Closed-Loop Therapy and Preservation of C-Peptide Secretion in Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Whether improved glucose control with hybrid closed-loop therapy can preserve C-peptide secretion as compared with standard insulin therapy in persons with new-onset type 1 diabetes is unclear. METHODS: In a multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized trial, we assigned youths 10.0 to 16.9 years of age within 21 days after a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes to receive hybrid closed-loop therapy or standard insulin therapy (control) for 24 months. The primary end point was the area under the curve (AUC) for the plasma C-peptide level (after a mixed-meal tolerance test) at 12 months after diagnosis. The analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: A total of 97 participants (mean [±SD] age, 12±2 years) underwent randomization: 51 were assigned to receive closed-loop therapy and 46 to receive control therapy. The AUC for the C-peptide level at 12 months (primary end point) did not differ significantly between the two groups (geometric mean, 0.35 pmol per milliliter [interquartile range, 0.16 to 0.49] with closed-loop therapy and 0.46 pmol per milliliter [interquartile range, 0.22 to 0.69] with control therapy; mean adjusted difference, -0.06 pmol per milliliter [95% confidence interval {CI}, -0.14 to 0.03]). There was not a substantial between-group difference in the AUC for the C-peptide level at 24 months (geometric mean, 0.18 pmol per milliliter [interquartile range, 0.06 to 0.22] with closed-loop therapy and 0.24 pmol per milliliter [interquartile range, 0.05 to 0.30] with control therapy; mean adjusted difference, -0.04 pmol per milliliter [95% CI, -0.14 to 0.06]). The arithmetic mean glycated hemoglobin level was lower in the closed-loop group than in the control group by 4 mmol per mole (0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 0 to 8 mmol per mole [0.0 to 0.7 percentage points]) at 12 months and by 11 mmol per mole (1.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 7 to 15 mmol per mole [0.5 to 1.5 percentage points]) at 24 months. Five cases of severe hypoglycemia occurred in the closed-loop group (in 3 participants), and one occurred in the control group; one case of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group. CONCLUSIONS: In youths with new-onset type 1 diabetes, intensive glucose control for 24 months did not appear to prevent the decline in residual C-peptide secretion. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and others; CLOuD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02871089.).

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.

Real world use of hybrid-closed loop in children and young people with type 1 diabetes mellitus-a National Health Service pilot initiative in England.

AIMS: Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems are characterised by integrating continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with insulin pumps that automate insulin delivery via specific algorithms and user-initiated insulin delivery. The aim of the study was to evaluate effectiveness of HCLs on HbA1c, time-in-range (TIR), hypoglycaemia frequency and quality of life measures in children and young people (CYP) with T1D, and their carers. METHODS: Patients were recruited prospectively into the National Health Service (NHS) England real-world HCL observational study from the 1st of August 2021 to the 10th of December 2022 from eight paediatric diabetes centres in England. RESULTS: There were 251 CYP (147 males, 58%) with T1DM recruited with a mean age at recruitment of 12.3 (SD 3.5) (range 2-19) years. Eighty nine per cent of the CYP were of white ethnicity, 3% Asian, 4% black and 3% mixed ethnicity, and 1% were recorded as others. The HCL systems used in the study were: (1) Tandem Control-IQ AP system, which uses the Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump (Tandem Diabetes Care, San Diego, CA) with the Dexcom G6® CGM (Dexcom, San Diego, CA) sensor; (2) Medtronic MiniMed™ 780G (Medtronic, Northridge, CA) and (3) CamAPS FX (CamDiab, Cambridge, UK.) All systems were fully funded by the national health service. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the NHS England Closed Loop Study in Children and Young People showed improvements in glycaemic control, TIR, frequency of hypoglycaemia, hypoglycaemia fear and quality of sleep for children and young people when using HCL for 6 months. Hypoglycaemia fear and quality of sleep were also improved for their parents and carers at 6 months.

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.

Effect of 48 Months of Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery on Residual C-Peptide Secretion and Glycemic Control in Newly Diagnosed Youth With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effect of long-term intensive metabolic control with hybrid closed-loop (CL) on residual C-peptide secretion and glucose control compared with standard insulin therapy in youth with type 1 diabetes over 48 months. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Following the 24-month primary phase of a multicenter, randomized, parallel trial of 96 newly diagnosed youth aged 10 to 16.9 years, participants were invited to an extension phase using treatment allocated at randomization. They continued with hybrid CL using the Cambridge algorithm or standard insulin therapy (control) until 48 months after diagnosis. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: At 24 months after diagnosis, 81 participants (mean ± SD age 14 ± 2 years) continued in the extension phase (47 CL, 34 control). There was no difference in fasting C-peptide corrected for fasting glucose at 48 months between groups (CL: 5 ± 9 vs. control: 6 ± 14 pmol/L per mmol/L; mean adjusted difference -2 [95% CI -7, 4; P = 0.54]). Central laboratory HbA1c remained lower in the CL group by 0.9% (10 mmol/mol [95% CI 0.2, 1.5; 3, 17 mmol/mol); P = 0.009). Time in target range of 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L was 12 percentage points (95% CI 3, 20; P = 0.008) higher in the CL group compared with control. There were 11 severe hypoglycemic events (6 CL, 5 control) and 7 diabetic ketoacidosis events (3 CL, 4 control) during the extension phase. CONCLUSIONS: Improved glycemic control was sustained over 48 months after diagnosis with CL insulin delivery compared with standard therapy in youth with type 1 diabetes. This did not appear to confer a protective effect on residual C-peptide secretion.

Closed-Loop Therapy and Sleep in Young People Newly Diagnosed With T1D and Their Parents.

BACKGROUND: A diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in a young person can create vulnerability for sleep. Historically it has been rare for young people to be offered a closed-loop system soon after diagnosis meaning that studies examining sleep under these circumstances in comparison with standard treatment have not been possible. In this study, we examine sleep in young people (and their parents) who were provided with hybrid closed-loop therapy at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes versus those who receive standard treatment over a 2-year period. METHODS: The sample comprised 97 participants (mean age = 12.0 years; SD = 1.7) from a multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel trial, where young people were randomized to either hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery or standard care at diagnosis. Sleep was measured using actigraphy and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) in the young people, and using the PSQI in parents. RESULTS: Sleep in young people using hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery did not differ significantly compared with those receiving standard care (although there were nonsignificant trends for better sleep in the closed-loop group for 4 of the 5 sleep actigraphy measures and PSQI). Similarly, there were nonsignificant differences for sleep between the groups at 24 months (with mixed direction of effects). CONCLUSIONS: This study assessed for the first time sleep in young people using a closed-loop system soon after diagnosis. Although sleep was not significantly different for young people using closed-loop insulin delivery as compared with those receiving standard care, the direction of effects of the nonsignificant results indicates a possible tendency for better sleep quality in the hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery group at the beginning of the treatment.

Evaluating the Impact of Applying Personal Glucose Targets in a Closed-Loop System for People With Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: CamAPS FX is a hybrid closed-loop smartphone app used to manage type one diabetes. The closed-loop algorithm has a default target glucose of 5.8 mmol/L (104.5 mg/dL), but users can select personal glucose targets (adjustable between 4.4 mmol/L and 11.0 mmol/L [79 mg/dL and 198 mg/dL, respectively]). METHOD: In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of personal glucose targets on glycemic control using data from participants in five randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: Personal glucose targets were widely used, with 20.3% of all days in the data set having a target outside the default target bin (5.5-6.0 mmol/L [99-108 mg/dL]). Personal glucose targets >6.5 mmol/L (117 mg/dL) were associated with significantly less time in target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]; 6.5-7.0 mmol/L [117-126 mg/dL]: mean difference = -3.2 percentage points [95% CI: -5.3 to -1.2; P < .001]; 7.0-7.5 mmol/L [126-135 mg/dL]: -10.8 percentage points [95% CI: -14.1 to -7.6; P < .001]). Personal targets >6.5 mmol/L (117 mg/dL) were associated with significantly lower time (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]; 6.5-7.0 mmol/L [117-126 mg/dL]: -1.85 percentage points [95% CI: -2.37 to -1.34; P < .001]; 7.0-7.5 mmol/L [126-135 mg/dL]: -2.68 percentage points [95% CI: -3.49 to -1.86; P < .001]). CONCLUSIONS: Discrete study populations showed differences in glucose control when applying similar personal targets.

Safety of User-Initiated Intensification of Insulin Delivery Using Cambridge Hybrid Closed-Loop Algorithm.

OBJECTIVE: Many hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems struggle to manage unusually high glucose levels as experienced with intercurrent illness or pre-menstrually. Manual correction boluses may be needed, increasing hypoglycemia risk with overcorrection. The Cambridge HCL system includes a user-initiated algorithm intensification mode ("Boost"), activation of which increases automated insulin delivery by approximately 35%, while remaining glucose-responsive. In this analysis, we assessed the safety of "Boost" mode. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from closed-loop studies involving young children (1-7 years, n = 24), children and adolescents (10-17 years, n = 19), adults (≥24 years, n = 13), and older adults (≥60 years, n = 20) with type 1 diabetes. Outcomes were calculated per participant for days with ≥30 minutes of "Boost" use versus days with no "Boost" use. Participants with <10 "Boost" days were excluded. The main outcome was time spent in hypoglycemia <70 and <54 mg/dL. RESULTS: Eight weeks of data for 76 participants were analyzed. There was no difference in time spent <70 and <54 mg/dL between "Boost" days and "non-Boost" days; mean difference: -0.10% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.28 to 0.07; P = .249) time <70 mg/dL, and 0.03 (-0.04 to 0.09; P = .416) time < 54 mg/dL. Time in significant hyperglycemia >300 mg/dL was 1.39 percentage points (1.01 to 1.77; P < .001) higher on "Boost" days, with higher mean glucose and lower time in target range (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of an algorithm intensification mode in HCL therapy is safe across all age groups with type 1 diabetes. The higher time in hyperglycemia observed on "Boost" days suggests that users are more likely to use algorithm intensification on days with extreme hyperglycemic excursions.

Delivering early care in diabetes evaluation (DECIDE): a protocol for a randomised controlled trial to assess hospital versus home management at diagnosis in childhood diabetes.

BACKGROUND: There is increased incidence of new cases of type 1 diabetes in children younger than 15 years. The debate concerning where best to manage newly diagnosed children continues. Some units routinely admit children to hospital whilst others routinely manage children at home. A Cochrane review identified the need for a large well-designed randomised controlled trial to investigate any significant differences in comprehensive short and long-term outcomes between the two approaches. The DECIDE study will address these knowledge gaps, providing high quality evidence to inform national and international policy and practice. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial across eight UK paediatric diabetes centres. The study aims to recruit 240 children newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and their parents/carers. Eligible patients (aged 0-17 years) will be remotely randomised to either 'hospital' or 'home' management. Parents/carers of patients will also be recruited. Nursing management of participants and data collection will be co-ordinated by a project nurse at each centre. Data will be collected for 24 months after diagnosis; at follow up appointments at 3, 12 and 24 months and every 3-4 months at routine clinic visits.The primary outcome measure is patients' glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at 24 months after diagnosis. Additional measurements of HbA1c will be made at diagnosis and 3 and 12 months later. HbA1c concentrations will be analysed at a central laboratory.Secondary outcome measures include length of stay at diagnosis, growth, adverse events, quality of life, anxiety, coping with diabetes, diabetes knowledge, home/clinic visits, self-care activity, satisfaction and time off school/work. Questionnaires will be sent to participants at 1, 12 and 24 months and will include a questionnaire, developed and validated to measure impact of the diagnosis on social activity and independence. Additional qualitative outcome measures include the experience of both approaches by a subgroup of participants (n = 30) and health professionals. Total health service costs will be evaluated. A cost effectiveness analysis will assess direct and indirect health service costs against the primary outcome (HbA1c). DISCUSSION: This will be the first randomised controlled trial to evaluate hospital and home management of children newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and the findings should provide important evidence to inform practice and national guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: ISRCTN78114042.

Data Sharing While Using a Closed-Loop System: Qualitative Study of Adolescents' and Parents' Experiences and Views.

Objective: To understand and explore data sharing practices among adolescents and their parents using a closed-loop system. Methods: Eighteen adolescents (aged 11-18 years) and 19 parents were interviewed after adolescents had ∼6 months experience of using a closed-loop system, which permitted them to share glucose and insulin data with parents/caregivers. Data were analyzed thematically. Results: There was considerable variability in how parent-child dyads perceived, valued, and undertook data sharing. Parents of early adolescents (11-13 years) reported making extensive use of "real time" data to remotely manage their child's diabetes and early adolescents described needing and wanting this input. Parents of middle adolescents (14-16 years) described making greater use of retrospective data. To avoid conflict and encourage and support their son/daughter's autonomy, these individuals reported practicing watchful waiting and only intervening after concerns about a pattern of problematic behavior or their child's safety arose. Middle adolescents indicated that data sharing had been done primarily for the benefit of their parents, although they also noted quality of life benefits for themselves. Among late adolescents (17+ years), parents were simply remote because their son/daughter had not permitted access to their data. Participants recommended clear ground rules be put in place about when, and how, data sharing should be used. Conclusions: To help parent-child dyads use data sharing in ways which minimize conflict and optimize constructive parental support, we recommend tailored input and support, which takes account of family dynamics, the young person's developmental maturity, and the different ways in which data are used across the adolescent age range.

Adolescents' Experiences of Using a Smartphone Application Hosting a Closed-loop Algorithm to Manage Type 1 Diabetes in Everyday Life: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop technology may help address health disparities experienced by adolescents, who are more likely to have suboptimal glycemic control than other age groups and, because of their age, find diabetes self-management particularly challenging. The CamAPS FX closed-loop has sought to address accessibility and usability issues reported by users of previous prototype systems. It comprises small components and a smartphone app used to: announce meal-time boluses, adjust ("boost" or "ease-off") closed-loop insulin delivery, customize alarms, and review/share data. We explored how using the CamAPS FX platform influences adolescents' self-management practices and everyday lives. METHODS: Eighteen adolescents were interviewed after having ≥6 months experience using the closed-loop platform. Data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Participants reported feeling less burdened and shackled by diabetes because closed-loop components were easier to carry/wear, finger-pricks were not required, the smartphone app provided a discreet and less stigmatizing way of managing diabetes in public, and they were able to customize alarms. Participants also reported checking and reviewing data more regularly, because they did so when using the smartphone for other reasons. Some reported challenges in school settings where use of personal phones was restricted. Participants highlighted how self-management practices were improved because they could easily review glucose data and adjust closed-loop insulin delivery using the "boost" and "ease-off" functions. Some described how using the system resulted in them forgetting about diabetes and neglecting certain tasks. CONCLUSIONS: A closed-loop system with small components and control algorithm on a smartphone app can enhance usability and acceptability for adolescents and may help address the health-related disparities experienced by this age group. However, challenges can arise from using a medical app on a device which doubles as a smartphone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Closed Loop From Onset in Type 1 Diabetes (CLOuD); NCT02871089; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02871089.

What Training, Support, and Resourcing Do Health Professionals Need to Support People Using a Closed-Loop System? A Qualitative Interview Study with Health Professionals Involved in the Closed Loop from Onset in Type 1 Diabetes (CLOuD) Trial.

Background: We explored health professionals' views about the training, support, and resourcing needed to support people using closed-loop technology in routine clinical care to help inform the development of formal guidance. Methods: Interviews were conducted with health professionals (n = 22) delivering the Closed Loop from Onset in Type 1 Diabetes (CLOuD) trial after they had ≥6 months' experience of supporting participants using a closed-loop system. Data were analyzed descriptively. Results: Interviewees described how, compared with other insulin regimens, teaching and supporting individuals to use a closed-loop system could be initially more time-consuming. However, they also noted that after an initial adjustment period, users had less need for initiating contact with the clinical team compared with people using pumps or multiple daily injections. Interviewees highlighted how a lessened need for ad hoc clinical input could result in new challenges; specifically, they had fewer opportunities to reinforce users' diabetes knowledge and skills and detect potential psychosocial problems. They also observed heightened anxiety among some parents due to the constant availability of data and unrealistic expectations about the system's capabilities. Interviewees noted that all local diabetes teams should be empowered to deliver closed-loop system care, but stressed that health professionals supporting closed-loop users in routine care will need comprehensive technology training and standardized clinical guidance. Conclusion: These findings constitute an important starting point for the development of formal guidance to support the rollout of closed-loop technology. Our recommendations, if actioned, will help limit the potential additional burden of introducing closed-loop systems in routine clinical care and help inform appropriate user education and support.

Assessing the effect of closed-loop insulin delivery from onset of type 1 diabetes in youth on residual beta-cell function compared to standard insulin therapy (CLOuD study): a randomised parallel study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Management of newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (T1D) in children and adolescents is challenging for patients, families and healthcare professionals. The objective of this study is to determine whether continued intensive metabolic control using hybrid closed-loop (CL) insulin delivery following diagnosis of T1D can preserve C-peptide secretion, a marker of residual beta-cell function, compared with standard multiple daily injections (MDI) therapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study adopts an open-label, multicentre, randomised, parallel design, and aims to randomise 96 participants aged 10-16.9 years, recruited within 21 days of diagnosis with T1D. Following a baseline mixed meal tolerance test (MMTT), participants will be randomised to receive 24 months treatment with conventional MDI therapy or with CL insulin delivery. A further 24-month optional extension phase will be offered to all participants to continue with the allocated treatment. The primary outcome is the between group difference in area under the stimulated C-peptide curve (AUC) of the MMTT at 12 months post diagnosis. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Key secondary outcomes are between group differences in time spent in target glucose range (3.9-10 mmol/L), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and time spent in hypoglycaemia (<3.9 mmol/L) at 12 months. Secondary efficacy outcomes include between group differences in stimulated C-peptide AUC at 24 months, time spent in target glucose range, glucose variability, hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia as recorded by periodically applied masked continuous glucose monitoring devices, total, basal and bolus insulin dose, and change in body weight. Cognitive, emotional and behavioural characteristics of participants and parents will be evaluated, and a cost-utility analysis performed to support adoption of CL as a standard treatment modality following diagnosis of T1D. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee. The results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02871089; Pre-results.

Effectiveness of home or hospital initiation of treatment at diagnosis for children with type 1 diabetes (DECIDE trial): a multicentre individually randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether, in children with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes who were not acutely unwell, management at home for initiation of insulin treatment and education of the child and family, would result in improved clinical and psychological outcomes at 2 years postdiagnosis. DESIGN: A multicentre randomised controlled trial (January 2008/October 2013). SETTING: Eight paediatric diabetes centres in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: 203 clinically well children aged under 17 years, with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes and their carers. INTERVENTION: Management of the initiation period from diagnosis at home, for a minimum of 3 days, to include at least six supervised injections and delivery of pragmatic educational care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration at 24 months postdiagnosis. Secondary outcomes included coping, anxiety, quality of life and use of NHS resources. RESULTS: 203 children, newly diagnosed, were randomised to commence management at home (n=101) or in hospital (n=102). At the 24 month primary end point, there was one withdrawal and a follow-up rate of 194/202 (96%). Mean HbA1c in the home treatment arm was 72.1 mmol/mol and in the hospital treated arm 72.6 mmol/mol. There was a negligible difference between the mean HbA1c levels in the two arms adjusted for baseline (1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09). There were mostly no differences in secondary outcomes at 24 months, apart from better child self-esteem in the home-arm. No home-arm children were admitted to hospital during initiation and there were no adverse events at that time. The number of investigations was higher in hospital patients during the follow-up period. There were no differences in insulin regimens between the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of a difference between home-based and hospital-based initiation of care in children newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes across relevant outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN78114042.

Assessing the efficacy, safety and utility of 6-month day-and-night automated closed-loop insulin delivery under free-living conditions compared with insulin pump therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: an open-label, multicentre, multinational, single-period, randomised, parallel group study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Closed-loop systems titrate insulin based on sensor glucose levels, providing novel means to reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia while improving glycaemic control. We will assess effectiveness of 6-month day-and-night closed-loop insulin delivery compared with usual care (conventional or sensor-augmented pump therapy) in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The trial adopts an open-label, multicentre, multinational (UK and USA), randomised, single-period, parallel design. Participants (n=130) are children and adolescents (aged ≥6 and <19 years) with type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year, and insulin pump use for at least 3 months with suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin ≥58 mmol/mol (7.5%) and ≤86 mmol/mol (10%)). After a 2-3 week run-in period, participants will be randomised to 6-month use of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery, or to usual care. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome is glycated haemoglobin at 6 months. Other key endpoints include time in the target glucose range (3.9-10 mmol/L, 70-180 mg/dL), mean sensor glucose and time spent above and below target. Secondary outcomes include SD and coefficient of variation of sensor glucose levels, time with sensor glucose levels <3.5 mmol/L (63 mg/dL) and <3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL), area under the curve of glucose <3.5 mmol/L (63 mg/dL), time with glucose levels >16.7 mmol/L (300 mg/dL), area under the curve of glucose >10.0 mmol/L (180 mg/dL), total, basal and bolus insulin dose, body mass index z-score and blood pressure. Cognitive, emotional and behavioural characteristics of participants and caregivers and their responses to the closed-loop and clinical trial will be assessed. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for closed-loop will be estimated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee and Jaeb Center for Health Research Institutional Review Office approved the study. The findings will be disseminated by peer-review publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02925299; Pre-results.

An alternative sensor-based method for glucose monitoring in children and young people with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine accuracy, safety and acceptability of the FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System in the paediatric population. DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: Eighty-nine study participants, aged 4-17 years, with type 1 diabetes were enrolled across 9 diabetes centres in the UK. A factory calibrated sensor was inserted on the back of the upper arm and used for up to 14 days. Sensor glucose measurements were compared with capillary blood glucose (BG) measurements. Sensor results were masked to participants. RESULTS: Clinical accuracy of sensor results versus BG results was demonstrated, with 83.8% of results in zone A and 99.4% of results in zones A and B of the consensus error grid. Overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) was 13.9%. Sensor accuracy was unaffected by patient factors such as age, body weight, sex, method of insulin administration or time of use (day vs night). Participants were in the target glucose range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) ∼50% of the time (mean 12.1 hours/day), with an average of 2.2 hours/day and 9.5 hours/day in hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia, respectively. Sensor application, wear/use of the device and comparison to self-monitoring of blood glucose were rated favourably by most participants/caregivers (84.3-100%). Five device related adverse events were reported across a range of participant ages. CONCLUSIONS: Accuracy, safety and user acceptability of the FreeStyle Libre System were demonstrated for the paediatric population. Accuracy of the system was unaffected by subject characteristics, making it suitable for a broad range of children and young people with diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02388815.

Factors Affecting Recruitment of Participants for Studies of Diabetes Technology in Newly Diagnosed Youth with Type 1 Diabetes: A Qualitative Focus Group Study with Parents and Children.

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about parents' or children's attitudes toward recruitment for, and participation in, studies of new diabetes technologies immediately after diagnosis. This study investigated factors affecting recruitment of participants for studies in newly diagnosed youth with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Qualitative focus group study incorporating four recorded focus groups, conducted in four outpatient pediatric diabetes clinics in large regional hospitals in England. Participants comprised four groups of parents (n = 22) and youth (n = 17) with type 1 diabetes, purposively sampled on the basis of past involvement (either participation or nonparticipation) in an ongoing two-arm randomized trial comparing multiple daily injection with conventional continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion regimens from the onset of type 1 diabetes. RESULTS: Stress associated with diagnosis presents significant challenges in terms of study recruitment, with parents demonstrating varied levels of willingness to be approached soon after diagnosis. Additional challenges arise regarding the following: randomization when study arms are perceived as sharply differentiated in terms of therapy effectiveness; burdens arising from study participation; and the need to surrender new technologies following the end of the study. However, these challenges were mostly insufficient to rule out study participation. Participants emphasized the benefits and reassurance arising from support provided by staff and fellow study participants. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment to studies of new diabetes technologies immediately after diagnosis in youth presents significant challenges, but these are not insurmountable. The stress and uncertainty arising from potential participation may be alleviated by personalized discussion with staff and peer support from fellow study participants.