycemia awareness), acute event rates, and user opinion of HCL. RESULTS: In total, 570 HCL users were included (median age 40 [IQR 29-50] years, 67% female, and 85% White). Mean baseline HbA1c was 9.4 ± 0.9% (78.9 ± 9.1 mmol/mol) with a median follow-up of 5.1 (IQR 3.9-6.6) months. Of 520 users continuing HCL at follow-up, mean adjusted HbA1c reduced by 1.7% (95% CI 1.5, 1.8; P < 0.0001) (18.1 mmol/mol [95% CI 16.6, 19.6]; P < 0.0001). Time in range (70-180 mg/dL) increased from 34.2 to 61.9% (P < 0.001). Individuals with HbA1c of ≤58 mmol/mol rose from 0 to 39.4% (P < 0.0001), and those achieving ≥70% glucose time in range and <4% time below range increased from 0.8 to 28.2% (P < 0.0001). Almost all participants rated HCL therapy as having a positive impact on quality of life (94.7% [540 of 570]). CONCLUSIONS: Use of HCL is associated with improvements in HbA1c, time in range, hypoglycemia, and diabetes-related distress and quality of life in people with type 1 diabetes in the real world.

Injectable semaglutide and reductions in HbA1c and weight in the real world in people switched from alternative glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

The ABCD semaglutide audit was designed to capture the routine clinical outcomes of people commenced on semaglutide in the UK. Previous work showed differential reductions in HbA1c and weight dependent on previous glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) exposure. The analysis, in this research letter, shows that decreases in HbA1c and weight associated with semaglutide occur irrespective of previous GLP-1RA use. However, HbA1c reductions were less if switched from dulaglutide or liraglutide and weight changes were attenuated if switched from dulaglutide or exenatide, potentially suggesting differing potencies between GLP-1RAs. Dedicated studies with head-to-head comparisons are needed to confirm these findings.

Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, Diabetes Technology Network UK and Association of Children's Diabetes Clinicians Survey of UK Healthcare Professional Attitudes Towards Open-Source Automated Insulin Delivery Systems.

INTRODUCTION: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems can enable improved glycaemic outcomes with reduced mental burden. Open-source AID (OS-AID) systems overcome some of the developmental and access barriers enabling a wider use of these systems. Limited data are available on healthcare professional (HCP) opinions and current practice regarding these systems. The aim of this survey was to gain insight into HCP perceptions and practices around OS-AID. METHODS: This survey was developed collaboratively with OS-AID users and distributed to adult and children's teams, using an online survey tool. Results were received between February and April 2019. Responses were assessed using simple descriptive statistics with analyses stratified by respondent characteristics. RESULTS: 317 responses were obtained from a range of HCPs in both adult and paediatric services. Key results include: HCP perception of OS-AID as "risky in the wrong hands" (43%); 91% felt uncomfortable initiating discussions around OS-AID because of lack of regulation (67%) and/or their own lack of knowledge (63%). Half of HCPs (47%) reported that they would choose OS-AID if they themselves had type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: HCPs are generally supportive of OS-AID users but many feel uncomfortable with the technicalities of the systems given the lack of approval. Knowledge around the use of these systems was limited. Re-assessment of HCP perceptions should be performed in the future given the evolving landscape of diabetes technology, recent consensus statements and emerging ethical and legal perspectives.

Open-source automated insulin delivery systems are an increasingly encountered diabetes technology. These involve a small glucose sensor and an insulin delivery device called an insulin pump. These two devices interact to allow adjustment of insulin delivery to maintain glucose levels in a desirable range. The computer codes which drive these systems are developed by people with diabetes or their families rather than by device companies; as such, they have not been through formal approval processes and therefore there is limited formal evidence concerning whether they are safe or beneficial to use. Users report high satisfaction with these devices and improvements in their diabetes management. This survey was performed to assess the opinions of UK healthcare professionals and their usual practice. Key results include: UK healthcare professionals would not routinely recommend the use of these devices and there was concern about the medicolegal implications of use. However, UK healthcare professionals were generally supportive of those who chose to use the devices. Interestingly, almost half of the healthcare professionals would use the systems if they had diabetes.

Safety and effectiveness of do-it-yourself artificial pancreas system compared with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusions in combination with free style libre in people with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: The use of do-it-yourself artificial pancreas systems (DIYAPS) among people with type 1 diabetes is increasing. At present, it is unclear how DIYAPS compares with other technologies such as FreeStyle Libre (FSL) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). The aim of this analysis is to compare safety, effectiveness and quality-of-life outcomes of DIYAPS use with the addition of FSL to CSII. METHOD: Data from two large UK hospitals were extracted from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) DIYAPS and FSL audits. Outcomes included HbA1c , glucose TBR (time-below-range), TIR (time-in-range), Diabetes Distress Score (DDS), and Gold hypoglycaemia score. Any adverse events were noted. Changes at follow-up were assessed using paired t-tests and ANOVA in Stata; TIR/TBR at follow-up assessed using unpaired t-tests; chi-square tests assessed the change in frequency of health utilisation (e.g. hospital admissions). RESULTS: DIYAPS (n = 35) and FSL+CSII (n = 149) users, with median follow-up duration of 1.4 (IQR 0.8-2.1) and 1.3 (IQR 0.7-1.8) years, respectively, were included. HbA1c with DIYAPS use changed by -10 mmol/mol [0.9%] (p < 0.001, 95% CI 5, 14 [0.5, 1.3%]) significantly lower (p < 0.001) than in the FSL+CSII group -3 mmol/mol [0.25%] (p < 0.001, 95% CI 1, 4 [0.1, 0.4%]). TIR was higher and TBR was lower in the DIYAPS group. Adverse events were rare in both groups and no significant differences were observed in the frequency of healthcare utilisation. CONCLUSION: DIYAPS use was associated with a lower HbA1c levels, higher TIR and lower TBR compared with FSL+CSII. There was no significant increase in adverse events, although this should be interpreted cautiously given the low numbers of users. Full results from the ABCD DIYAPS audit are awaited.