Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injection therapy in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to compare glycemic control and pregnancy outcomes in women with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) using multiple daily injection therapy (MDI) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and to compare outcomes of women treated with long-acting insulin or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH). METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study involved women with pregestational T1DM treated with MDI and CSII. Primary outcome was glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) before and during pregnancy. Secondary outcomes included maternal and neonatal outcomes and quality of life. RESULTS: Of the 121 studied women, the average age was 28.48 years, and the average body mass index was 21.29 kg/m2 at conception and 26.32 kg/m2 at delivery. Of the studied women, 78.51% had planned pregnancy. Women treated with MDI and CSII had comparable HbA1c before pregnancy or in the first and second trimesters. In the third trimester, women on CSII therapy had significantly lower HbA1c (6.07 ± 0.62 vs 6.20 ± 0.88%, p = .017), higher HbA1c on-target rate (71.43% vs 64.62%, p = .030), and greater decline of HbA1c from preconception to the third trimester (-0.65 vs -0.30%, p = .047). Fewer daily insulin requirements were observed in those used CSII compared with MDI-treated women (0.60 ± 0.22 vs 0.73 ± 0.25 U/kg/day, p = .004). Newborns born of mothers treated with the CSII method were more likely to have neonatal jaundice (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-6.57) and neonatal intensive care unit (adjusted OR 3.73, 95%CI 1.24-11.16), and women on CSII had lower scores in patient-reported quality of life (p = .045). In the MDI group, those receiving long-acting insulin had nonsignificant lower HbA1c and higher HbA1c on-target rate in the second and third trimesters, compared with those treated with NPH. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin pump users may achieve better glycemic control than multiple daily insulin injections, which did not substantially improve pregnancy outcome.

Long-term assessment of the NHS hybrid closed-loop real-world study on glycaemic outcomes, time-in-range, and quality of life in children and young people with type 1 diabetes.

Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems seamlessly interface continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with insulin pumps, employing specialised algorithms and user-initiated automated insulin delivery. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of HCLs at 12 months post-initiation on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), time-in-range (TIR), hypoglycaemia frequency, and quality of life measures among children and young people (CYP) with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and their caregivers in a real-world setting. Conducted between August 1, 2021, and December 10, 2022, the prospective recruitment took place in eight paediatric diabetes centres across England under the National Health Service England's (NHSE) HCL pilot real-world study. A cohort of 251 CYP (58% males, mean age 12.3 years) with T1DM participated (89% white, 3% Asian, 4% black, 3% mixed ethnicity, and 1% other). The study utilised three HCL systems: (1) Tandem Control-IQ AP system, which uses the Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump (Tandem Diabetes Care, San Diego, CA, USA) with the Dexcom G6® CGM (Dexcom, San Diego, CA, USA) sensor; (2) Medtronic MiniMed™ 780G with the Guardian 4 sensor (Medtronic, Northridge, CA, USA); and (3) the CamAPS FX (CamDiab, Cambridge, UK) with the Ypsomed insulin pump (Ypsomed Ltd, Escrick, UK) and Dexcom G6® CGM.All systems were fully funded by the NHS. Results demonstrated significant improvements in HbA1c (average reduction at 12 months 7 mmol/mol; P < 0.001), time-in-range (TIR) (average increase 13.4%; P < 0.001), hypoglycaemia frequency (50% reduction), hypoglycaemia fear, and quality of sleep (P < 0.001) among CYP over a 12-month period of HCL usage. Additionally, parents and carers experienced improvements in hypoglycaemia fear and quality of sleep after 6 and 12 months of use. In addition to the improvements in glycaemic management, these findings underscore the positive impact of HCL systems on both the well-being of CYP with T1DM and the individuals caring for them.

Diabetic Ketoacidosis at Onset of Type 1 Diabetes and Glycemic Outcomes with Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery.

The presence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes (T1D) is associated with higher glycated hemoglobin levels over time. We evaluated whether hybrid-closed loop (HCL) therapy from onset of T1D could prevent the adverse impact of DKA at diagnosis on long-term glycemic outcomes. This was a posthoc analysis from 51 adolescents using HCL from diagnosis of T1D as part of the CLOuD trial (NCT02871089). We compared glycemic and insulin metrics between adolescents with (n = 17) and without (n = 34) DKA at diagnosis. Participants with and without DKA at diagnosis had similar time in target glucose range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL), time below range (<3.9 mmol/L, <70 mg/dL) and HbA1c at 6, 12, and 24 months. While insulin requirements at 6 months were higher in those with DKA at diagnosis, this was not statistically significant after adjusting for bodyweight. Residual C-peptide secretion was similar between groups. We conclude that HCL therapy may mitigate against the negative glycemic effects of DKA at T1D diagnosis.

Lived Experience of Fully Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Introduction: The Closing the Loop in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes (CLEAR) randomized crossover study compared a novel fully closed-loop insulin delivery system with no carbohydrate entry or mealtime bolusing (CamAPS HX), with standard insulin pump therapy and glucose sensor in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic outcomes. This qualitative substudy aimed to understand the psychosocial impact of using the fully automated system. Materials and Methods: Adults participating in the CLEAR study were invited to take part in a virtual semistructured interview after they had completed 8 weeks using the fully closed-loop system. Recruitment continued until there was adequate representation and data saturation occurred. Interviews were anonymized and transcribed for in-depth thematic analysis using an inductive-deductive approach. Study participants were also asked to complete questionnaires assessing diabetes distress, hypoglycemia confidence, and closed-loop treatment satisfaction. Results: Eleven participants (eight male and three female; age range 26-66 years) were interviewed. After an initial adjustment period, interviewees reported enjoying a reduction in diabetes burden, freed-up mental capacity, and improved mood. All were happy with overnight glycemic outcomes, with the majority reporting benefits on sleep. Although experiences of postprandial glucose outcomes varied, all found mealtimes easier and less stressful, particularly when eating out. Negatives raised by participants predominantly related to the insulin pump hardware, but some also reported increased snacking and challenges around resuming carbohydrate counting at trial closeout. Conclusions: In adults with type 1 diabetes, use of a fully closed-loop insulin delivery system had significant quality-of-life benefits and provided a welcome break from the day-to-day demands of living with diabetes. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04977908.

Bihormonal fully closed-loop system for the treatment of type 1 diabetes: a real-world multicentre, prospective, single-arm trial in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Management of insulin administration for intake of carbohydrates and physical activity can be burdensome for people with type 1 diabetes on hybrid closed-loop systems. Bihormonal fully closed-loop (FCL) systems could help reduce this burden. In this trial, we assessed the long-term performance and safety of a bihormonal FCL system. METHODS: The FCL system (Inreda AP; Inreda Diabetic, Goor, Netherlands) that uses two hormones (insulin and glucagon) was assessed in a 1 year, multicentre, prospective, single-arm intervention trial in adults with type 1 diabetes. Participants were recruited in eight outpatient clinics in the Netherlands. We included adults with type 1 diabetes aged 18-75 years who had been using flash glucose monitoring or continuous glucose monitors for at least 3 months. Study visits were integrated into standard care, usually every three months, to evaluate glycaemic control, adverse events, and person-reported outcomes. The primary endpoint was time in range (TIR; glucose concentration 3·9-10·0 mmol/L) after 1 year. The study is registered in the Dutch Trial Register, NL9578. FINDINGS: Between June 1, 2021, and March 2, 2022, we screened 90 individuals and enrolled 82 participants; 78 were included in the analyses. 79 started the intervention and 71 were included in the 12 month analysis. Mean age was 47.7 (SD 12·4) years and 38 (49%) were female participants. The mean preintervention TIR of participants was 55·5% (SD 17·2). After 1 year of FCL treatment, mean TIR was 80·3% (SD 5·4) and median time below range was 1·36% (IQR 0·80-2·11). Questionnaire scores improved on Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) from 30·0 (IQR 18·8-41·3) preintervention to 10·0 (IQR 3·8-21·3; p<0·0001) at 12 months and on World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5) from 60·0 (IQR 44·0-72·0) preintervention to 76·0 (IQR 60·0-80·0; p<0·0001) at 12 months. Five serious adverse events were reported (one cerebellar stroke, two severe hypoglycaemic, and two hyperglycaemic events). INTERPRETATION: Real-world data obtained in this trial demonstrate that use of the bihormonal FCL system was associated with good glycaemic control in patients who completed 1 year of treatment, and could help relieve these individuals with type 1 diabetes from making treatment decisions and the burden of carbohydrate counting. FUNDING: Inreda Diabetic.

Glucometrics and device satisfaction in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes using different treatment modalities: A multicenter real-world observational study.

AIMS: To analyze metabolic outcomes, diabetes impact and device satisfaction in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in Italy who used different treatment modalities for diabetes care in a real-life context. METHODS: In this multicenter, nationwide, cross-sectional study, 1464 participants were enrolled at a routine visit. The following treatment modalities were considered MDI + SMBG; MDI + CGM; Sensor Augmented Pump Therapy; predictive management of low glucose; Hybrid Closed Loop (HCL); Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop (AHCL). Health related quality of life was evaluated by the Italian version of the Diabetes Impact and Device Satisfaction Scale (DIDS) questionnaire. RESULTS: Patients treated with AID systems were more likely to have HbA1c ≤ 6.5 %, higher percentage of time with glucose levels between 70 and 180 mg/dL, lower percentage of time with glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, higher device satisfaction, and reduced impact of diabetes. All the therapeutic modalities with respect to MDI + CGM, except for MDI + SMBG, contributed to increase the device satisfaction. HCL and AHCL respect to MDI + CGM were associated with lower diabetes impact. CONCLUSION: Real-life use of automated insulin delivery systems is associated with reduced type 1 diabetes impact, increased device satisfaction, and achievement of glycemic goals.

Dispositivos médicos en pacientes diabéticos y dermatitis de contacto / Medical Devices in Patients With Diabetes and Contact Dermatitis

El desarrollo y comercialización de los sensores de glucosa y las bombas de insulina han supuesto una revolución en el control de los pacientes diabéticos. En los últimos años se han detectado múltiples casos de dermatitis de contacto relacionados con estos dispositivos médicos, con el creciente interés sobre los alérgenos responsables de la sensibilización. Isobornil acrilato fue sin duda el alérgeno principal del dispositivo FreeStyle, motivando al fabricante a modificar la composición eliminando este alérgeno. Curiosamente, este alérgeno está presente en casi todos los sensores comercializados. La colofonia y derivados del ácido abiético desempeñan un papel relevante en cuanto al adhesivo. Recientemente aparecen nuevos componentes identificados como alérgenos, no comercializadas, como el dipropilene glicol diacrilato, la N,N-dimetilacrilamida, o el metacrilato de trietilenglicol, que están siendo foco de estudio. El impacto positivo que tiene el uso de estos dispositivos puede verse mermado por la sensibilización a uno de sus ingredientes, obligando en ocasiones a abandonar el dispositivo, y por ende, restando calidad de vida. El dermatólogo debe posicionarse respecto al estudio dirigido de estos pacientes, dando soporte a los servicios de endocrinología, con la finalidad de orientar tanto el cuidado de la piel como las alternativas posibles, especialmente con la colaboración de los fabricantes.(AU)

The development and commercialization of glucose sensors and insulin pumps has revolutionized the management of diabetes. These devices have been linked to multiple cases of contact dermatitis in recent years, however, giving rise to a growing interest in identifying the sensitizing allergens. Isobornyl acrylate was clearly identified as one of the main allergens responsible for contact dermatitis among users of the FreeStyle glucose sensor and was subsequently removed from the product ingredients. Remarkably, however, it is still used in most other sensors on the market. The common adhesive ingredients colophony and abietic acid derivatives have also been shown to be sensitizing agents. New components under study, such as dipropylene glycol diacrylate, N,N-dimethylacrylamide, and triethylene glycol methacrylate have recently been identified as allergens, though they are not commercially available for clinical testing. The benefits offered by glucose sensors and insulin pumps may be offset by sensitization to product ingredients, in some cases forcing discontinuation and diminishing quality of life. Dermatologists should play a role in this clinical and research scenario, offering case-by-case guidance to endocrinologists on skin care and possible alternatives for patients with glucose sensors and insulin pumps who develop contact dermatitis. They should also collaborate with the manufacturers developing these devices.(AU)

[Translated article] Medical Devices in Patients With Diabetes and Contact Dermatitis / Dispositivos médicos en pacientes diabéticos y dermatitis de contacto

El desarrollo y comercialización de los sensores de glucosa y las bombas de insulina han supuesto una revolución en el control de los pacientes diabéticos. En los últimos años se han detectado múltiples casos de dermatitis de contacto relacionados con estos dispositivos médicos, con el creciente interés sobre los alérgenos responsables de la sensibilización. Isobornil acrilato fue sin duda el alérgeno principal del dispositivo FreeStyle, motivando al fabricante a modificar la composición eliminando este alérgeno. Curiosamente, este alérgeno está presente en casi todos los sensores comercializados. La colofonia y derivados del ácido abiético desempeñan un papel relevante en cuanto al adhesivo. Recientemente aparecen nuevos componentes identificados como alérgenos, no comercializadas, como el dipropilene glicol diacrilato, la N,N-dimetilacrilamida, o el metacrilato de trietilenglicol, que están siendo foco de estudio. El impacto positivo que tiene el uso de estos dispositivos puede verse mermado por la sensibilización a uno de sus ingredientes, obligando en ocasiones a abandonar el dispositivo, y por ende, restando calidad de vida. El dermatólogo debe posicionarse respecto al estudio dirigido de estos pacientes, dando soporte a los servicios de endocrinología, con la finalidad de orientar tanto el cuidado de la piel como las alternativas posibles, especialmente con la colaboración de los fabricantes.(AU)

The development and commercialization of glucose sensors and insulin pumps has revolutionized the management of diabetes. These devices have been linked to multiple cases of contact dermatitis in recent years, however, giving rise to a growing interest in identifying the sensitizing allergens. Isobornyl acrylate was clearly identified as one of the main allergens responsible for contact dermatitis among users of the FreeStyle glucose sensor and was subsequently removed from the product ingredients. Remarkably, however, it is still used in most other sensors on the market. The common adhesive ingredients colophony and abietic acid derivatives have also been shown to be sensitizing agents. New components under study, such as dipropylene glycol diacrylate, N,N-dimethylacrylamide, and triethylene glycol methacrylate have recently been identified as allergens, though they are not commercially available for clinical testing. The benefits offered by glucose sensors and insulin pumps may be offset by sensitization to product ingredients, in some cases forcing discontinuation and diminishing quality of life. Dermatologists should play a role in this clinical and research scenario, offering case-by-case guidance to endocrinologists on skin care and possible alternatives for patients with glucose sensors and insulin pumps who develop contact dermatitis. They should also collaborate with the manufacturers developing these devices.(AU)

Diabetes Technology in People with Type 2 Diabetes: Novel Indications.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetes technology has been continuously evolving. Current versions of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) use minimally invasive designs, monitor glucose values with high accuracy, and can be used to guide insulin dosing. Extensive evidence supports the use of diabetes technology for monitoring and insulin administration in people with type 1 diabetes. However, there is emerging evidence for people with type 2 diabetes. In this review, we present the different technological devices used to monitor glucose and deliver insulin and the evidence supporting their use in people with type 2 diabetes. RECENT FINDINGS: The use of CGMs in people with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin or non-insulin therapies has been associated with improvements in glycemic control and time spent in hypoglycemia. Smart insulin pens and smart connected devices are options to track compliance and guide insulin delivery in people who do not require insulin pump therapy. Mechanical patch pumps can be used to reduce the burden of multiple daily insulin injections. Automated insulin delivery algorithms improve glycemic control without an increase in hypoglycemia. The use of technology in the management of type 2 diabetes generates glycemic data previously inaccessible, reduces barriers for insulin initiation, improves glycemic control, tracks adherence to therapy, and improves user satisfaction.

Demographic, Clinical, Management, and Outcome Characteristics of 8,004 Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare demographic, clinical, and therapeutic characteristics of children with type 1 diabetes age <6 years across three international registries: Diabetes Prospective Follow-Up Registry (DPV; Europe), T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Network (T1DX-QI; U.S.), and Australasian Diabetes Data Network (ADDN; Australasia). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: An analysis was conducted comparing 2019-2021 prospective registry data from 8,004 children. RESULTS: Mean ± SD ages at diabetes diagnosis were 3.2 ± 1.4 (DPV and ADDN) and 3.7 ± 1.8 years (T1DX-QI). Mean ± SD diabetes durations were 1.4 ± 1.3 (DPV), 1.4 ± 1.6 (T1DX-QI), and 1.5 ± 1.3 years (ADDN). BMI z scores were in the overweight range in 36.2% (DPV), 41.8% (T1DX-QI), and 50.0% (ADDN) of participants. Mean ± SD HbA1c varied among registries: DPV 7.3 ± 0.9% (56 ± 10 mmol/mol), T1DX-QI 8.0 ± 1.4% (64 ± 16 mmol/mol), and ADDN 7.7 ± 1.2% (61 ± 13 mmol/mol). Overall, 37.5% of children achieved the target HbA1c of <7.0% (53 mmol/mol): 43.6% in DPV, 25.5% in T1DX-QI, and 27.5% in ADDN. Use of diabetes technologies such as insulin pump (DPV 86.6%, T1DX 46.6%, and ADDN 39.2%) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM; DPV 85.1%, T1DX-QI 57.6%, and ADDN 70.5%) varied among registries. Use of hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems was uncommon (from 0.5% [ADDN] to 6.9% [DPV]). CONCLUSIONS: Across three major registries, more than half of children age <6 years did not achieve the target HbA1c of <7.0% (53 mmol/mol). CGM was used by most participants, whereas insulin pump use varied across registries, and HCL system use was rare. The differences seen in glycemia and use of diabetes technologies among registries require further investigation to determine potential contributing factors and areas to target to improve the care of this vulnerable group.

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.

Perioperative Insulin Pump Therapy Decreases Readmission Risk and Improves Outcomes in Patients with Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of temporary insulin pump use during hospitalization on glycemia, postoperative complications, and cost/utilization in perioperative patients with diabetes. METHODS: Patients (n=159) with type 2 diabetes and hospitalized for elective surgery were recruited from three hospitals. Subjects were categorized into the insulin pump group and the multiple daily subcutaneous insulin injection group according to their treatment therapy. Data were collected at admission, discharge, and 3 months post-discharge. RESULTS: Subjects in the CSII group who were still on insulin therapy transitioned from CSII to MDII; however, their daily insulin dosages were lower than those in the MDII group (15.31±10.98 U/d vs. 23.48±17.02 U/d, P=0.015) after discharge. In terms of medical costs, the CSII group had significantly higher hospitalization costs than the MDII group (112.36±103.43 thousand RMB vs. 82.65±77.98 thousand RMB, P=0.043). After 3 months, the CSII group had significantly lower outpatient costs than the MDII group (3.17±0.94 thousand RMB vs. 3.98±1.76 thousand RMB, P ˂ 0.001). In the MDII group, 10 patients reported severe postoperative complications requiring re-hospitalization; there were no similar reports in the CSII group. CONCLUSION: Temporary use of insulin pump therapy for perioperative patients with diabetes results in a reduction in blood glucose and blood glucose fluctuation during hospitalization, HbA1c, and the risk of postoperative complication and readmission, thus significantly decreasing costs in this complex patient cohort. Further work is needed to better understand indications for utilizing pump therapy based on diabetes phenotype and the complexity of planned surgical intervention.

Multiple basal infusion rates in open-loop insulin delivery systems: is there a metabolic benefit?

Objective: To evaluate glycemic control according to the number of daily basal rates (BRs) in type 1 diabetes patients using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Subjects and methods: Cross-sectional study of patients treated with an open-loop CSII for at least 6 months and using a flash glucose monitoring system. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1 (G1) and group 2 (G2), with ≤4 and >4 BRs/24h, respectively. The groups were compared regarding HbA1c, time in range (TIR), time above range (TAR), time below range (TBR), glucose management indicator (GMI), glucose variability and data related to hypoglycemia. Regression models were performed. Results: The study included 99 patients (n = 55 in G1; n = 44 in G2). Median (Interquartile range) overall age was 30 (17) years, with 19.5 (48) and 51 (77) months of CSII use, respectively. The median number of different BRs was 3 (2) for G1 and 6 (2) for G2. There were no differences concerning age, sex, educational stage, weight, and insulin analog used. G2 had longer disease duration, longer CSII use, and higher total basal daily dose/kg. No significant differences regarding HbA1c, median glucose, GMI, TIR, TAR, and CV were found. G2 patients had more hypoglycemia, more asymptomatic hypoglycemia, and higher TBR. After adjusting for potential confounders, G1 maintained a lower risk of asymptomatic hypoglycemia. Conclusion: Programming open-loop CSII devices with more than 4 BRs does not improve metabolic control. Additionally, it seems to be a risk factor for hypoglycemia and was an independent predictor for asymptomatic hypoglycemia.

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.

"You can hide it if you want to, you can let it be seen if you want to": A qualitative study of the lived experiences of Australian adults with type 1 diabetes using the Omnipod DASH® system.

AIMS: Understanding the lived experience of using a tubeless insulin pump and how this differs compared to usual care (tubed insulin pump therapy (IPT) vs multiple daily injections (MDI)). METHODS: Interviews were conducted after 12-weeks of using the Omnipod DASH Insulin Management System (Insulet, Acton, MA) and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-eight adults (35 female; mean age 42;SD 13 years; 35 previous MDI) were interviewed. Most (84 %) wanted to continue using the device. Experiences fit two themes: 1. Taking back control of my diabetes: many previous MDI users perceived improved glycaemic control, explained by more "nuanced" control, with some reporting positive effects during exercise and sleep. Many previous MDI and IPT users endorsed positive experiences in concealing or disclosing their diabetes to others. However, some previous MDI users reported negative psychosocial experiences due to feeling continuously "attached" to their diabetes. 2. Barriers and facilitators of device acceptability: both MDI and IPT users cited wearability, alarms and the financial cost impacted their choice to continue device use. IPT users reported positive wearability experiences. CONCLUSIONS: The tubeless pump improved diabetes management perceptions for both MDI and tubed pump users. However, participants' prior glucose management affected perceptions of its advantages and disadvantages.

Real-World Evidence of Automated Insulin Delivery System Use.

Objective: Pivotal trials of automated insulin delivery (AID) closed-loop systems have demonstrated a consistent picture of glycemic benefit, supporting approval of multiple systems by the Food and Drug Administration or Conformité Européenne mark receipt. To assess how pivotal trial findings translate to commercial AID use, a systematic review of retrospective real-world studies was conducted. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for articles published after 2018 with more than five nonpregnant individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Data were screened/extracted in duplicate for sample size, AID system, glycemic outcomes, and time in automation. Results: Of 80 studies identified, 20 met inclusion criteria representing 171,209 individuals. Time in target range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was the primary outcome in 65% of studies, with the majority of reports (71%) demonstrating a >10% change with AID use. Change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was reported in nine studies (range 0.1%-0.9%), whereas four reported changes in glucose management indicator (GMI) with a 0.1%-0.4% reduction noted. A decrease in HbA1c or GMI of >0.2% was achieved in two-thirds of the studies describing change in HbA1c and 80% of articles where GMI was described. Time below range <70 mg/dL (<3.9 mmol/L) was reported in 16 studies, with all but 1 study showing stable or reduced levels. Most systems had >90% time in automation. Conclusion: With larger and more diverse populations, and follow-up periods of longer duration (∼9 months vs. 3-6 months for pivotal trials), real-world retrospective analyses confirm pivotal trial findings. Given the glycemic benefits demonstrated, AID is rapidly becoming the standard of care for all people living with T1D. Individuals should be informed of these systems and differences between them, have access to and coverage for these technologies, and receive support as they integrate this mode of insulin delivery into their lives.

Future of Time-in-Range Goals in the Era of Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Automated Insulin Delivery Systems.

The concept of maintaining blood glucose levels within the 70-180 mg/dL range, known as time-in-range, has raised questions regarding its representation of true physiological euglycemia. Some have speculated that focusing on the time spent within the 70-140 mg/dL range, introduced as time in tight range (TITR) through the International Consensus statement, could serve as a more precise metric for assessing normoglycemia in individuals with type 1 diabetes. This article delves into the current status of TITR as an emerging marker and explores how advanced hybrid closed-loop systems may offer a promising avenue for achieving this higher level of glycemic control.

Celebrating the Data from 100,000 Real-World Users of the MiniMed™ 780G System in Europe, Middle East, and Africa Collected Over 3 Years: From Data to Clinical Evidence.

Introduction: The present report celebrates the benchmarking of 100,000 MiniMed™ 780G system users in Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) and summarizes the major insights into the usability and outcomes of this system. Methods: Carelink Personal data (August 2020-August 2023) of users living in EMEA were analyzed. Continuous glucose monitoring-based endpoints were aggregated for (1) the full cohort and (2) a 12-month longitudinal cohort. Subanalyses were done for users on optimal settings (those spending ≥95% of time with glucose target of 100 mg/dL, and ≥95% of time with active insulin time of 2 h), for self-reported age groups (≤15 and ≥56 years) and for various countries/regions. Results: Data from 101,629 users (34 countries) were analyzed. Mean time in range (TIR) was 72.3%, glucose management indicator (GMI) was 7%, time below 70 mg/dL (TBR70) was 2.0% and time below 54 mg/dL (TBR54) was 0.4%. In terms of international targets, 59.6% of users achieved a GMI <7%, 62.5% a TIR >70%, 88.4% a TBR70 < 4%, and 90.0% a TBR54 < 1%. Data improved impressively in optimal setting users (TIR = 78.8%, and users reaching TIR >70% = 86.3%) while safety remained (TBR70 = 2.2% and TBR54 = 0.4%). Data showed consistency across self-reported age groups and geographies. In the longitudinal cohort, TIR reached 75.5% in the first month and remained 73.3% or higher over the 12-month period. Conclusion: Over 100,000 users of the MiniMed™ 780G system have demonstrated consistency in achieving target control of glycemia.

Twelve-Month Follow-up from a Randomized Controlled Trial of Simplified Meal Announcement Versus Precise Carbohydrate Counting in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Using the MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System.

Background and Aims: Carbohydrate counting is a well-established tool for self-management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and can improve glycemic control and potentially reduce long-term complication risk. However, it can also be burdensome, error-prone, and complicated for the patient. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate glycemic control with carbohydrate counting ("flex") versus simplified meal announcement ("fix") in adolescents with T1D using the MiniMed™ 780G system. The present study reports follow-up data to 12 months. Methods: Adolescents with T1D were randomly assigned 1:1 to use the MiniMed™ 780G system alongside the flex versus fix approaches. Participants were followed for 12 months with outcomes recorded at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was the difference in time-in-range (TIR), and secondary endpoints included glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and other glucose and insulin metrics. Results: At 12 months, TIR (proportion of time with sensor glucose 70-180 mg/dL) was significantly lower in the fix versus flex group (72.9% vs. 80.1%, respectively; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in HbA1c between the fix (6.8% ± 0.5%) and flex groups (6.5% ± 0.5%) at 12 months (P = 0.092), and mean HbA1c was below 7% at all time points in both arms. Conclusions: Glycemic control with simplified meal announcement was maintained over 12 months. On average, the international consensus targets were met in both arms for all time points. The simplified approach represents a viable alternative to carbohydrate counting, particularly in people who find the latter burdensome; however, carbohydrate counting resulted in superior TIR. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT05069727.