Comparison of Control-IQ and open-source AndroidAPS automated insulin delivery systems in adults with type 1 diabetes: The CODIAC study.

AIM: To compare open-source AndroidAPS (AAPS) and commercially available Control-IQ (CIQ) automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in a prospective, open-label, single-arm clinical trial. METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes who had been using AAPS by their own decision entered the first 3-month AAPS phase then were switched to CIQ for 3 months. The results of this treatment were compared with those after the 3-month AAPS phase. The primary endpoint was the change in time in range (% TIR; 70-80 mg/dL). RESULTS: Twenty-five people with diabetes (mean age 34.32 ± 11.07 years; HbA1c 6.4% ± 3%) participated in this study. CIQ was comparable with AAPS in achieving TIR (85.72% ± 7.64% vs. 84.24% ± 8.46%; P = .12). Similarly, there were no differences in percentage time above range (> 180 and > 250 mg/dL), mean sensor glucose (130.3 ± 13.9 vs. 128.3 ± 16.9 mg/dL; P = .21) or HbA1c (6.3% ± 2.1% vs. 6.4% ± 3.1%; P = .59). Percentage time below range (< 70 and < 54 mg/dL) was significantly lower using CIQ than AAPS. Even although participants were mostly satisfied with CIQ (63.6% mostly agreed, 9.1% strongly agreed), they did not plan to switch to CIQ. CONCLUSIONS: The CODIAC study is the first prospective study investigating the switch between open-source and commercially available AID systems. CIQ and AAPS were comparable in achieving TIR. However, hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with CIQ.

Role of dietitian in obese patients care.

Setting the right eating habits is one of the basic pillars of non-pharmacological treatment of obese patient. Nutritional interventions led by dietitians are a key part of obesity management. The principle of modern nutritional therapy is not the transmission of general information about nutrition, but individualized recommendations. The task of a dietitian is to provide information that is specific, requested, at the right time and in the right form, information that is understandable to the patient and can be included in his/her life. Dietitian creates a therapeutic relationship with the patient based on trust and accompanies them on his path to mastering the principle of a diet for weight loss. There is thus a shift from a rigid approach to dietary treatment of obese patients, where instead of prescribing a diet aiming at weight loss, the patient is given space for their own active involvement. Emphasis is placed on the long-term sustainability of the newly set regime. Therefore, not only the present comorbidities of obesity, but also other factors such as the patient's daily routine, level of physical activity and individual habits are considered in a well-performed nutritional intervention.

Lower Glycated Hemoglobin with Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Than with Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring After 1 Year: The CORRIDA LIFE Study.

Background: The aim was to compare the efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) focusing on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as the primary endpoint. Methods: The CORRIDA LIFE was a 12-month, real-world, nonrandomized study that is part of the CORRIDA clinical trials program. The study compared rtCGM (Dexcom G5 or G6) and isCGM (FreeStyle Libre 14-Day; Abbott) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Only patients on multiple daily insulin injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with no automatic functions were included in this study. Primary outcome was the difference in HbA1c between study groups at 12 months. Results: One hundred ninety-one adults with T1D (mean age 40 ± 13 years, HbA1c 8.1% ± 3.4% [65 ± 14 mmol/mol]) participated in this study; 81 patients initiated rtCGM and 110 initiated isCGM. After 12-months, HbA1c was significantly lower with rtCGM versus isCGM (7.1% ± 3.1% [54.1 ± 10.1 mmol/mol] vs. 7.7% ± 3.3% [61.2 ± 12.2 mmol/mol]), P = 0.0001. The percentage of time in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL [<3.9 mmol/L]) was lower among rtCGM vs. isCGM participants [4.3% ± 2.8% vs. 6.4% ± 5.3%], P = 0.003). Patients with rtCGM spent less time in clinically significant hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL [<3.0 mmol/L]) (0.9% ± 1.0% vs. 2.3% ± 2.5%, P < 0.0001) and more time in target range (70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]) than isCGM users (67.5% ± 14.8% vs. 57.8% ± 17.0%), P = 0.0002. Conclusions: rtCGM was superior to isCGM in HbA1c, hypoglycemia, and other glycemic outcomes. Our findings provide guidance to clinicians when discussing monitoring options with their patients. The study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04759495).

Real-time CGM Is Superior to Flash Glucose Monitoring for Glucose Control in Type 1 Diabetes: The CORRIDA Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this trial was to compare the efficacy of real-time and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM and isCGM, respectively) in maintaining optimal glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this randomized study, adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and normal hypoglycemia awareness (Gold score <4) used rtCGM (Guardian Connect Mobile) or isCGM (FreeStyle Libre) during 4 days of physical activity (exercise phase) and in the subsequent 4 weeks at home (home phase). Primary end points were time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]) and time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]). The isCGM group wore an additional masked Enlite sensor (iPro2) for 6 days to check for bias between the different sensors used by the rtCGM and isCGM systems. RESULTS: Sixty adults with T1D (mean age 38 ± 13 years; A1C 62 ± 12 mmol/mol [7.8 ± 1.1%]) were randomized to rtCGM (n = 30) or isCGM (n = 30). All participants completed the study. Percentage of time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]) was lower among rtCGM versus isCGM participants in the exercise phase (6.8 ± 5.5% vs. 11.4 ± 8.6%, respectively; P = 0.018) and during the home phase (5.3 ± 2.5% vs. 7.3 ± 4.4%, respectively; P = 0.035). Hypoglycemia differences were significant and most notable during the night. rtCGM participants spent more time in range (3.9-10 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]) than isCGM participants throughout both the exercise (78.5 ± 10.2% vs. 69.7 ± 16%, respectively; P = 0.0149) and home (75.6 ± 9.7% vs. 67.4 ± 17.8%, respectively; P = 0.0339) phases. The results were robust to the insignificant bias between rtCGM and isCGM sensors that masked CGM found in the isCGM arm. CONCLUSIONS: rtCGM was superior to isCGM in reducing hypoglycemia and improving time in range in adults with T1D with normal hypoglycemia awareness, demonstrating the value of rtCGM alarms during exercise and in daily diabetes self-management.

Glycemic Outcomes in Adults With T1D Are Impacted More by Continuous Glucose Monitoring Than by Insulin Delivery Method: 3 Years of Follow-Up From the COMISAIR Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the clinical impact of four treatment strategies in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D): real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) with multiple daily insulin injections (rtCGM+MDI), rtCGM with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (rtCGM+CSII), self-monitoring of blood glucose with MDI (SMBG+MDI), and SMBG with CSII (SMBG+CSII). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This 3-year, nonrandomized, prospective, real-world, clinical trial followed 94 participants with T1D (rtCGM+MDI, n = 22; rtCGM+CSII, n = 26; SMBG+MDI, n = 21; SMBG+CSII, n = 25). The main end points were changes in A1C, time in range (70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]), time below range (<70 mg/dL [<3.9 mmol/L]), glycemic variability, and incidence of hypoglycemia. RESULTS: At 3 years, the rtCGM groups (rtCGM+MDI and rtCGM+CSII) had significantly lower A1C (7.0% [53 mmol/mol], P = 0.0002, and 6.9% [52 mmol/mol], P < 0.0001, respectively), compared with the SMBG+CSII and SMBG+MDI groups (7.7% [61 mmol/mol], P = 0.3574, and 8.0% [64 mmol/mol], P = 1.000, respectively), with no significant difference between the rtCGM groups. Significant improvements in percentage of time in range were observed in the rtCGM subgroups (rtCGM+MDI, 48.7-69.0%, P < 0.0001; and rtCGM+CSII, 50.9-72.3%, P < 0.0001) and in the SMBG+CSII group (50.6-57.8%, P = 0.0114). Significant reductions in time below range were found only in the rtCGM subgroups (rtCGM+MDI, 9.4-5.5%, P = 0.0387; and rtCGM+CSII, 9.0-5.3%, P = 0.0235). Seven severe hypoglycemia episodes occurred: SMBG groups, n = 5; sensor-augmented insulin regimen groups, n = 2. CONCLUSIONS: rtCGM was superior to SMBG in reducing A1C, hypoglycemia, and other end points in individuals with T1D regardless of their insulin delivery method. rtCGM+MDI can be considered an equivalent but lower-cost alternative to sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy and superior to treatment with SMBG+MDI or SMBG+CSII therapy.