Improved Satisfaction While Maintaining Safety and High Time in Range (TIR) With a Medtronic Investigational Enhanced Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (e-AHCL) System.

OBJECTIVE: To determine feasibility and compare acceptance of an investigational Medtronic enhanced advanced hybrid closed-loop (e-AHCL) system in adults with type 1 diabetes with earlier iterations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This nonrandomized three-stage (12 weeks each) exploratory study compared e-AHCL (Bluetooth-enabled MiniMed 780G insulin pump with automatic data upload [780G] incorporating an updated algorithm; calibration-free all-in-one disposable sensor; 7-day infusion set) preceded by a run-in (non-Bluetooth 780G [670G V4.0 insulin pump] requiring manual data upload; Guardian Sensor 3 [GS3] requiring calibration; 3-day infusion set), stage 1 (780G; GS3; 3-day infusion set), and stage 2 (780G; calibration-free Guardian Sensor 4; 3-day infusion set). Treatment satisfaction was assessed by Diabetes Technology Questionnaire (DTQ)-current (primary outcome) and other validated treatment satisfaction tools with glucose outcomes by continuous glucose monitoring metrics. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 22 (11 women) participants (baseline HbA1c 6.7%/50 mmol/mol) completed the study. DTQ-current scores favored e-AHCL (123.1 [17.8]) versus run-in (101.6 [24.2]) and versus stage 1 (110.6 [20.8]) (both P < 0.001) but did not differ from stage 2 (119.4 [16.0]; P = 0.271). Diabetes Medication System Rating Questionnaire short-form scores for "Convenience and Efficacy" favored e-AHCL over run-in and all stages. Percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL was greater with e-AHCL versus run-in and stage 2 (+2.9% and +3.6%, respectively; both P < 0.001). Percent times of <70 mg/dL for e-AHCL were significantly lower than run-in, stage 1, and stage 2 (-0.9%, -0.6%, and -0.5%, respectively; all P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: e-AHCL was feasible. User satisfaction increased compared with earlier Medtronic HCL iterations without compromising glucose control.

Driving with Type 1 Diabetes: Real-World Evidence to Support Starting Glucose Level and Frequency of Monitoring During Journeys.

There is limited evidence supporting the recommendation that drivers with insulin-treated diabetes need to start journeys with glucose >90 mg/dL. Glucose levels of drivers with type 1 diabetes were monitored for 3 weeks using masked continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Eighteen drivers (median [IQR] age 40 [35, 51] years; 11 men) undertook 475 trips (duration 15 [13, 21] min). Hypoglycemia did not occur in any trip starting with glucose >90 mg/dL (92%; n = 436). Thirteen drivers recorded at least one trip (total n = 39) starting with glucose <90 mg/dL. Among these, driving glucose was <70 mg/dL in five drivers (38%) during 10 trips (26%). Among five drivers (28%), a ≥ 36 mg/dL drop was observed within 20 min of starting their journey. Journey duration was positively associated with maximum glucose change. These findings support current guidelines to start driving with glucose >90 mg/dL, and to be aware that glucose levels may change significantly within 20 min. A CGM-based, in-vehicle display could provide glucose information and alerts that are compatible with safe driving. Clinical Trial Registration number: ACTRN12617000520336.

Less Nocturnal Hypoglycemia but Equivalent Time in Range Among Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Using Insulin Pumps Versus Multiple Daily Injections.

Background: This prerandomization analysis from the Australian HCL-Adult trial (registration number: ACTRN12617000520336) compared masked continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics among adults using insulin pumps versus multiple daily injections (MDIs), who were all self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG). Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes, using an insulin pump or MDIs without real-time CGM (and entering a trial of closed-loop technology), were eligible. MDI users were given an insulin dosage calculator. All participants received diabetes and carbohydrate-counting education, then wore masked CGM sensors for 3 weeks. Ethics Approval: HREC-D 088/16 Results: Adults using MDIs (n = 61) versus pump (n = 59) did not differ by age, sex, diabetes duration, insulin total daily dose, or HbA1c at baseline. After education, median (interquartile range) CGM time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was 54% (47, 62) for those using MDIs and 56% (48, 66) for those using pump (P = 0.40). All CGM metrics were equivalent for 24 h/day for MDI and pump users. Overnight, those using MDIs (vs. pump) spent more time with glucose <54 mg/dL (<3.0 mmol/L): 1.4% (0.1, 5.1) versus 0.5% (0.0, 2.0), respectively (P = 0.012). They also had more CGM hypoglycemia episodes (121 vs. 54, respectively; incidence rate ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.48 [1.51, 4.06]; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Adults with type 1 diabetes using pumps versus MDIs in conjunction with SMBG experienced less nocturnal hypoglycemia, measured by masked CGM, after equivalent diabetes and dietary education in conjunction with insulin dosage calculator provision to all. However, both groups had equivalent TIR. This observation may reflect advantages afforded by flexibility in basal insulin delivery provided by pumps.

Six Months of Hybrid Closed-Loop Versus Manual Insulin Delivery With Fingerprick Blood Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate glycemic and psychosocial outcomes with hybrid closed-loop (HCL) versus user-determined insulin dosing with multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump (i.e., standard therapy for most adults with type 1 diabetes). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes using MDI or insulin pump without continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) were randomized to 26 weeks of HCL (Medtronic 670G) or continuation of current therapy. The primary outcome was masked CGM time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL) during the final 3 weeks. RESULTS: Participants were randomized to HCL (n = 61) or control (n = 59). Baseline mean (SD) age was 44.2 (11.7) years, HbA1c was 7.4% (0.9%) (57 [10] mmol/mol), 53% were women, and 51% used MDI. HCL TIR increased from (baseline) 55% (13%) to (26 weeks) 70% (10%) with the control group unchanged: (baseline) 55% (12%) and (26 weeks) 55% (13%) (difference 15% [95% CI 11, 19]; P < 0.0001). For HCL, HbA1c was lower (median [95% CI] difference -0.4% [-0.6, -0.2]; -4 mmol/mol [-7, -2]; P < 0.0001) and diabetes-specific positive well-being was higher (difference 1.2 [95% CI 0.4, 1.9]; P < 0.0048) without a deterioration in diabetes distress, perceived sleep quality, or cognition. Seventeen (9 device-related) versus 13 serious adverse events occurred in the HCL and control groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with type 1 diabetes, 26 weeks of HCL improved TIR, HbA1c, and their sense of satisfaction from managing their diabetes compared with those continuing with user-determined insulin dosing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. For most people living with type 1 diabetes globally, this trial demonstrates that HCL is feasible, acceptable, and advantageous.