Evaluation of time in tight range and the glycaemia risk index in adults with type 1 diabetes using an advanced hybrid closed loop system: A 1-year real-world assessment.

AIM: To assess the long-term glycaemic outcomes, with additional metrics, in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using the Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ technology advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system. METHODS: This was a single-centre, retrospective study involving 56 T1D patients who transitioned to the Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ system. The primary and secondary endpoints consisted of variations in time in tight range (TiTR; 70-140 mg/dL) and the glycaemia risk index (GRI), respectively. Additional standardized continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics, mean sensor glucose, coefficient of variation, the glucose management indicator (GMI), HbA1c and insulin daily dose, were also evaluated. Variables were measured at baseline and at 15 days, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year after Tandem t:slim X2 Control-IQ initiation. Glucose outcomes are expressed as mean (standard deviation). RESULTS: Use of Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ over 1 year was associated with an increase in mean TiTR, from 38.11% (17.05%) to 43.10% (13.20%) (P = .059), and with a decline in the GRI, from 41.03 (25.48) to 28.55 (16.27) (P = .008). CGM metrics, including time in range and time above range, showed consistent improvements. Mean sensor glucose, the GMI and HbA1c decreased significantly over time. After an initial increase, insulin daily dose remained stable throughout the 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the sustained effectiveness of Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ in improving glycaemic outcomes over 1 year and support the use of this technology for the management of T1D.

Autoimmunity in Type 2 Diabetes: When the Only Effective Therapy Becomes Immunosuppressive.

BACKGROUND: Type B insulin resistance syndrome is a rare form of diabetes due to the presence of anti-insulin receptor antibodies [1, 2], which causes glycemic decompensation and antidiabetic therapy failure and instead responds to immunosuppressive therapy. CASE REPORT: A 67-year-old patient was admitted to the hospital due to autoimmune hemolytic anemia and glycemic decompensation. We first prescribed subcutaneous basal-bolus insulin and then intravenous insulin without improvement in blood sugar levels (between 300 and 500 mg/dL). Considering the non-response to therapy and the autoimmune diathesis of the patient (hemolytic anemia and mixed connective tissue disease), we suspected an autoimmune etiopathogenesis of glycemic decompensation; we excluded type 1 diabetes mellitus (specific antibodies were negative), and we considered the anti-insulin-antibodies-(-assayed and negative) and anti-insulin receptor antibodies (not assayed due to the lack of a center specialized in this assay in the area). Therefore, we decided to start Rituximab. After 2 weeks from the infusion, the patient improved glycemic compensation, reducing insulin requirement. Further, 2 months after the first infusion, the patient stopped insulin, returning to oral therapy with Metformin. To date, the patient has completed 3 cycles of Rituximab with the benefit of glycemic control (HbA1c 6.7%). CONCLUSION: The brilliant response to Rituximab supports the hypothesis of an autoimmune pathogenesis. The anti-insulin receptor antibodies (in the type B insulin resistance syndrome) affect mostly middle-aged adults, especially women, in the context of other autoimmune diseases. Hence, it is necessary to consider the diagnosis of this rare disease in order to perform timely and effective treatment.

Unmet needs in the treatment of type 1 diabetes: why is it so difficult to achieve an improvement in metabolic control?

The development of advanced diabetes technology has permitted persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus to improve metabolic control significantly, particularly with the development of advanced hybrid closed-loop systems which have improved the quality of life by reducing hypoglycemia, decreasing macroangiopathy and microangiopathy-related complications, ameliorating HbA1c and improving glycemic variability. Despite the progression made over the past few decades, there is still significant margin for improvement to be made in terms of attaining appropriate metabolic control. Various factors are responsible for poor glycemic control including inappropriate carbohydrate counting, repeated bouts of hypoglycemia, hypoglycemia unawareness, cutaneous manifestations due to localized insulin use and prolonged use of diabetes technology, psychosocial comorbidities such as eating disorders or 'diabulimia', the coexistence of insulin resistance among people with type 1 diabetes and the inability to mirror physiological endogenous pancreatic insulin secretion appropriately. Hence, the aim of this review is to highlight and overcome the barriers in attaining appropriate metabolic control among people with type 1 diabetes by driving research into adjunctive treatment for coexistent insulin resistance and developing new advanced diabetic technologies to preserve ß cell function and mirror as much as possible endogenous pancreatic functions.

Predisposition to eating disorders in adults with type 1 diabetes: Comparison between multiple daily injections and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion.

AIM: To evaluate predisposition to eating disorders (ED) or body dissatisfaction in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM); to further investigate any differences in ED predisposition between subjects with T1DM on multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pumps (CSII) and in respect to control healthy subjects. METHODS: We conducted a monocentric, cross-sectional, observational study. We enrolled subjects with T1DM, aged ≥ 18 years, and healthy subjects (HS) as control group. All participants completed two questionnaires to detect possible predisposition to ED: 34-items Body Shape Questionnaire (BSQ) and Eating Disorder Inventory-3 (EDI-3). HS only filled BSQ. For subjects with T1DM data about glycated hemoglobin and duration of disease were also collected. RESULTS: 162 subjects with T1DM (age 41 ± 12 years, 77 [47%] males) and 50 HS (age 38 ± 13 years, 18 (36%) males) were enrolled. 87 subjects with T1DM (54%) were on MDI and 75 (46%) were on CSII. No significant difference in the distribution of BSQ scores between subjects with T1DM and HS was observed (p = 0.551), although 16% of subjects with T1DM scored BSQ class 1 points while 8% of HS scored a BSQ class 1 points. No significant difference in BSQ scores was observed between subjects with T1DM on MDI or CSII. Between these two groups, no differences in EDI-3 scores were observed except for perfectionism score: subjects on MDI present more frequently a predisposition for perfectionism (p < 0.05) and, at a trend level, for bulimia. CONCLUSION: A non -significant higher percentage of BSQ class 1 was detected in subjects T1DM compared to healthy controls. Among subjects with T1DM, no differences between MDI and CSII were observed in ED predisposition. A more perfectionist personality has been detected among subjects on MDI.