Beneficial effects of automated insulin delivery over one-year follow-up in real life for youths and adults with type 1 diabetes irrespective of patient characteristics.

AIM: To investigate glycaemic outcomes in youths and adults with type 1 diabetes with either MiniMed™ 780G or Tandem t:slim X2™ control-IQ automated insulin delivery (AID) systems and to evaluate clinical factors that migrate, mitigate the achievement of therapeutic goals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, real-world, observational study was conducted in a specialized university type 1 diabetes centre with patients observed for 3-12 months post-initiation of an AID system. Primary outcomes were the percentage time in the target glucose range [TIR70-180 mg/dl (3.9-10 mmol/L)] as measured by continuous glucose monitoring, mean glucose management indicator (GMI) and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. RESULTS: Our study cohort consisted of 48 adolescents and 183 adults (55% females) aged 10-77 years. The mean (95% confidence interval) TIR70-180 mg/dl after 30 days was higher than baseline and by 14% points after 360 days with 71.33% (69.4-73.2) (n = 123, p < .001). HbA1c levels decreased by 0.7% and GMI by 0.6% after 360 days. The proportion of time spent <70 mg/dl (3.9 mmol/L) was not significantly different from baseline. During follow-up, 780G users had better continuous glucose monitoring results than control-IQ users but similar HbA1c levels, and an increased risk of weight gain. Age at onset influenced TIR70-180 mg/dl in univariate analysis but there was no significant relationship after adjusting on explanatory variables. Baseline body mass index did not influence the performance of AID systems. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis showed the beneficial effects of two AID systems for people with type 1 diabetes across a broad spectrum of participant characteristics. Only half of the participants achieved international recommendations for glucose control with TIR70-180 mg/dl >70%, HbA1c levels or GMI <7%, which outlines the need to maintain strong educational and individual strategies.

Continuous glucose monitoring with FreeStyle Libre PRO sensor in patients with type 2 diabetes and end-stage renal failure on haemoDIALysis (FSLPRO-DIAL pilot study).

AIMS: For end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with diabetes on haemodialysis, diabetes control is difficult to achieve. Hypoglycaemia is a major problem in these frailty subjects. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices appear therefore to be a good tool to help patients monitor their glycaemic control and to help practitioners optimize treatment. We aimed to compare the laboratory value of Hba1c with the sensor-estimated value of Hba1c (= glucose management indicator, GMI) in ESRD patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) (with or without insulin treatment) on haemodialysis. Secondly, we aimed to identify CGM-derived monitoring parameters [time in range, time in hypo/hyperglycaemia, glycaemic variability (coefficient of variation, CV)] to identify patients at risk of frequent hypo- or hyperglycaemia. METHODS: The FSLPRO-DIAL pilot study (NCT04641650) was a prospective monocentric cohort study including 29 subjects with T2D who achieve the protocol. Inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 18 years, haemodialysis duration for at least 3 months, type 2 diabetes with no change in treatment for at least 3 months. Demographic data and blood sample were collected at the day of inclusion. Freestyle Libre pro IQ sensor (blinded CGM) was inserted for 14 days. After this period, all CGMs data were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Data were available for 27 patients. Mean age was 73 ± 10, mean BMI 27.2 kg/m2, mean duration of diabetes 16.9 years and mean dialysis duration 2.9 years. Twenty-four subjects were treated with insulin. Mean HbA1c was 6.6% (SD 1.2), and mean GMI was 6.7% (SD 0.9) (no significant difference, p = 0.3). Twelve subjects (44.4%) had a discordance between HbA1c and GMI of < 0.5%, 11 (40.8%) had a discordance between 0.5 and 1%, and only 4 (14.8%) had a discordance of > 1%. Mean time in range (70-180 mg/dl) was 71.9%, mean time below range (< 70 mg/dl) was 5.6%, and mean time above range (> 180 mg/dl) was 22.1%. Mean CV was 31.8%. For 13 out of 27 patients, we reduced antidiabetic treatment by stopping treatments or reducing insulin doses. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, there was no global significant difference between HbA1c and GMI in this particular cohort with very well-controlled diabetes. However, the use of the sensor enabled us to identify an excessive time in hypoglycemia in this fragile population and to adapt their treatment.