Trial of Hybrid Closed-Loop Control in Young Children with Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop control systems of insulin delivery may improve glycemic outcomes in young children with type 1 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of initiating a closed-loop system virtually are unclear. METHODS: In this 13-week, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, children who were at least 2 years of age but younger than 6 years of age who had type 1 diabetes to receive treatment with a closed-loop system of insulin delivery or standard care that included either an insulin pump or multiple daily injections of insulin plus a continuous glucose monitor. The primary outcome was the percentage of time that the glucose level was in the target range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter, as measured by continuous glucose monitoring. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of time that the glucose level was above 250 mg per deciliter or below 70 mg per deciliter, the mean glucose level, the glycated hemoglobin level, and safety outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 102 children underwent randomization (68 to the closed-loop group and 34 to the standard-care group); the glycated hemoglobin levels at baseline ranged from 5.2 to 11.5%. Initiation of the closed-loop system was virtual in 55 patients (81%). The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the glucose level was within the target range increased from 56.7±18.0% at baseline to 69.3±11.1% during the 13-week follow-up period in the closed-loop group and from 54.9±14.7% to 55.9±12.6% in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference, 12.4 percentage points [equivalent to approximately 3 hours per day]; 95% confidence interval, 9.5 to 15.3; P<0.001). We observed similar treatment effects (favoring the closed-loop system) on the percentage of time that the glucose level was above 250 mg per deciliter, on the mean glucose level, and on the glycated hemoglobin level, with no significant between-group difference in the percentage of time that the glucose level was below 70 mg per deciliter. There were two cases of severe hypoglycemia in the closed-loop group and one case in the standard-care group. One case of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving young children with type 1 diabetes, the glucose level was in the target range for a greater percentage of time with a closed-loop system than with standard care. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; PEDAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04796779.).

Automated Insulin Delivery in Women with Pregnancy Complicated by Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid closed-loop insulin therapy has shown promise for management of type 1 diabetes during pregnancy; however, its efficacy is unclear. METHODS: In this multicenter, controlled trial, we randomly assigned pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and a glycated hemoglobin level of at least 6.5% at nine sites in the United Kingdom to receive standard insulin therapy or hybrid closed-loop therapy, with both groups using continuous glucose monitoring. The primary outcome was the percentage of time in the pregnancy-specific target glucose range (63 to 140 mg per deciliter [3.5 to 7.8 mmol per liter]) as measured by continuous glucose monitoring from 16 weeks' gestation until delivery. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary outcomes were the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state (glucose level >140 mg per deciliter), overnight time in the target range, the glycated hemoglobin level, and safety events. RESULTS: A total of 124 participants with a mean (±SD) age of 31.1±5.3 years and a mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level of 7.7±1.2% underwent randomization. The mean percentage of time that the maternal glucose level was in the target range was 68.2±10.5% in the closed-loop group and 55.6±12.5% in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference, 10.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.0 to 14.0; P<0.001). Results for the secondary outcomes were consistent with those of the primary outcome; participants in the closed-loop group spent less time in a hyperglycemic state than those in the standard-care group (difference, -10.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -13.8 to -6.6); had more overnight time in the target range (difference, 12.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 8.3 to 16.2), and had lower glycated hemoglobin levels (difference, -0.31 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.50 to -0.12). Little time was spent in a hypoglycemic state. No unanticipated safety problems associated with the use of closed-loop therapy during pregnancy occurred (6 instances of severe hypoglycemia, vs. 5 in the standard-care group; 1 instance of diabetic ketoacidosis in each group; and 12 device-related adverse events in the closed-loop group, 7 related to closed-loop therapy). CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid closed-loop therapy significantly improved maternal glycemic control during pregnancy complicated by type 1 diabetes. (Funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Program; AiDAPT ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN56898625.).

Multicenter, Randomized Trial of a Bionic Pancreas in Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Currently available semiautomated insulin-delivery systems require individualized insulin regimens for the initialization of therapy and meal doses based on carbohydrate counting for routine operation. In contrast, the bionic pancreas is initialized only on the basis of body weight, makes all dose decisions and delivers insulin autonomously, and uses meal announcements without carbohydrate counting. METHODS: In this 13-week, multicenter, randomized trial, we randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio persons at least 6 years of age with type 1 diabetes either to receive bionic pancreas treatment with insulin aspart or insulin lispro or to receive standard care (defined as any insulin-delivery method with unblinded, real-time continuous glucose monitoring). The primary outcome was the glycated hemoglobin level at 13 weeks. The key secondary outcome was the percentage of time that the glucose level as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring was below 54 mg per deciliter; the prespecified noninferiority limit for this outcome was 1 percentage point. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 219 participants 6 to 79 years of age were assigned to the bionic-pancreas group, and 107 to the standard-care group. The glycated hemoglobin level decreased from 7.9% to 7.3% in the bionic-pancreas group and did not change (was at 7.7% at both time points) in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference at 13 weeks, -0.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to -0.3; P<0.001). The percentage of time that the glucose level as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring was below 54 mg per deciliter did not differ significantly between the two groups (13-week adjusted difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The rate of severe hypoglycemia was 17.7 events per 100 participant-years in the bionic-pancreas group and 10.8 events per 100 participant-years in the standard-care group (P = 0.39). No episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In this 13-week, randomized trial involving adults and children with type 1 diabetes, use of a bionic pancreas was associated with a greater reduction than standard care in the glycated hemoglobin level. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04200313.).

The MiniMed 780G automated insulin delivery system adapts to substantial changes in daily routine: Lessons from real world users during Ramadan.

AIM: To report on the effectiveness and safety of the MiniMed 780G automated insulin delivery system in real-world users during the month of Ramadan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CareLink Personal data were extracted from MiniMed 780G system users from the Gulf region. Users were included if they had ≥10 days of sensor glucose data during the month of Ramadan 2022 as well as in the month before and after. For the main analysis, continuous glucose monitoring endpoints were aggregated per month and were reported by time of day (daytime: 05.31-18.00 h, and night-time). Additional analyses were performed to study the pace at which the algorithm adapts. RESULTS: Glycaemic control was well kept in the 449 included users (mean sensor glucose = 152.6 ± 18.7 mg/dl, glucose management indicator = 7.0 ± 0.4%, time in range = 70.7 ± 11.0%, time below 70 mg/dl = 2.3 ± 2.3%). Albeit some metrics differed from the month before (p < .0001 for all), absolute differences were very small and considered clinically irrelevant. During Ramadan, there was no increased risk of hypoglycaemia during daytime (time below 70 mg/dl = 2.3 ± 2.4%), time in range was highest during daytime (80.0 ± 10.7%, night: 60.4 ± 15.3%), while time above 180 mg/dl was highest during night-time (37.3 ± 16.3%, day: 17.7 ± 10.7%). The algorithm adapted immediately upon lifestyle change. CONCLUSION: The MiniMed 780G automated insulin delivery system is effective, safe and fast in adapting to the substantial changes that occur in the lifestyle of people with type 1 diabetes during Ramadan.

Prevalence of dermatitis including allergic contact dermatitis from medical devices used by children and adults with Type 1 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and questionnaire study.

Use of medical devices (MDs), that is, glucose sensors and insulin pumps, in patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) has proven an enormous advantage for disease control. Adverse skin reactions from these MDs may however hamper compliance. The objective of this study was to systematically review and analyse studies assessing the prevalence and incidence of dermatitis, including allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) related to MDs used in patients with T1D and to compare referral routes and the clinical investigation routines between clinics being part of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG). A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane databases of full-text studies reporting incidence and prevalence of dermatitis in persons with T1D using MDs was conducted until December 2021. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. The inventory performed at EECRDG clinics focused on referral routes, patient numbers and the diagnostic process. Among the 3145 screened abstracts, 39 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies included data on children only, 14 studies were on adults and nine studies reported data on both children and adults. Participants were exposed to a broad range of devices. Skin reactions were rarely specified. It was found that both the diagnostic process and referral routes differ in different centres. Further data on the prevalence of skin reactions related to MDs in individuals with T1D is needed and particularly studies where the skin reactions are correctly diagnosed. A correct diagnosis is delayed or hampered by the fact that, at present, the actual substances within the MDs are not declared, are changed without notice and the commercially available test materials are not adequately updated. Within Europe, routines for referral should be made more standardized to improve the diagnostic procedure when investigating patients with possible ACD from MDs.

A Randomized Trial of Closed-Loop Control in Children with Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: A closed-loop system of insulin delivery (also called an artificial pancreas) may improve glycemic outcomes in children with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: In a 16-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial, we assigned, in a 3:1 ratio, children 6 to 13 years of age who had type 1 diabetes to receive treatment with the use of either a closed-loop system of insulin delivery (closed-loop group) or a sensor-augmented insulin pump (control group). The primary outcome was the percentage of time that the glucose level was in the target range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter, as measured by continuous glucose monitoring. RESULTS: A total of 101 children underwent randomization (78 to the closed-loop group and 23 to the control group); the glycated hemoglobin levels at baseline ranged from 5.7 to 10.1%. The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the glucose level was in the target range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter increased from 53±17% at baseline to 67±10% (the mean over 16 weeks of treatment) in the closed-loop group and from 51±16% to 55±13% in the control group (mean adjusted difference, 11 percentage points [equivalent to 2.6 hours per day]; 95% confidence interval, 7 to 14; P<0.001). In both groups, the median percentage of time that the glucose level was below 70 mg per deciliter was low (1.6% in the closed-loop group and 1.8% in the control group). In the closed-loop group, the median percentage of time that the system was in the closed-loop mode was 93% (interquartile range, 91 to 95). No episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In this 16-week trial involving children with type 1 diabetes, the glucose level was in the target range for a greater percentage of time with the use of a closed-loop system than with the use of a sensor-augmented insulin pump. (Funded by Tandem Diabetes Care and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03844789.).

Evaluation of Lipohypertrophy in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus on Multiple Daily Insulin Injections or Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion.

OBJECTIVE: To determine lipohypertrophy (LH) in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) on multiple daily insulin injections (MDII) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and to reveal the factors associated with the development and severity of LH. METHODS: Sixty-six patients with T1DM treated with MDII (n = 35, 53%) or CSII (n = 31, 47%) for at least 1 year were included. LH localizations were detected with palpation and ultrasonography (USG). RESULTS: The LH detection rate with USG was significantly higher than that by palpation in the whole group (P < .001). The LH was detected with USG in 30 (85.7%) patients in the MDII group and 22 (71.0%) patients in the CSII group (P = .144). Advanced LH was detected in 13 (37.1%) of the patients treated with MDII and in 3 (9.7%) of the patients treated with CSII. LH was more severe in the MDII group than in the CSII group (P = .013). Diabetes duration and length of infusion set use were significantly longer and body mass index, hypoglycemia, and complication rates were higher in patients with LH than those in patients without LH (P < .05). A positive correlation was found between LH severity and HbA1C and insulin dose (P < .05, for both). MDII as insulin administration method, incorrect rotation, and a history of ketosis were found to be the most related factors with LH severity in a multiple linear regression analysis (P < .05). CONCLUSION: USG might be an effective approach for detecting and evaluating the severity of LH. MDII might cause more severe LH than CSII in patients with T1DM. In this study, LH was found to be associated mostly with incorrect rotation technique and a history of ketosis.

Nighttime hypoglycemia in Japanese children with type 1 diabetes mellitus treated with multiple daily injection insulin therapy.

Prevention of hypoglycemia is an important strategy for glycemic management in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D). Hypoglycemia is difficult to recognize at night while sleeping, particularly when using multiple daily injection (MDI) insulin therapy rather than sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy. Therefore, it is possible that patients with T1D are at higher risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia when insulin is administered using an MDI regimen. We investigated nocturnal hypoglycemia in 50 pediatric patients with T1D on MDI insulin therapy using data from an intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) system. Hypoglycemia was observed on 446 of the 1,270 nights studied. Most of the hypoglycemic episodes were severe (blood glucose <54 mg/dL). On nights when hypoglycemia occurred, the blood glucose concentrations measured using finger-stick blood glucose monitoring (FSGM) before sleep and the next morning were lower than nights when hypoglycemia did not occur. However, few values were below the normal blood glucose range, suggesting that FSGM alone may be insufficient to detect nocturnal hypoglycemia. Approximately 7% of time was spent below the normal glucose range during the 10 hours from 21:00 to 7:00 the next morning. This result suggests that the patients on MDI insulin therapy could end up spending more time in hypoglycemia than is recommended by the American Diabetes Association (time below range <4.0% of time per day). Monitoring glucose levels overnight using an isCGM sensor may improve glycemic management via automatic detection of blood glucose peaks and troughs.

Contact Dermatitis to Diabetes Medical Devices.

Skin adverse reactions to diabetes medical devices have been reported frequently over recent years. Adhesives attaching glucose sensors and continuous insulin infusion sets to the skin are proven to cause both allergic contact dermatitis and irritant contact dermatitis in patients with diabetes mellitus. Several allergens contained in adhesives and/or parts of medical devices are documented to cause allergic contact dermatitis, with acrylate chemicals being the most common culprit-especially isobornyl acrylate (IBOA), but also 2,2'-methylenebis(6-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol) monoacrylate or cyanoacrylates. Epoxy resin, colophonium and nickel were also identified as causative allergens. However, repetitive occlusion, maceration of the skin and resulting disruption of the skin barrier seem to have an impact on the development of skin lesions as well. The purpose of this study is to highlight the burden of contact dermatitis triggered by diabetes medical devices and to show possible mechanisms responsible for the development of contact dermatitis in a group of diabetic patients.

Six-Month Randomized, Multicenter Trial of Closed-Loop Control in Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop systems that automate insulin delivery may improve glycemic outcomes in patients with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: In this 6-month randomized, multicenter trial, patients with type 1 diabetes were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with a closed-loop system (closed-loop group) or a sensor-augmented pump (control group). The primary outcome was the percentage of time that the blood glucose level was within the target range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 10.0 mmol per liter), as measured by continuous glucose monitoring. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients underwent randomization; 112 were assigned to the closed-loop group, and 56 were assigned to the control group. The age range of the patients was 14 to 71 years, and the glycated hemoglobin level ranged from 5.4 to 10.6%. All 168 patients completed the trial. The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the glucose level was within the target range increased in the closed-loop group from 61±17% at baseline to 71±12% during the 6 months and remained unchanged at 59±14% in the control group (mean adjusted difference, 11 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 14; P<0.001). The results with regard to the main secondary outcomes (percentage of time that the glucose level was >180 mg per deciliter, mean glucose level, glycated hemoglobin level, and percentage of time that the glucose level was <70 mg per deciliter or <54 mg per deciliter [3.0 mmol per liter]) all met the prespecified hierarchical criterion for significance, favoring the closed-loop system. The mean difference (closed loop minus control) in the percentage of time that the blood glucose level was lower than 70 mg per deciliter was -0.88 percentage points (95% CI, -1.19 to -0.57; P<0.001). The mean adjusted difference in glycated hemoglobin level after 6 months was -0.33 percentage points (95% CI, -0.53 to -0.13; P = 0.001). In the closed-loop group, the median percentage of time that the system was in closed-loop mode was 90% over 6 months. No serious hypoglycemic events occurred in either group; one episode of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group. CONCLUSIONS: In this 6-month trial involving patients with type 1 diabetes, the use of a closed-loop system was associated with a greater percentage of time spent in a target glycemic range than the use of a sensor-augmented insulin pump. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; iDCL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03563313.).

Errors of commission or omission: The net risk safety analysis conversation we should be having around automated insulin delivery systems.

The question of safety often arises when discussing automated insulin delivery systems, but discussion of safety is often anchored on a comparison to the risk to a person without diabetes, overlooking the risks of living with insulin-requiring diabetes. We should use a net risk safety perspective for evaluating diabetes technology that takes into account the ongoing risks of insulin management for people living with diabetes.

Dual-hormone artificial pancreas for glucose control in type 1 diabetes: A meta-analysis.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a dual-hormone artificial pancreas (DH) in type 1 diabetes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies published up to February 16, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials that compared DH with single-hormone artificial pancreas (SH), continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) or sensor-augmented pumps (SAP), and predictive low glucose suspend systems (PLGS) in type 1 diabetes. The primary outcome was percent time in target (3.9-10 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]). Data were summarized as mean differences (MDs) or risk differences (RDs). RESULTS: A total of 17 randomized crossover trials (438 participants) were included. There were nine trials of DH versus SH, 13 trials of DH versus SAP/CSII, and two trials of DH versus PLGS. For time in target, DH showed no significant difference in time in target compared with SH (MD 2.69%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.38 to 5.76) but resulted in 16.05% (95% CI 12.06 to 20.05) and 6.89% (95% CI 2.63 to 11.14) more time in target range compared with SAP/CSII and PLGS, respectively. DH slightly reduced time in hypoglycaemia (MD -1.20%, 95% CI -1.85 to -0.56) but increased the risk of gastrointestinal symptoms (RD 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.27) compared with SH. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that DH has a comparable effect on time in target compared with SH, but is associated with a longer time in target range compared with SAP/CSII and PLGS. The DH slightly reduced time in hypoglycaemia but may increase the risk of gastrointestinal symptoms compared with the SH. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022314015.

Feasibility study of a prototype extended-wear insulin infusion set in adults with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To assess the feasibility of a prototype insulin infusion set (IIS) for extended wear in adults with type 1 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prototype Capillary Biomedical investigational extended-wear IIS (CBX IIS) incorporates a soft, flexible, reinforced kink-resistant angled nylon-derivative cannula with one distal and three proximal ports to optimize insulin delivery. Twenty adult participants with type 1 diabetes established on insulin pump therapy used the CBX IIS for two 7-day test periods while wearing a Dexcom G5 continuous glucose monitor. RESULTS: Participants were able to wear the CBX IIS for an average of 6.6 ± 1.4 days. Eighty-eight percent (36 of 41) of sets were worn for 7 days. No serious adverse events were reported. Five infusion sets failed prematurely because of: unresolvable hyperglycaemia (three); hyperglycaemia with elevated ketones (one); or infection (one). Median time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was 62% (54-76). Average glucose levels per day of infusion set wear showed a statistically significant increase over time (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary observations confirm the tolerability of the prototype CBX IIS for extended wear, albeit with a deterioration in glucose control after the third day.

In-home use of a hybrid closed loop achieves time-in-range targets in preschoolers and school children: Results from a randomized, controlled, crossover trial.

AIM: To obtain additional information on the incremental differences between using a sensor-augmented pump (SAP) without automated insulin delivery (AID), using it with predictive low-glucose management (PLGM) or as hybrid closed loop (HCL), in preschool and school children. METHODS: We conducted a monocentric, randomized, controlled, two-phase crossover study in 38 children aged 2-6 and 7-14 years. The primary endpoint was the percentage of time in range (TIR) of 70-180 mg/dl. Other continuous glucose sensor metrics, HbA1c, patient-related outcomes (DISABKIDS questionnaire, Fear of Hypoglycaemia Survey) and safety events were also assessed. Results from 2 weeks of SAP, 8 weeks of PLGM and 8 weeks of HCL were compared using a paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Overall, we found a high rate of TIR target (>70%) achievement with HCL in preschool (88%) and school children (50%), with average times in Auto Mode of 93% and 87%, respectively. Preschool children achieved a mean TIR of 73% ± 6% (+8% vs. SAP, +6% vs. PLGM) and school children 69% ± 8% (+15% vs. SAP and + 14% vs. PLGM). Overall, HbA1c improved from 7.4% ± 0.9% to 6.9% ± 0.5% (P = .0002). Diabetes burden and worries and fear of hypoglycaemia remained at low levels, without significant changes versus PLGM. No events of severe hypoglycaemia or diabetic ketoacidosis occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Preschool children profit from AID at least as much as those aged 7 years and older. To ensure safe use and prescribing modalities, regulatory approval is also required for young children.

Glycemic outcomes of children 2-6 years of age with type 1 diabetes during the pediatric MiniMed™ 670G system trial.

BACKGROUND: Highly variable insulin sensitivity, susceptibility to hypoglycemia and inability to effectively communicate hypoglycemic symptoms pose significant challenges for young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Herein, outcomes during clinical MiniMed™ 670G system use were evaluated in children aged 2-6 years with T1D. METHODS: Participants (N = 46, aged 4.6 ± 1.4 years) at seven investigational centers used the MiniMed™ 670G system in Manual Mode during a two-week run-in period followed by Auto Mode during a three-month study phase. Safety events, mean A1C, sensor glucose (SG), and percentage of time spent in (TIR, 70-180 mg/dl), below (TBR, <70 mg/dl) and above (TAR, >180 mg/dl) range were assessed for the run-in and study phase and compared using a paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: From run-in to end of study (median 87.1% time in auto mode), mean A1C and SG changed from 8.0 ± 0.9% to 7.5 ± 0.6% (p < 0.001) and from 173 ± 24 to 161 ± 16 mg/dl (p < 0.001), respectively. Overall TIR increased from 55.7 ± 13.4% to 63.8 ± 9.4% (p < 0.001), while TBR and TAR decreased from 3.3 ± 2.5% to 3.2 ± 1.6% (p = 0.996) and 41.0 ± 14.7% to 33.0 ± 9.9% (p < 0.001), respectively. Overnight TBR remained unchanged and TAR was further improved 12:00 am-6:00 am. Throughout the study phase, there were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and no serious adverse device-related events. CONCLUSIONS: At-home MiniMed™ 670G Auto Mode use by young children safely improved glycemic outcomes compared to two-week open-loop Manual Mode use. The improvements are similar to those observed in older children, adolescents and adults with T1D using the same system for the same duration of time.

Additional insulin dosing for fat and protein in children with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections.

OBJECTIVE: High-fat high-protein (HFHP) meals are associated with post-prandial hyperglycemia in type 1 diabetes (T1D), administration of additional insulin for such meals is recommended in order to optimize glucose levels. Optimal timing of additional insulin for HFHP meals in children and young people receiving multiple daily injections (MDI) remains unclear. AIM: To investigate the glycemic impact of additional insulin doses given before or after eating a HFHP meal in children with T1D using MDI. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized, controlled three period crossover trial of 27 participants aged 13 years (6.1-17.7) at two Pediatric Diabetes centers was conducted. Additional rapid-acting insulin for the fat-protein content of a standardized HFHP meal was given at three time points + 0 + 1 + 2 h of usual pre - prandial carbohydrate insulin ; calculated using an algorithm extrapolated from current evidence base and clinical recommendations. Post-prandial glucose (PPG) parameters were calculated for 420 minutes using continuous glucose monitoring. The primary outcome was mean PPG excursion. Secondary outcomes included peak glucose, time to peak and hypoglycemia incidence. RESULTS: There was no difference in post-prandial glucose parameters when additional HFHP insulin was administered at + 0 , + 1 , or + 2 h : mean glucose excursion (mmol/L) (SE): 1.9(0.7), 1.2(0.7), 2.5(0.7); p = 0.5); mean peak glucose (mmol/L)(SE): 10.9(0.9), 11.5(0.8), 11.5(0.9); p = 0.9; time to peak glucose (mins)(SE): 82.3(35.4), 113.6(30.9), 95.1(32.1); p = 0.8. Mild hypoglycemia was common (55%) in all groups (p = 0.97). CONCLUSION: We found no benefit in giving additional insulin as a split dose for HFHP meals in children using MDI, mild hypoglycemia was common. Future studies would benefit from refinement of the insulin dose algorithm.

Insulin pump therapy is associated with higher rates of mild diabetic ketoacidosis compared to injection therapy: A 2-year Swedish national survey of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) can occur during both insulin pump therapy (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, CSII) and insulin injection therapy (multiple daily injections, MDI). The primary aim of this study was to compare CSII and MDI regarding DKA frequency. A secondary aim was to compare metabolic derangement between CSII and MDI at hospital admission for DKA. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Children 0-17.99 years with established T1D admitted for DKA in Sweden from February 1, 2015 to January 31, 2017 were invited to participate. Data regarding demographics, laboratory data, CSII or MDI, and access to ketone meters and CGM were provided through questionnaires and medical records. The Swedish National Diabetes Registry (SWEDIABKIDS) was used to compare the distribution of CSII and MDI in the national population with the population admitted for DKA, using the chi-square goodness-of-fit test. Distribution of CSII and MDI was then categorized in clinical severity grades for mild (pH 7.20-7.29), moderate (pH 7.10-7.29) and severe DKA (pH <7.10). RESULTS: The distribution of CSII at DKA admission was significantly larger than in the national pediatric population with T1D (74.7% vs. 59.7%, p = 0.002). CSII was overrepresented in mild DKA (85.2% vs. with CSII, p < 0.001), but not in moderate/severe DKA (57.9% with CSII, p = 0.82). Mean HbA1c at hospital admission was 73.9 mmol/mol with CSII and 102.7 mmol/mol with MDI. CONCLUSIONS: CSII was associated with higher risk of mild DKA than MDI. MDI was associated with markedly higher HbA1c levels than CSII at hospital admission for DKA.

Health care organization and use of technological devices in people with diabetes in Italy: Results from a survey of the Working Group on Diabetes and Technology.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The use of technology offers recognized benefits to persons with diabetes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the organization of healthcare facilities, the composition of the diabetes team, and the use of Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) and Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) in Italy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Diabetes care centers were asked to complete a web survey based on information collected in 2018. Sixty-one pediatric and 243 adult centers participated in the survey, accounting for 507,386 patients, mostly with type 2 diabetes (86.4%). Fifty-three percent of pediatric centers and 11% of adult centers reported a team composed of diabetologists, nurses, and psychologists. Overall, 13,204 patients (2.6%) were using CSII (95% with type 1 diabetes), and 28,936 (5.7%), were using CGM (74% with type 1 diabetes). When stratifying for the type of diabetes, 24% and 40.8% of patients with type 1 were using CSII and CGM, respectively, whereas low use of technology was reported for patients with type 2 and women with gestational diabetes. The percentage of adult and pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes on CSII and CGM was respectively 21% and 32%, and 35% and 57%. CONCLUSIONS: The spread of CGM and CSII increased in Italy between 2013 and 2018. However, the percentage of users is still lower than what is expected based on clinical indications for use of technology. The inadequate number of professionals in the diabetes care team and insufficient economic resources are relevant barriers to disseminating technology for diabetes management.

Efficacy and safety of closed-loop insulin delivery versus sensor-augmented pump in the treatment of adults with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Controversy remains regarding whether closed-loop (CL) insulin delivery or insulin sensor-augmented pump (SAP) delivery is more efficient for clinical treatment. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of CL insulin delivery systems versus insulin SAP delivery for adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and other databases were searched for related articles, and we analyzed the average blood glucose (BG), time in range (TIR), and adverse effects (AEs) as primary endpoints to evaluate efficacy and safety. RESULTS: Of 1616 articles, 12 randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the final analysis. Regarding BG control efficacy, CL insulin delivery resulted better outcomes than SAP therapy with regard to the average BG value, which was detected and recorded by continuous glucose monitoring (mean difference [MD][mmol/L]:  - 0.25 95% confidence interval [CI]  - 0.42 to - 0.08, p = 0.003); TIR 3.9-10 mmol/L (MD [%]: 7.91 95% CI 4.45-11.37, p < 0.00001). Similar results were observed for the secondary outcomes including low blood glucose index (LBGI) (MD:  - 0.41 95% CI - 0.55 to - 0.26, p < 0.00001), high blood glucose index (HBGI) (MD:  - 2.56 95% CI - 3.38 to - 1.74, p < 0.00001), and standard deviation (SD) of glucose variability (MD [mmol/L]: -0.25 95% CI - 0.44 to - 0.06, p = 0.01). Furthermore, SAP therapy was associated with more adverse effects (risk ratio: 0.20 95% CI 0.07-0.52, p = 0.001) than CL insulin delivery, and one of the most common adverse effects was hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: CL insulin delivery appears to be a better treatment method than SAP therapy for adults with T1D because of its increased BG control efficacy and decreased number of hypoglycemic events.

Implantable and transcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring system: a randomized cross over trial comparing accuracy, efficacy and acceptance.

AIM: To compare accuracy, efficacy and acceptance of implantable and transcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. METHODS: In a randomized crossover trial we compared 12 weeks with Eversense implantable sensor (EVS) and 12 weeks with Dexcom G5 transcutaneous sensor (DG5) in terms of accuracy, evaluated as Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD) vs capillary glucose (SMBG), time of CGM use, adverse events, efficacy (as HbA1c, time in range, time above and below range) and psychological outcomes evaluated with Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ), Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey (GMSS), Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS2), Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS). RESULTS: 16 subjects (13 males, 48.8 ± 10.1 years, HbA1c 55.8 ± 7.9 mmol/mol, mean ± SD) completed the study. DG5 was used more than EVS [percentage of use 95.7 ± 3.6% vs 93.5 ± 4.3% (p = 0.02)]. MARD was better with EVS (12.2 ± 11.5% vs. 13.1 ± 14.7%, p< 0.001). No differences were found in HbA1c. While using EVS time spent in range increased and time spent in hyperglycemia decreased, but these data were not confirmed by analysis of retrofitted data based on SMBG values. EVS reduced perceived distress, without significant changes in other psychological outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: CGM features may affect glycemic control and device acceptance.