Glycemic Outcomes Persist for up to 2 Years in Very Young Children with the Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System.

Background: To evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of the Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System in very young children with type 1 diabetes with up to 2 years of use. Methods: Following a 13-week single-arm, multicenter, pivotal trial that took place after 14 days of standard therapy data collection, participating children (2-5.9 years of age at study enrollment) were provided the option to continue use of the AID system in an extension phase. HbA1c was measured every 3 months, up to 15 months of total use, and continuous glucose monitor metrics were collected through the completion of the extension study (for up to 2 years). Results: Participants (N = 80) completed 18.2 [17.4, 23.4] (median [interquartile range]) total months of AID, inclusive of the 3-month pivotal trial. During the pivotal trial, HbA1c decreased from 7.4% ± 1.0% (57 ± 10.9 mmol/mol) to 6.9% ± 0.7% (52 ± 7.7 mmol/mol, P < 0.0001) and was maintained at 7.0% ± 0.7% (53 ± 7.7 mmol/mol) after 15 months total use (P < 0.0001 from baseline). Time in target range (70-180 mg/dL) increased from 57.2% ± 15.3% during standard therapy to 68.1% ± 9.0% during the pivotal trial (P < 0.0001) and was maintained at 67.2% ± 9.3% during the extension phase (P < 0.0001 from standard therapy). Participants spent a median 97.1% of time in Automated Mode during the extension phase, with one episode of severe hypoglycemia and one episode of diabetic ketoacidosis. Conclusion: This evaluation of the Omnipod 5 AID System indicates that long-term use can safely maintain improvements in glycemic outcomes with up to 2 years of use in very young children with type 1 diabetes. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT04476472.

Two Years with a Tubeless Automated Insulin Delivery System: A Single-Arm Multicenter Trial in Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Background: The Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System was shown to be safe and effective following 3 months of use in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D); however, data on the durability of these results are limited. This study evaluated the long-term safety and effectiveness of Omnipod 5 use in people with T1D during up to 2 years of use. Materials and Methods: After a 3-month single-arm, multicenter, pivotal trial in children (6-13.9 years) and adolescents/adults (14-70 years), participants could continue system use in an extension phase. HbA1c was measured every 3 months for up to 15 months; continuous glucose monitor metrics were collected for up to 2 years. Results: Participants (N = 224) completed median (interquartile range) 22.3 (21.7, 22.7) months of AID. HbA1c was reduced in the pivotal trial from 7.7% ± 0.9% in children and 7.2% ± 0.9% in adolescents/adults to 7.0% ± 0.6% and 6.8% ± 0.7%, respectively, (P < 0.0001), and was maintained at 7.2% ± 0.7% and 6.9% ± 0.6% after 15 months (P < 0.0001 from baseline). Time in target range (70-180 mg/dL) increased from 52.4% ± 15.6% in children and 63.6% ± 16.5% in adolescents/adults at baseline to 67.9% ± 8.0% and 73.8% ± 10.8%, respectively, during the pivotal trial (P < 0.0001) and was maintained at 65.9% ± 8.9% and 72.9% ± 11.3% during the extension (P < 0.0001 from baseline). One episode of diabetic ketoacidosis and seven episodes of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the extension. Children and adolescents/adults spent median 96.1% and 96.3% of time in Automated Mode, respectively. Conclusion: Our study supports that long-term use of the Omnipod 5 AID System can safely maintain improvements in glycemic outcomes for up to 2 years of use in people with T1D. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT04196140.

Improved Glycemia with Hybrid Closed-Loop Versus Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective: To evaluate safety and effectiveness of MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed loop (HCL) in comparison with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy for 6 months in persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Adults (aged 18-80 years), adolescents, and children (aged 2-17 years) with T1D who were using CSII therapy were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to 6 months of HCL intervention (n = 151, mean age of 39.9 ± 19.8 years) or CSII without continuous glucose monitoring (n = 151, 35.7 ± 18.4 years). Primary effectiveness endpoints included change in A1C for Group 1 (baseline A1C >8.0%), from baseline to the end of study, and difference in the end of study percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL (%TBR <70 mg/dL) for Group 2 (baseline A1C ≤8.0%), to show superiority of HCL intervention versus control. Secondary effectiveness endpoints were change in A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 2 and Group 1, respectively, to show noninferiority of HCL intervention versus control. Primary safety endpoints were rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Results: Change in A1C and difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for the overall group were significantly improved, in favor of HCL intervention. In addition, a significant mean (95% confidence interval) change in A1C was observed for both Group 1 (-0.8% [-1.1% to -0.4%], P < 0.0001) and Group 2 (-0.3% [-0.5% to -0.1%], P < 0.0001), in favor of HCL intervention. The same was observed for difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 1 (-2.2% [-3.6% to -0.9%]) and Group 2 (-4.9% [-6.3% to -3.6%]) (P < 0.0001 for both). There was one DKA event during run-in and six severe hypoglycemic events: two during run-in and four during study (HCL: n = 0 and CSII: n = 4 [6.08 per 100 patient-years]). Conclusions: This RCT demonstrates that the MiniMed 670G HCL safely and significantly improved A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL compared with CSII control in persons with T1D, irrespective of baseline A1C level.

Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery Technologies in Clinical Practice.

The significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers, and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past 6 years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage.

Safety and Glycemic Outcomes With a Tubeless Automated Insulin Delivery System in Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes: A Single-Arm Multicenter Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Very young children with type 1 diabetes often struggle to achieve glycemic targets, putting them at risk for long-term complications and creating an immense management burden for caregivers. We conducted the first evaluation of the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System in this population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 80 children aged 2.0-5.9 years used the investigational system in a single-arm study for 13 weeks following 14 days of baseline data collection with their usual therapy. RESULTS: There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis. By study end, HbA1c decreased by 0.55% (6.0 mmol/mol) (P < 0.0001). Time with sensor glucose levels in target range 70-180 mg/dL increased by 10.9%, or 2.6 h/day (P < 0.0001), while time with levels <70 mg/dL declined by median 0.27% (P = 0.0204). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the automated insulin delivery system was safe, and participants experienced improved glycemic measures and reduced hypoglycemia during the study phase compared with baseline.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Integration for Remote Diabetes Management: Virtual Diabetes Care with Case Studies.

Use of telemedicine and remote monitoring technologies can significantly improve glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. Patients' ability to interact remotely with their health care providers via smartphones and other communication devices can increase their access to clinical care and online coaching and support programs. The establishment of metrics for clinical use of continuous glucose monitoring data and standardization of data reporting has enabled clinicians to maintain high-quality diabetes care through remote monitoring and telemedicine visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. This article discusses our experiences using remote monitoring and telemedicine visits during this time.

Multicenter Trial of a Tubeless, On-Body Automated Insulin Delivery System With Customizable Glycemic Targets in Pediatric and Adult Participants With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Advances in diabetes technology have transformed the treatment paradigm for type 1 diabetes, yet the burden of disease is significant. We report on a pivotal safety study of the first tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery system with customizable glycemic targets. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This single-arm, multicenter, prospective study enrolled 112 children (age 6-13.9 years) and 129 adults (age 14-70 years). A 2-week standard therapy phase (usual insulin regimen) was followed by 3 months of automated insulin delivery. Primary safety outcomes were incidence of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis. Primary effectiveness outcomes were change in HbA1c and percent time in sensor glucose range 70-180 mg/dL ("time in range"). RESULTS: A total of 235 participants (98% of enrolled, including 111 children and 124 adults) completed the study. HbA1c was significantly reduced in children by 0.71% (7.8 mmol/mol) (mean ± SD: 7.67 ± 0.95% to 6.99 ± 0.63% [60 ± 10.4 mmol/mol to 53 ± 6.9 mmol/mol], P < 0.0001) and in adults by 0.38% (4.2 mmol/mol) (7.16 ± 0.86% to 6.78 ± 0.68% [55 ± 9.4 mmol/mol to 51 ± 7.4 mmol/mol], P < 0.0001). Time in range was improved from standard therapy by 15.6 ± 11.5% or 3.7 h/day in children and 9.3 ± 11.8% or 2.2 h/day in adults (both P < 0.0001). This was accomplished with a reduction in time in hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL among adults (median [interquartile range]: 2.00% [0.63, 4.06] to 1.09% [0.46, 1.75], P < 0.0001), while this parameter remained the same in children. There were three severe hypoglycemia events not attributable to automated insulin delivery malfunction and one diabetic ketoacidosis event from an infusion site failure. CONCLUSIONS: This tubeless automated insulin delivery system was safe and allowed participants to significantly improve HbA1c levels and time in target glucose range with a very low occurrence of hypoglycemia.

A comparison of two hybrid closed-loop systems in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes (FLAIR): a multicentre, randomised, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Management of type 1 diabetes is challenging. We compared outcomes using a commercially available hybrid closed-loop system versus a new investigational system with features potentially useful for adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: In this multinational, randomised, crossover trial (Fuzzy Logic Automated Insulin Regulation [FLAIR]), individuals aged 14-29 years old, with a clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes with a duration of at least 1 year, using either an insulin pump or multiple daily insulin injections, and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of 7·0-11·0% (53-97 mmol/mol) were recruited from seven academic-based endocrinology practices, four in the USA, and one each in Germany, Israel, and Slovenia. After a run-in period to teach participants how to use the study pump and continuous glucose monitor, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated sequence, with a permuted block design (block sizes of two and four), stratified by baseline HbA1c and use of a personal MiniMed 670G system (Medtronic) at enrolment, to either use of a MiniMed 670G hybrid closed-loop system (670G) or the investigational advanced hybrid closed-loop system (Medtronic) for the first 12-week period, and then participants were crossed over with no washout period, to the other group for use for another 12 weeks. Masking was not possible due to the nature of the systems used. The coprimary outcomes, measured with continuous glucose monitoring, were proportion of time that glucose levels were above 180 mg/dL (>10·0 mmol/L) during 0600 h to 2359 h (ie, daytime), tested for superiority, and proportion of time that glucose levels were below 54 mg/dL (<3·0 mmol/L) calculated over a full 24-h period, tested for non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin 2%). Analysis was by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all participants randomly assigned to treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03040414, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between June 3 and Aug 22, 2019, 113 individuals were enrolled into the trial. Mean age was 19 years (SD 4) and 70 (62%) of 113 participants were female. Mean proportion of time with daytime glucose levels above 180 mg/dL (>10·0 mmol/L) was 42% (SD 13) at baseline, 37% (9) during use of the 670G system, and 34% (9) during use of the advanced hybrid closed-loop system (mean difference [advanced hybrid closed-loop system minus 670G system] -3·00% [95% CI -3·97 to -2·04]; p<0·0001). Mean 24-h proportion of time with glucose levels below 54 mg/dL (<3·0 mmol/L) was 0·46% (SD 0·42) at baseline, 0·50% (0·35) during use of the 670G system, and 0·46% (0·33) during use of the advanced hybrid closed-loop system (mean difference [advanced hybrid closed-loop system minus 670G system] -0·06% [95% CI -0·11 to -0·02]; p<0·0001 for non-inferiority). One severe hypoglycaemic event occurred in the advanced hybrid closed-loop system group, determined to be unrelated to study treatment, and none occurred in the 670G group. INTERPRETATION: Hyperglycaemia was reduced without increasing hypoglycaemia in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes using the investigational advanced hybrid closed-loop system compared with the commercially available MiniMed 670G system. Testing an advanced hybrid closed-loop system in populations that are underserved due to socioeconomic factors and testing during pregnancy and in individuals with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia would advance the effective use of this technology FUNDING: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

First Outpatient Evaluation of a Tubeless Automated Insulin Delivery System with Customizable Glucose Targets in Children and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Background: The objective of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of the first commercial configuration of a tubeless automated insulin delivery system, Omnipod® 5, in children (6-13.9 years) and adults (14-70 years) with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in an outpatient setting. Materials and Methods: This was a single-arm, multicenter, prospective clinical study. Data were collected over a 14-day standard therapy (ST) phase followed by a 14-day hybrid closed-loop (HCL) phase, where participants (n = 36) spent 72 h at each of three prespecified glucose targets (130, 140, and 150 mg/dL, 9 days total) then 5 days with free choice of glucose targets (110-150 mg/dL) using the Omnipod 5. Remote safety monitoring alerts were enabled during the HCL phase. Primary endpoints were difference in time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) between ST and HCL phases and proportion of participants reporting serious device-related adverse events. Results: Mean TIR was significantly higher among children in the free-choice period overall (64.9% ± 12.2%, P < 0.01) and when using a 110 mg/dL target (71.2% ± 10.2%, P < 0.01), a 130 mg/dL target (61.5% ± 7.7%, P < 0.01), and a 140 mg/dL target (64.8% ± 11.6%, P < 0.01), and among adults using a 130 mg/dL target (75.1% ± 11.6%, P < 0.05), compared to the ST phase (children: 51.0% ± 13.3% and adults: 65.6% ± 15.7%). There were no serious device-related adverse events reported during the HCL phase, nor were there episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis. Conclusion: The Omnipod 5 System was safe and effective when used at glucose targets from 110 to 150 mg/dL for 14 days at home in children and adults with T1D.

Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Adolescents and Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes exhibit the worst glycemic control among individuals with type 1 diabetes across the lifespan. Although continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to improve glycemic control in adults, its benefit in adolescents and young adults has not been demonstrated. Objective: To determine the effect of CGM on glycemic control in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted between January 2018 and May 2019 at 14 endocrinology practices in the US including 153 individuals aged 14 to 24 years with type 1 diabetes and screening hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7.5% to 10.9%. Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1 to undergo CGM (CGM group; n = 74) or usual care using a blood glucose meter for glucose monitoring (blood glucose monitoring [BGM] group; n = 79). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline to 26 weeks. There were 20 secondary outcomes, including additional HbA1c outcomes, CGM glucose metrics, and patient-reported outcomes with adjustment for multiple comparisons to control for the false discovery rate. Results: Among the 153 participants (mean [SD] age, 17 [3] years; 76 [50%] were female; mean [SD] diabetes duration, 9 [5] years), 142 (93%) completed the study. In the CGM group, 68% of participants used CGM at least 5 days per week in month 6. Mean HbA1c was 8.9% at baseline and 8.5% at 26 weeks in the CGM group and 8.9% at both baseline and 26 weeks in the BGM group (adjusted between-group difference, -0.37% [95% CI, -0.66% to -0.08%]; P = .01). Of 20 prespecified secondary outcomes, there were statistically significant differences in 3 of 7 binary HbA1c outcomes, 8 of 9 CGM metrics, and 1 of 4 patient-reported outcomes. The most commonly reported adverse events in the CGM and BGM groups were severe hypoglycemia (3 participants with an event in the CGM group and 2 in the BGM group), hyperglycemia/ketosis (1 participant with an event in CGM group and 4 in the BGM group), and diabetic ketoacidosis (3 participants with an event in the CGM group and 1 in the BGM group). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring compared with standard blood glucose monitoring resulted in a small but statistically significant improvement in glycemic control over 26 weeks. Further research is needed to understand the clinical importance of the findings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03263494.

HbA1c: The Glucose Management Indicator, Time in Range, and Standardization of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Reports in Clinical Practice.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use is growing rapidly among people with diabetes and beginning to be standard of care for managing glucose levels in insulin therapy. With this increased use, there is a need to standardize CGM data. CGM standardization has been set forth by expert panels. The Glucose Management Indicator is a concept using the CGM-derived mean glucose to provide a value that can be understood similarly to hemoglobin A1c. The times an individual spends in various glucose ranges is emerging as an important set of metrics. Metrics derived from patient CGM data are changing the way diabetes is managed.

Advanced Technology in the Management of Diabetes: Which Comes First-Continuous Glucose Monitor or Insulin Pump?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this article, we consider advanced technologies for the management of diabetes. RECENT FINDINGS: Specifically, we pose the question of which should come first: an insulin pump (CSII) or a continuous glucose monitor (CGM)? Historical perspective on both insulin delivery and glucose measurement is provided. Recently published clinical trials are reviewed. Practical issues including quality of life, patient education, and out-of-pocket cost are discussed. Based on available evidence and clinical experience, we favor CGM as a first-line technology recommendation for the treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D).

Young Children Have Higher Variability of Insulin Requirements: Observations During Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify age-related variability of insulin needs during day and night closed-loop insulin delivery. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from hybrid closed-loop studies involving young children (1-6 years old, n = 20), children (7-12 years, n = 21), adolescents (13-17 years, n = 15), and adults (>18 years, n = 58) with type 1 diabetes. The coefficient of variation quantified variability of insulin needs during 3 weeks of unrestricted-living hybrid closed-loop use. RESULTS: Data from 2,365 nights and 2,367 days in 114 participants were analyzed. The coefficient of variation of insulin delivery was higher in young children compared with adults (mean difference at nighttime 10.7 percentage points [95% CI 2.9-18.4], P = 0.003; daytime 6.4 percentage points [95% CI 2.0-10.9], P = 0.002) and compared with adolescents (mean difference at nighttime 10.2 percentage points [95% CI 0.0-20.4], P = 0.049; daytime 7.0 percentage points [95% CI 1.1-12.8], P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes management in young children is complicated by higher variability in insulin requirements, supporting fast-track clinical practice adoption of closed-loop in this vulnerable population.

Utilizing the Ambulatory Glucose Profile to Standardize and Implement Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Clinical Practice.

Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is recognized as a valuable component of diabetes self-management and is increasingly considered a standard of care for individuals with diabetes who are treated with intensive insulin therapy. As the clinical use of CGM technology expands, consistent and standardized glycemic metrics and glucose profile visualization have become increasingly important. A common set of CGM metrics has been proposed by an international expert panel in 2017, including standard definitions of time in ranges, glucose variability, and adequacy of data collection. We describe the core CGM metrics, as well as the standardized glucose profile format consolidating 2 weeks of CGM measurements, referred to as the ambulatory glucose profile (AGP), which was also recommended by the CGM expert panel. We present an updated AGP report featuring the core CGM metrics and a visualization of glucose patterns that need clinical attention. New tools for use by clinicians and patients to interpret AGP data are reviewed. Strategies based on the authors' experience in implementing CGM technology across the clinical care spectrum are highlighted.

Closed-loop insulin delivery in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, 12-week randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The achievement of glycaemic control remains challenging for patients with type 1 diabetes. We assessed the effectiveness of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in people with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, multinational, single-period, parallel randomised controlled trial, participants were recruited from diabetes outpatient clinics at four hospitals in the UK and two centres in the USA. We randomly assigned participants with type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older treated with insulin pump and with suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·5-10·0%) to receive either hybrid closed-loop therapy or sensor-augmented pump therapy over 12 weeks of free living. Training on study insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring took place over a 4-week run-in period. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned using central randomisation software. Allocation to the two study groups was unblinded, and randomisation was stratified within centre by low (<8·5%) or high (≥8·5%) HbA1c. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range of 3·9-10·0 mmol/L at 12 weeks post randomisation. Analyses of primary outcome and safety measures were done in all randomised patients. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02523131, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: From May 12, 2016, to Nov 17, 2017, 114 individuals were screened, and 86 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive hybrid closed-loop therapy (n=46) or sensor-augmented pump therapy (n=40; control group). The proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range was significantly higher in the closed-loop group (65%, SD 8) compared with the control group (54%, SD 9; mean difference in change 10·8 percentage points, 95% CI 8·2 to 13·5; p<0·0001). In the closed-loop group, HbA1c was reduced from a screening value of 8·3% (SD 0·6) to 8·0% (SD 0·6) after the 4-week run-in, and to 7·4% (SD 0·6) after the 12-week intervention period. In the control group, the HbA1c values were 8·2% (SD 0·5) at screening, 7·8% (SD 0·6) after run-in, and 7·7% (SD 0·5) after intervention; reductions in HbA1c percentages were significantly greater in the closed-loop group compared with the control group (mean difference in change 0·36%, 95% CI 0·19 to 0·53; p<0·0001). The time spent with glucose concentrations below 3·9 mmol/L (mean difference in change -0·83 percentage points, -1·40 to -0·16; p=0·0013) and above 10·0 mmol/L (mean difference in change -10·3 percentage points, -13·2 to -7·5; p<0·0001) was shorter in the closed-loop group than the control group. The coefficient of variation of sensor-measured glucose was not different between interventions (mean difference in change -0·4%, 95% CI -1·4% to 0·7%; p=0·50). Similarly, total daily insulin dose was not different (mean difference in change 0·031 U/kg per day, 95% CI -0·005 to 0·067; p=0·09) and bodyweight did not differ (mean difference in change 0·68 kg, 95% CI -0·34 to 1·69; p=0·19). No severe hypoglycaemia occurred. One diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group due to infusion set failure. Two participants in each study group had significant hyperglycaemia, and there were 13 other adverse events in the closed-loop group and three in the control group. INTERPRETATION: Hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery improves glucose control while reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia across a wide age range in patients with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes. FUNDING: JDRF, NIHR, and Wellcome Trust.

Time Savings Using a Standardized Glucose Reporting System and Ambulatory Glucose Profile.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes care is predominately done at home by the patient. When clinics do not have a reliable, easy process for obtaining this patient data, clinical decisions must be made with incomplete verbal recall reports. Unused or inaccessible glucose data represent a large information gap affecting clinical decision making. This study's purpose was to design an optimized glucose device download system with a standardized report and to evaluate its efficiency. METHODS: Observations and evaluations of glucose data retrieval occurred at two clinics; an additional clinic utilized the optimized process doing only post process timings. Patients/families and clinicians were surveyed about their experiences with the system and the standardized report (AGP). The study was approved by all the sites' IRBs. RESULTS: Optimized systems saved staff at least 3 min per patient. Standardized AGP reports and an optimized data system made the work flow of glucose data easier to complete. The AGP report was preferred by patients, families, and clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: An optimized system takes advantage of patient lobby downtime to download glucose devices and ensures that diabetes clinical decisions are made utilizing all available data. Staff and patients liked the software lobby system and found it a valuable time-saving tool.

Assessing the effectiveness of a 3-month day-and-night home closed-loop control combined with pump suspend feature compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in youths and adults with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a randomised parallel study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite therapeutic advances, many individuals with type 1 diabetes are unable to achieve tight glycaemic target without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. The objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a 3-month day-and-night home closed-loop glucose control combined with a pump suspend feature, compared with sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy in youths and adults with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study adopts an open-label, multi-centre, multi-national (UK and USA), randomised, single-period, parallel design and aims for 84 randomised patients. Participants are youths (6-21 years) or adults (>21 years) with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy and suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.5% (58 mmol/mol) and ≤10% (86 mmol/mol)). Following a 4-week run-in period, eligible participants will be randomised to a 3-month use of automated closed-loop insulin delivery combined with pump suspend feature or to sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome is the time spent in the target glucose range from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L based on continuous glucose monitoring levels during the 3-month free-living phase. Secondary outcomes include HbA1c at 3 months, mean glucose, time spent below and above target; time with glucose levels <3.5 and <2.8 mmol/L; area under the curve when sensor glucose is <3.5 mmol/L, time with glucose levels >16.7 mmol/L, glucose variability; total, basal and bolus insulin dose and change in body weight. Participants' and their families' perception in terms of lifestyle change, daily diabetes management and fear of hypoglycaemia will be evaluated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics/institutional review board approval has been obtained. Before screening, all participants/guardians will be provided with oral and written information about the trial. The study will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02523131; Pre-results.

Determining the influence of type 1 diabetes on two common eating disorder questionnaires.

PURPOSE: This research evaluated the level of influence that having type 1 diabetes (T1DM) has on responses to questions about food choices, eating concerns, dietary restraint, and others that are included on two widely used, validated eating disorder (ED) questionnaires and examined responses to these two questionnaires from patients with T1DM and an eating disorder (ED-T1DM) and an ED-no-diabetes. METHOD: An expert panel rated each item on the Eating Disorders Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) and Eating Disorders Inventory, version 3 (EDI-3) regarding T1DM level of influence on item interpretation. These questionnaires were completed by 2 matched samples (ED-T1DM, n = 48 and ED-no-diabetes, n = 96); responses were compared between the samples with particular attention to items of high T1DM influence. RESULTS: The expert panel identified that 50% (19/38) of the items on the EDE-Q and 6.6% (6/91) on the EDI-3 could be highly influenced by having T1DM. Before Bonferroni correction, the 2 groups responded statistically different on 9 out of 38 items on the EDE-Q and 27 out of 91 items on the EDI-3; generally responses were healthier for those with ED-T1DM than ED-no-diabetes. Of these items, on the EDE-Q, 5 were rated high T1DM influence and on the EDI-3, 3 were rated high. CONCLUSION: Having T1DM influences responses on ED questionnaires developed for the general population. This influence may be greater when questionnaires focus on eating, weight, and shape and result in misinterpretation of total and subscale scores by even well-trained clinicians. A careful review of individual item responses by the treatment team is warranted.

Effectiveness of sensor-augmented pump therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in the STAR 3 study.

OBJECTIVE: Maintenance of appropriate A1C values and minimization of hyperglycemic excursions are difficult for many pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy is an alternative to multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy in this population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Sensor-augmented pump therapy for A1C reduction (STAR 3) was a 1-yr trial that included 82 children (aged 7-12) and 74 adolescents (aged 13-18) with A1C values ranging from 7.4 to 9.5% who were randomized to either SAP or MDI therapy. Quarterly A1C values were obtained from all subjects. CGM studies were carried out at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months to quantify glycemic excursions [calculated as area under the glucose concentration-time curve (AUC)] and variability. In the SAP group, sensor compliance was recorded. RESULTS: Baseline A1C values were similar in subjects randomized to the SAP (8.26 ± 0.55%) and MDI groups (8.30 ± 0.53%). All subsequent A1C values showed significant (p < 0.05) treatment group differences favoring SAP therapy. Compared with the MDI group, subjects in the SAP group were more likely to meet age-specific A1C targets and had lower AUC values for hyperglycemia with no increased risk of hypoglycemia. Glucose variability improved in the SAP group compared to the MDI group. Children wore CGM sensors more often and were more likely to reach age-specific A1C targets than adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: SAP therapy allows both children and adolescents with marginally or inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes to reduce A1C values, hyperglycemic excursions, and glycemic variability in a rapid, sustainable, and safe manner.