Search

Objective: The objective was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ultra-rapid-acting insulin with the Boost and Ease-off features of the Cambridge hybrid closed-loop system., Methods: A secondary analysis of Boost and Ease-off from two double-blind, randomized, crossover hybrid closed-loop studies comparing (1) Fiasp to insulin aspart (n = 25), and (2) Lyumjev to insulin lispro (n = 26) was carried out. Mean glucose on initialization of Boost and Ease-off, change in glucose 60 and 120 minutes after initialization, duration and frequency of use, mean glucose, and time in, above, and below target glucose range were calculated for periods of Boost use, Ease-off use, or neither., Results: Participants used Boost for longer with Fiasp than insulin aspart (median [interquartile range, IQR] = 75 [53-125] minutes vs 60 [49-75] minutes; P = .01). Mean glucose on Boost initialization with Fiasp was 238 ± 62 mg/dL compared with 218 ± 45 mg/dL with insulin aspart ( P = .08). Fiasp use resulted in a greater glucose reduction 120 minutes after Boost initialization [-59 ± 34 mg/dL vs -43 ± 31 mg/dL; P = .02]. There were no statistically significant differences in sensor glucose endpoints during Boost or Ease-off periods between Fiasp and aspart. There were no statistically significant differences during Boost or Ease-off periods when comparing Lyumjev with insulin lispro. There were no safety issues when using Boost and Ease-off with ultra-rapid insulins., Conclusions: The use of Fiasp and Lyumjev during Boost or Ease-off resulted in comparable safety and efficacy to using insulin aspart and lispro., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: CB is a consultant at CamDiab and has received speaker honoraria from Ypsomed. MN has received travel grant support from Sanofi, Janssen, and Eli Lilly and was previously chair of the Young Diabetologists’ and Endocrinologists’ Forum in the United Kingdom, which uses unrestricted sponsorship from industry partners to deliver educational programs for health care professionals. SH serves as a member of Medtronic advisory board, is a director of Ask Diabetes Ltd, providing training and research support in health care settings, and reports having received training honoraria from Medtronic and Sanofi and consulting fees for CamDiab. MEW is a consultant to CamDiab and reports patents related to closed loop. JW has received speaker honoraria from Ypsomed and Novo Nordisk. HT receives consulting fees and speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly and Dexcom Inc, reports having received research support from Dexcom Inc, and participated in advisory groups for Medtronic, Abbott Diabetes Care, and Roche Diabetes Care. JKM is a member in the advisory boards of Abbott Diabetes Care, Becton-Dickinson/Embecta, Biomea, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Pharmasens, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, and Viatris; received speaker honoraria from Abbott Diabetes Care, A. Menarini Diagnostics, Becton-Dickinson/Embecta, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MedTrust, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, and Ypsomed; and is shareholder of decide Clinical Software GmbH and elyte Diagnostics. LB reports having participated in advisory boards of Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Oviva, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, and Ypsomed and received speaker fees from Dexcom, Ypsomed, and Oviva. LL has received research support from Abbott Diabetes Care and Dexcom, participated in advisory groups for Abbott Diabetes Care, Insulet, Dexcom, Medtronic, and Roche Diabetes, and received fees for speaking from Sanofi, Insulet, Medtronic, and Abbott Diabetes Care. MLE has been a member of advisory panels and/or received speaker fees from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Abbott Diabetes Care, Dexcom, Medtronic, Ypsomed, Pila Pharma, and Zucara. RH reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Dexcom, and Novo Nordisk; receiving license fees from B. Braun; patents related to closed-loop; being consultant to Abbott Diabetes Care; and being director at CamDiab. CR, RL, and JMA report no conflicts of interest related to the present paper.

Objective: We aimed to evaluate the longer-term safety and efficacy of hybrid closed-loop (CL) therapy in very young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D)., Research Design and Methods: Following a 16-week multinational, randomized crossover trial comparing hybrid CL with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy in 74 very young children aged 1-7 years with T1D, participants were invited to an extension phase using CL for a further 18 months. Outcomes were compared with the primary-phase SAP period and primary-phase CL period., Results: After the primary study phase, 60 participants were eligible to enroll in the extension. Of these, 49 consented (mean ± SD age 6.6 ± 1.5 years) to continue use of CL for 18 months. Percentage time in range (TIR) 3.9-10.0 mmol/L was 8.4 percentage points (95% CI 6.7 to 10.1; P < 0.001) higher, while HbA1c was 0.4% ([5.0 mmol/mol], 95% CI 0.3 to 0.6 [3.7 to 6.2]; P < 0.001) lower during the CL extension phase compared with primary-phase SAP period. At 18 months, mean HbA1c was 6.7 ± 0.5% and TIR was 70 ± 7%, compared with 6.7 ± 0.5% and 71 ± 6% in the primary-phase CL period. Time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) was similar between CL extension phase and both primary-phase SAP (P = 0.31) and CL periods (P = 0.70). There were two severe hypoglycemia events and one other serious adverse event during the extension phase. One unexpected serious adverse device effect occurred., Conclusions: Use of the Cambridge hybrid CL system led to sustained improvements in glycemic control lasting more than 18 months in very young children with T1D., (© 2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: EMS has received research support from Medical Research Council, Diabetes UK, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Abbott Diabetes Care and speaker honoraria: from Abbott Diabetes Care, Ypsomed, and Lilly Diabetes Care. CKB has received consulting fees from CamDiab and speaker honoraria from Ypsomed. JW has received speaker honoraria from Ypsomed and Novo Nordisk. MEW reports patents related to closed-loop and being a consultant at CamDiab. SH serves as a member of Medtronic advisory board, is a director of Ask Diabetes Ltd providing training and research support in health care settings, and reports having received training honoraria from Medtronic and Sanofi and consulting fees for CamDiab. TR receives consultancy fees from Abbott Diabetes care and has received honoraria from NovoNordisk for delivering educational meetings. REJB reports receiving speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly and Springer Healthcare, and reports sitting on the NovoNordisk UK Foundation Research Selection Committee on a voluntary basis. She acted as an independent advisor for Provent Bio, and received speaking honoraria from Sanofi and Medcape, which were donated to an education research fund. RH reports receiving speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Dexcom and Novo Nordisk, receiving license and/or consultancy fees from BBraun and Abbott Diabetes Care; patents related to closed-loop, and being director at CamDiab. AMG is an advisor for a project initially sponsored by Johnson’s Baby. She was a consultant for Perrigo (2021+). She receives royalties for two books Nodding Off (Bloomsbury Sigma, 2018) and The Sleepy Pebble (Flying Eye, 2019) and a sleep gift (The Gift of Sleep, Laurence King Publishers, 2023). She was previously a CEO of Sleep Universal LTD (2022). She is a regular contributor to BBC Focus Magazine and has contributed to other outlets (such as The Conversation, The Guardian, and Balance Magazine). She occasionally receives sample products related to sleep (eg, blue light–blocking glasses) and has given a paid talk to a business (Investec). She is a specialist subject editor at JCPP (sleep) for which she receives a small honorarium. She has contributed a paid article to Neurodiem.JJM-V, JMA, AT, AG, DE, NT, and FMC declare no competing financial interests.

Introduction: Hybrid closed loop systems are now commercially available for people with type 1 diabetes and are increasingly being adopted into clinical practice. Real-world data reflect both the glycemic and quality of life benefits reported in trials., Areas Covered: In this review, we summarize the key clinical efficacy and safety evidence for hybrid closed-loop systems, and the lived experience of users with type 1 diabetes across different age groups and during pregnancy. We comment on recent and emerging advancements addressing performance limitations and user experience, as well as the use of closed-loop systems in other types of diabetes., Expert Opinion: Emerging technological developments in closed-loop systems focus on improving performance and increasing automation to further optimize glycemic outcomes and improve quality of life for users. Workforce developments are now urgently required to ensure widespread equitable access to this life-changing technology. Future applications of closed-loop technology are expected to expand into other types of diabetes including type 2 diabetes.

Aims: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis, within the Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices (CORE-MD) project, evaluating CE-marked high-risk devices for glucose management., Materials and Methods: We identified interventional and observational studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of eight automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, two implantable insulin pumps, and three implantable continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices. We meta-analysed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AID systems with other treatments., Results: A total of 182 studies published between 2009 and 2024 were included, comprising 166 studies on AID systems, six on insulin pumps, and 10 on CGM devices; 26% reported industry funding; 18% were pre-market; 37% had a comparator group. Of the studies identified, 29% were RCTs, 24% were non-randomized trials, and 47% were observational studies. The median (interquartile range) sample size was 48 (28-102), age 34.8 (14-44.2) years, and study duration 17.5 (12-26) weeks. AID systems lowered glycated haemoglobin by 0.5 percentage points (absolute mean difference [MD] = -0.5; 21 RCTs; I 2  = 86%) and increased time in target range for sensor glucose level by 13.4 percentage points (MD = 13.4; 14 RCTs; I 2  = 90%). At least one safety outcome was assessed in 71% of studies., Conclusions: High-risk devices for glucose monitoring or insulin dosing, in particular AID systems, improve glucose control safely, but evidence on diabetes-related end-organ damage is lacking due to short study durations. Methodological heterogeneity highlights the need for developing standards for future pre- and post-market investigations of diabetes-specific high-risk medical devices., (© 2024 The Author(s). Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The role of automated insulin delivery systems in diabetes is expanding. Hybrid closed-loop systems are being used in routine clinical practice for treating people with type 1 diabetes. Encouragingly, real-world data reflects the performance and usability observed in clinical trials. We review the commercially available hybrid closed-loop systems, their distinctive features and the associated real-world data. We also consider emerging indications for closed-loop systems, including the treatment of type 2 diabetes where variability of day-to-day insulin requirements is high, and other challenging applications for this technology. We discuss issues around access and implementation of closed-loop technology, and consider the limitations of present closed-loop systems, as well as innovative approaches that are being evaluated to improve their performance., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of fully closed-loop (FCL) compared with usual care (UC) glucose control in patients experiencing major abdominal surgery-related stress hyperglycaemia., Summary Background Data: Major abdominal surgery-related stress and periprocedural interventions predispose to perioperative hyperglycaemia, both in diabetes and non-diabetes patients. Insulin corrects hyperglycaemia effectively, but its safe use remains challenging., Methods: In this two-centre randomised controlled trial, we contrasted subcutaneous FCL with UC glucose management in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery anticipated to experience prolonged hyperglycaemia. FCL (CamAPS HX, Dexcom G6, mylife YpsoPump 1.5x) or UC treatment was used from hospital admission to discharge (max 20 d). Glucose control was assessed using continuous glucose monitoring (masked in the UC group). The primary outcome was the proportion of time with sensor glucose values in target range 5.6-10.0 mmol/L., Results: Thirty-seven surgical patients (54% pancreas, 22% liver, 19% upper gastrointestinal, 5% lower gastrointestinal), of whom 18 received FCL and 19 UC glucose management, were included in the analysis. Mean±SD percentage time with sensor glucose in target range was 80.1±10.0% in the FCL and 53.7±19.7% in the UC group (P<0.001). Mean±SD glucose was 7.5±0.5 mmol/L in the FCL and 9.1±2.4 mmol/L in the UC group (P=0.015). Time in hypoglycaemia (<3.0 mmol/L) was low in either group. No study-related serious adverse events occurred., Conclusions: The FCL approach resulted in significantly better glycaemic control compared to UC management, without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. Automated glucose-responsive insulin delivery is a safe and effective strategy to minimise hyperglycaemia in complex surgical populations., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: RH reports receiving speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Sandoz and Novo Nordisk, receiving license fees from B. Braun; declares consulting fees from Abbott Diabetes Care; patent issued in closed-loop field (US9579456B2), being director at CamDiab and leadership/fiduciary role for ATTD. MEW reports receiving license fees from B. Braun, patents related to closed-loop and being a consultant at CamDiab. APV reports advisory board fees from MSD Merck. LB reports having received speaker and advisory board honoraria from Eli Lilly, Dexcom, Novo Nordisk and Ypsomed. For the remaining authors none were declared. The study was supported by grants from Scherbarth Foundation; Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Bern; Swiss Foundation for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care; Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft Basel. Dexcom Inc., USA and Ypsomed, Switzerland provided product support., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The usage and safety of the Boost and Ease-off features in the CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop system were analyzed in a retrospective analysis of real-world data from 7,464 users over a 12-month period. Boost was used more frequently than Ease-off, but for a shorter duration per use. Mean starting glucose was above range for Boost (229 ± 51 mg/dL), and within range for Ease-off (114 ± 29 mg/dL). Time spent below 70 mg/dL was low during Boost periods [median (interquartile range; IQR) 0.0% (0.0, 0.5%)], and lower than during no Boost periods [2.1% (1.2, 3.4%)], while time spent above 180 mg/dL was lower during Ease-off periods (15 ± 14%) compared with no Ease-off periods (25 ± 12%). There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis attributed to Boost or Ease-off use. Boost and Ease-off allow users to engage safely with CamAPS FX to manage their glucose levels during periods of more-than-usual and less-than-usual insulin needs.

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., (© 2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To evaluate postprandial glucose control when applying (1) faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) compared to insulin aspart and (2) ultra-rapid insulin lispro (Lyumjev) compared to insulin lispro using the CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop algorithm. Research Design and Methods: We undertook a secondary analysis of postprandial glucose excursions from two double-blind, randomized, crossover hybrid closed-loop studies contrasting Fiasp to standard insulin aspart, and Lyumjev to standard insulin lispro. Endpoints included incremental area under curve (iAUC)-2h, iAUC-4h, 4 h postprandial time in target range, time above range, and time below range. It was approved by independent research ethics committees. Results: Two trials with 8 weeks of data from 51 adults with type 1 diabetes were analyzed and 7137 eligible meals were included. During Lyumjev compared with insulin lispro, iAUC-2h and iAUC-4h were significantly decreased following breakfast (mean difference 92 mmol/L per 2 h (95% confidence interval [CI]: 56 to 127); P  < 0.001 and 151 mmol/L per 4 h (95% CI: 74 to 229); P  < 0.001, respectively) and the evening meal ( P  < 0.001 and P  = 0.011, respectively). Mean time in target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) for 4 h postprandially significantly increased during Lyumjev with a mean difference of 6.7 percentage points (95% CI: 3.3 to 10) and 5.7 percentage points (95% CI: 1.4 to 9.9) for breakfast and evening meal, respectively. In contrast, there were no significant differences in iAUC-2h, iAUC-4h, and the other measures of postprandial glucose control between insulin aspart and Fiasp during breakfast, lunch, and evening meal ( P  > 0.05). Conclusion: The use of Lyumjev with CamAPS FX closed-loop system improved postprandial glucose excursions compared with insulin lispro, while the use of Fiasp did not provide any advantage compared with insulin aspart. Clinical Trial Registration numbers: NCT04055480, NCT05257460.

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: RH reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Dexcom, and Novo Nordisk; receiving license fees from BBraun; patents related to closed-loop; and being director at CamDiab. JW reports receiving speaker honoraria from Ypsomed. YR is a consultant at CamDiab. MEW is a consultant at CamDiab and reports patents related to closed-loop. CKB reports receiving consultancy fees from CamDiab and speaker honoraria from Ypsomed. SH reports speaker and advisory board fees from Dexcom, Medtronic, Sanofi, and Ypsomed; being director at ASK Diabetes Ltd; and receiving consulting/training fees from CamDiab. LB reports receiving research support from Dexcom and CamDiab. REJB reports receiving speaking honoraria from Eli Lilly and Springer Healthcare, and sitting as a voluntary unpaid member of the NovoNordisk UK Foundation Research Selection committee. FMC reports receiving speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Dexcom, and Novo Nordisk and Insulet, and consultancy fees from Abbott Diabetes Care. EF-R reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, serving on advisory boards for Eli Lilly and Sanofi. MLE is a clinical triallist with or has served on advisory boards or received speakers or writers fees from Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Zucara, Pila Pharma, and Imcyse Pharma. SEH has received speaker honoraria by Eli Lilly, Vertex, Minimed Medtronic, Insulet, Ypsomed, and Sanofi. TMK reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly and Novo. LL has received personal fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Dexcom, Insulet, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Diabetes Care. JKM is a member on the advisory board of Boehringer Ingelheim, Becton-Dickinson, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Prediktor A/S, Roche Diabetes Care, and Sanofi-Aventis, and received speaker honoraria from Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca, Becton-Dickinson, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Mercke Sharp & Dohme, NovoNordisk, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Servier, and Ypsomed. TR reports receiving speaker honoraria from Novo Nordisk and consultancy fees from Abbott Diabetes Care. HT reports receiving research support from Dexcom and speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly. MT reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Medtronic and advisory board fees from Abbott Diabetes Care. BR-M has received speaker honoraria from Abbott Diabetes Care, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, and Menarini and has been on the advisory boards of Eli Lilly, Roche Diabetes Care, and Abbott Diabetes Care. CdB has received speaker honoraria from Minimed Medtronic, and has been member of their European Psychology and e-learning Advisory Board. JMA reports training fees from CamDiab. DE, WMM, PN, TP, AG, AT, KD, and NT have no disclosures.

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: C.K.B. has received consulting fees from CamDiab and speaker honoraria from Ypsomed. J.W. has received speaker honoraria from Ypsomed. J.M.A. has received consulting fees from CamDiab. S.H. serves as a member of Sigma (Dexcom) and Medtronic advisory boards; is a consultant for CamDiab and a director of Ask Diabetes Ltd., providing training and research support in healthcare settings; and reports having received training honoraria from Medtronic, Sanofi, and Ypsomed. M.E.W. reports receiving license fees from B. Braun, patents related to closed-loop systems, and being a consultant at CamDiab. C.d.B. reports having received speaker honoraria from Medtronic and has served on the EU psychology e-learning board of Medtronic. E.F.-R. reports having received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi and serving on the advisory board for Eli Lilly and Company. S.E.H. has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Eli Lilly, Ypsomed, and Insulet. T.M.K. reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, and Novo Nordisk. B.R.-M. has received speaker honoraria from Abbott Diabetes Care, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, and Menarini and has been on the advisory boards of Eli Lilly, Roche Diabetes Care, and Abbott Diabetes Care. T.L.R. has received consultancy fees from Abbott Diabetes Care and speaker honoraria from Novo Nordisk. R.E.J.B. reports having received speaking honoraria from Eli Lilly and Springer Healthcare and sits as an unpaid member of the Novo Nordisk UK Research Foundation grant and selection committee. L.D. has received honoraria for taking part in an Interactive Advisory and Advocacy Forum on CGM Use in Pediatric Clinical Practice from Dexcom and has received conference fees from Novo Nordisk. H.T. reports having received research support from Dexcom and speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly and Dexcom. L.L. reports having received speaker honoraria from Animas, Abbott, Insulet, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Roche, and Sanofi; was on advisory panels for Animas, Abbott, Novo Nordisk, Dexcom, Medtronic, Sanofi, and Roche; and received research support from Novo Nordisk and Dexcom. M.L.E. reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Abbott Diabetes Care, Medtronic, AstraZeneca, and Ypsomed and acting on advisory boards for Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Zucara Therapeutics, Pila Pharma, and Abbott Diabetes Care. J.K.M. is a member of the advisory boards of Abbott Diabetes Care, BD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk AS, Prediktor A/S, Roche Diabetes Care, and Sanofi; received speaker honoraria from Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca, Dexcom, Eli Lilly and Company, Menarini Diagnostics, Novo Nordisk A/S, Roche Diabetes Care, Servier, and Ypsomed; and is a cofounder and shareholder of decide Clinical Software Ltd. R.H. reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company, Dexcom, and Novo Nordisk; receiving license fees from Medtronic; receiving patents related to closed-loop systems; and being the director at CamDiab. M.F., A.T., F.M.C., A.G., D.E., N.T., N.D., and L.B. have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Background: CamAPS HX fully closed-loop (FCL) system, with no user input required at mealtimes, has been shown to be safe and effective in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. We assessed whether time spent in hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia during FCL insulin delivery in adults varied by type of diabetes over the 24-hour period., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed eight weeks of data from 52 participants (adults with type 1 diabetes and adults with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes) recruited to two single-center randomized controlled studies using FCL insulin delivery during unrestricted-living conditions. Key outcomes were time spent in hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL and marked hyperglycemia >300 mg/dL by type of diabetes., Results: The median percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL over the 24-hour period was lower for those with type 2 diabetes than for those with type 1 diabetes (median [interquartile range (IQR)] 0.43% [0.20-0.77] vs 0.86%, [0.54-1.46]; mean difference 0.46 percentage points [95% CI 0.23-0.70]; P < .001). Median percentage time in marked hyperglycemia >300 mg/dL was lower for those with type 2 diabetes than for those with type 1 diabetes (median [IQR] 1.8% [0.6-3.5] vs 9.3% [6.9-11.8]; mean difference 7.8 percentage points [95% CI 5.5-10.0]; P < .001)., Conclusions: Using the FCL system, hypoglycemia and marked hyperglycemia exposure were lower in type 2 diabetes than in type 1 diabetes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: MEW reports receiving patents related to closed-loop and being a consultant at CamDiab. MN has received travel grant support from Sanofi, Janssen, and Eli Lilly and was previously chair of the Young Diabetologists’ and Endocrinologists’ Forum in the UK, which uses unrestricted sponsorship from industry partners to deliver educational programs for healthcare professionals. SH reports speaker & advisory board fees from Dexcom, Medtronic, Sanofi & Ypsomed; being director at ASK Diabetes Ltd; and receiving consulting/training fees from CamDiab. JW has received speaker honoraria from Ypsomed and Novo Nordisk. AC has received consultancy fees from CamDiab. MLE has been a member of advisory panels and/or received speakers fees from NovoNordisk, Eli Lilly, Abbott Diabetes Care, Medtronic, Ypsomed, Pila Pharma, and Zucara. RH received speaker honoraria from Sandoz, Abbott Diabetes Care, and NovoNordisk; receiving consultancy fees from Abbott Diabetes Care; patents related to closed-loop; and is the director at CamDiab. CKB has received consultancy fees from CamDiab and speaker honoraria from Ypsomed. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

Introduction: The Closing the Loop in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes (CLEAR) randomized crossover study compared a novel fully closed-loop insulin delivery system with no carbohydrate entry or mealtime bolusing (CamAPS HX), with standard insulin pump therapy and glucose sensor in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic outcomes. This qualitative substudy aimed to understand the psychosocial impact of using the fully automated system. Materials and Methods: Adults participating in the CLEAR study were invited to take part in a virtual semistructured interview after they had completed 8 weeks using the fully closed-loop system. Recruitment continued until there was adequate representation and data saturation occurred. Interviews were anonymized and transcribed for in-depth thematic analysis using an inductive-deductive approach. Study participants were also asked to complete questionnaires assessing diabetes distress, hypoglycemia confidence, and closed-loop treatment satisfaction. Results: Eleven participants (eight male and three female; age range 26-66 years) were interviewed. After an initial adjustment period, interviewees reported enjoying a reduction in diabetes burden, freed-up mental capacity, and improved mood. All were happy with overnight glycemic outcomes, with the majority reporting benefits on sleep. Although experiences of postprandial glucose outcomes varied, all found mealtimes easier and less stressful, particularly when eating out. Negatives raised by participants predominantly related to the insulin pump hardware, but some also reported increased snacking and challenges around resuming carbohydrate counting at trial closeout. Conclusions: In adults with type 1 diabetes, use of a fully closed-loop insulin delivery system had significant quality-of-life benefits and provided a welcome break from the day-to-day demands of living with diabetes. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04977908.

Background/objective: The main objective of this study is to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of the Cambridge hybrid closed-loop automated insulin delivery (AID) algorithm versus usual care for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D)., Methods: This multicenter, binational, parallel-controlled trial randomized 133 insulin pump using participants aged 6 to 18 years to either AID (n = 65) or usual care (n = 68) for 6 months. Both within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness were analyzed. Analysis focused on the treatment subgroup (n = 21) who received the much more reliable CamAPS FX hardware iteration and their contemporaneous control group (n = 24). Lifetime complications and costs were simulated via an updated Sheffield T1D policy model., Results: Within-trial, both groups had indistinguishable and statistically unchanged health-related quality of life, and statistically similar hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) event rates. Total health care utilization was higher in the treatment group. Both the overall treatment group and CamAPS FX subgroup exhibited improved HbA 1C (-0.32%, 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.04; P = .02, and -1.05%, 95% CI: -1.43 to -0.67; P < .001, respectively). Modeling projected increased expected lifespan of 5.36 years and discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 1.16 (U.K. tariffs) and 1.52 (U.S. tariffs) in the CamAPS FX subgroup. Estimated ICERs for the subgroup were £19 324/QALY (United Kingdom) and -$3917/QALY (United States). For subgroup patients already using continuous glucose monitors (CGM), ICERs were £10 096/QALY (United Kingdom) and -$33 616/QALY (United States). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis generated mean ICERs of £19 342/QALY (95% CI: £15 903/QALY to £22 929/QALY) (United Kingdom) and -$28 283/QALY (95% CI: -$59 607/QALY to $1858/QALY) (United States)., Conclusions: For children and adolescents with T1D on insulin pump therapy, AID using the Cambridge algorithm appears cost-effective below a £20 000/QALY threshold (United Kingdom) and cost saving (United States)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: MT reports receiving speaking and advisory fees from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, and Abbott. RPW reports receiving grant support from MannKind, and Novo Nordisk, grant support and lecture fees from Dexcom, grant support, and advisory board fees from Eli Lilly, and grant support, travel support, and lecture fees from Tandem Diabetes Care. BAB reports receiving grant support, donated supplies, and advisory board fees from ConvaTec, grant support from Dexcom, grant support and honoraria from Insulet, grant support and advisory board fees from Medtronic MiniMed, and grant support from Tandem Diabetes Care. LADM reports grants from Medtronic. NM reports receiving grant support for devices from Medtronic. REJB reports receiving speaking honoraria from Eli Lilly and Springer Healthcare. SAW reports receiving consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Sanofi US Services, and Zealand, speaker honoraria from Dexcom, Insulet, Medtronic, and Tandem Diabetes Care, and grant support to his institution from Abbott and Medtronic. LK reports receiving grant support from Tandem Diabetes Care. CK reports receiving grant support from Tandem Diabetes Care. RWB reports receiving grant support and donated supplies from Abbott Diabetes Care, Ascensia Diabetes Care US, Beta Bionics, and Roche Diabetes Care, grant support, donated supplies, and consulting fees from Dexcom, Novo Nordisk, and Tandem Diabetes Care, grant support and consulting fees from Bigfoot Biomedical, and consulting fees from Eli Lilly and Insulet. RH reports receiving speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Dexcom and Novo Nordisk, receiving license fees from B. Braun and Medtronic; patents related to closed-loop, and being director at CamDiab. MEW reports patents related to closed-loop and being a consultant at CamDiab. JW reports receiving speaker honoraria from Ypsomed and Novo Nordisk. KKH reports receiving consulting fees from Cecelia Health and Havas Health. CKB reports receiving consultancy fees from CamDiab and speaker honoraria from Ypsomed, JMA, AT, JS, LD, FC, ND, AG, and DSF declare no competing financial interests exist.

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.

Introduction: To evaluate hybrid closed-loop with ultra-rapid insulin lispro (Lyumjev) compared with hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes. Materials and Methods: In a single-center, double-blind, randomized, crossover study, 28 adults with type 1 diabetes (mean ± standard deviation [SD]: age 44.5 ± 10.7 years, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.1 ± 0.9% [54 ± 10 mmol/mol]) underwent two 8-week periods comparing hybrid closed-loop with ultra-rapid insulin lispro and hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin lispro in random order. The same CamAPS FX closed-loop algorithm was used in both periods. Results: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time sensor glucose was in target range (3.9-10 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]; primary endpoint) was greater with ultra-rapid lispro compared with standard insulin lispro (mean ± SD: 78.7 ± 9.8% vs. 76.2 ± 9.6%; mean difference 2.5 percentage points [95% confidence interval 0.8 to 4.2]; P  = 0.005). Mean sensor glucose was lower with ultra-rapid lispro compared with standard insulin lispro (7.9 ± 0.8 mmol/L [142 ± 14 mg/dL] vs. 8.1 ± 0.9 mmol/L [146 ± 16 mg/dL]; P  = 0.048). The proportion of time with sensor glucose <3.9 mmol/L [70 mg/dL] was similar between interventions (median [interquartile range] ultra-rapid lispro 2.3% [1.3%-2.7%] vs. standard insulin lispro 2.1% [1.4%-3.3%]; P  = 0.33). No severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred. Conclusions: The use of ultra-rapid lispro with CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop increases time in range and reduces mean glucose with no difference in hypoglycemia compared with standard insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes. ClinicalTrials.gov: Trial registration number NCT05257460.

Introduction: Recent high-profile calls have emphasized that women's experiences should be considered in maternity care provisioning. We explored women's experiences of using closed-loop during type 1 diabetes (T1D) pregnancy to inform decision-making about antenatal rollout and guidance and support given to future users. Methods: We interviewed 23 closed-loop participants in the Automated insulin Delivery Among Pregnant women with T1D (AiDAPT) trial after randomization to closed-loop and ∼20 weeks later. Data were analyzed thematically. Results: Women described how closed-loop lessened the physical and mental demands of diabetes management, enabling them to feel more normal and sleep better. By virtue of spending increased time-in-range, women also worried less about risks to their baby and being judged negatively by health care professionals. Most noted that intensive input and support during early pregnancy had been crucial to adjusting to, and developing confidence in, the technology. Women emphasized that attaining pregnancy glucose targets still required ongoing effort from themselves and the health care team. Women described needing education to help them determine when, and how, to intervene and when to allow the closed-loop to operate without interference. All women reported more enjoyable pregnancy experiences as a result of using closed-loop; some also noted being able to remain longer in paid employment. Conclusions: Study findings endorse closed-loop use in T1D pregnancy by highlighting how the technology can facilitate positive pregnancy experiences. To realize fully the benefits of closed-loop, pregnant women would benefit from initial intensive oversight and support together with closed-loop specific education and training. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04938557.

Objective: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control compared with insulin pump therapy with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)., Research Design and Methods: This single-center, randomized, crossover study enrolled 26 adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin pump therapy with suboptimal glycemic control (mean ± SD, age 41 ± 12 years, HbA1c 9.2 ± 1.1% [77 ± 12 mmol/mol]). Participants underwent two 8-week periods of unrestricted living to compare fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro (CamAPS HX system) with insulin pump therapy with CGM in random order., Results: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time glucose was in range (primary end point 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was higher during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD 50.0 ± 9.6% vs. 36.2 ± 12.2%, mean difference 13.2 percentage points [95% CI 9.5, 16.9], P < 0.001). Time with glucose >10.0 mmol/L and mean glucose were lower during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD time >10.0 mmol/L: 49.0 ± 9.9 vs. 62.9 ± 12.6%, mean difference -13.3 percentage points [95% CI -17.2, -9.5], P < 0.001; mean ± SD glucose 10.7 ± 1.1 vs. 12.0 ± 1.6 mmol/L, mean difference -1.2 mmol/L [95% CI -1.8, -0.7], P < 0.001). The proportion of time with glucose <3.9 mmol/L was similar between periods (median [interquartile range (IQR)] closed-loop 0.88% [0.51-1.55] vs. pump with CGM 0.64% [0.28-1.10], P = 0.102). Total daily insulin requirements did not differ (median [IQR] closed-loop 51.9 units/day [35.7-91.2] vs. pump with CGM 50.7 units/day [34.0-70.0], P = 0.704). No severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred., Conclusions: Fully closed-loop insulin delivery with CamAPS HX improved glucose control compared with insulin pump therapy with CGM in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control., (© 2023 by the American Diabetes Association.)

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.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: A composite metric for the quality of glycemia from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) tracings could be useful for assisting with basic clinical interpretation of CGM data., Methods: We assembled a data set of 14-day CGM tracings from 225 insulin-treated adults with diabetes. Using a balanced incomplete block design, 330 clinicians who were highly experienced with CGM analysis and interpretation ranked the CGM tracings from best to worst quality of glycemia. We used principal component analysis and multiple regressions to develop a model to predict the clinician ranking based on seven standard metrics in an Ambulatory Glucose Profile: very low-glucose and low-glucose hypoglycemia; very high-glucose and high-glucose hyperglycemia; time in range; mean glucose; and coefficient of variation., Results: The analysis showed that clinician rankings depend on two components, one related to hypoglycemia that gives more weight to very low-glucose than to low-glucose and the other related to hyperglycemia that likewise gives greater weight to very high-glucose than to high-glucose. These two components should be calculated and displayed separately, but they can also be combined into a single Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia (r = 0.95). The GRI can be displayed graphically on a GRI Grid with the hypoglycemia component on the horizontal axis and the hyperglycemia component on the vertical axis. Diagonal lines divide the graph into five zones (quintiles) corresponding to the best (0th to 20th percentile) to worst (81st to 100th percentile) overall quality of glycemia. The GRI Grid enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals., Conclusion: The GRI is a single-number summary of the quality of glycemia. Its hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia components provide actionable scores and a graphical display (the GRI Grid) that can be used by clinicians and researchers to determine the glycemic effects of prescribed and investigational treatments.

Automated insulin delivery systems, also known as closed-loop or 'artificial pancreas' systems, are transforming the management of type 1 diabetes. These systems consist of an algorithm which responds to real-time glucose sensor levels by automatically modulating insulin delivery through an insulin pump. We review the rapidly changing landscape of automated insulin-delivery systems over recent decades, from initial prototypes to the different hybrid closed-loop systems commercially available today. We discuss the growing body of clinical trials and real-world evidence demonstrating their glycaemic and psychosocial benefits. We also address future directions in automated insulin delivery such as dual-hormone systems and adjunct therapy as well as the challenges around ensuring equitable access to closed-loop technology.

We evaluated the performance of the interoperable Cambridge hybrid closed-loop app with FreeStyle Libre 3 glucose sensor, and YpsoPump insulin pump in a real-world setting. Data from 100 users (63 adults [mean ± SD age 41.9 ± 14.0 years], 15 children [8.6 ± 5.2 years)] and 22 users of unreported age) for a period of 28 days were analyzed. Time in range (3.91- 10.0mmol/L) was 72.6 ± 11.1% overall. Time below range (<3.9mmol/L) was 3.1% (1.4-5.1) (median [interquartile range]). Auto-mode was active for 95.8% (91.8-97.9) of time. This real-world analysis suggests that the performance of Cambridge hybrid closed-loop app with this glucose sensor is comparable to other commercially available hybrid closed-loop systems., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: RH reports receiving speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Dexcom, and Novo Nordisk, receiving license fees from BBraun, declares consulting fees from Abbott Diabetes Care; patent issued in closed-loop field, being director and stockholder at CamDiab. CN declares support for attending meetings from Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and receiving research grants from Novo Nordisk. HA is a consultant at CamDiab. MEW declares patents related to closed-loop and being a consultant at CamDiab. SH reports receiving speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Sanofi, Ypsomed and Dexcom and consulting fees for CamDiab. She is a director of Ask Diabetes Ltd providing training and research support in health care settings.

Background: We analyzed real-world evidence to assess the performance of the mylife CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop system., Methods: Users from 15 countries across different age groups who used the system between May 9, 2022, and December 3, 2022, and who had ≥30 days of continuous glucose monitor data, and ≥30% of closed-loop usage were included in the current analysis (N = 1805)., Results: Time in range (3.9-10 mmol/L) was 72.6 ± 11.5% (mean ± SD) for all users and increased by age from 66.9 ± 11.7% for users ≤6 years old to 81.8 ± 8.7% for users ≥65 years. Time spent in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) was 2.3% [1.3, 3.6] (median [interquartile range]). Mean glucose and glucose management indicator were 8.4 ± 1.1 mmol/L and 6.9%, respectively. Time using closed-loop was high at 94.7% [90.0, 96.9]., Conclusions: Glycemic outcomes from the present real-world evidence are comparable to results obtained from previous randomized controlled studies and confirm the efficacy of this hybrid closed-loop system in real-world settings., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: HA is a consultant at CamDiab. RH reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Dexcom, and Novo Nordisk, receiving license fees from BBraun; patents related to closed-loop, being consultant to Abbott Diabetes Care, and being director at CamDiab. MEW is a consultant at CamDiab and reports patents related to closed-loop. YR reports no conflict of interest related to the present paper. YR is an employee of Abbott Diabetes Care. JDS is an employee of Ypsomed AG.

Objective: We aimed to assess whether percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia during closed-loop insulin delivery differs by age group and time of day. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from hybrid closed-loop studies involving young children (2-7 years), children and adolescents (8-18 years), adults (19-59 years), and older adults (≥60 years) with type 1 diabetes. Main outcome was time spent in hypoglycemia <3.9 mmol/L (<70 mg/dL). Eight weeks of data for 88 participants were analyzed. Results: Median time spent in hypoglycemia over the 24-h period was highest in children and adolescents (4.4% [interquartile range 2.4-5.0]) and very young children (4.0% [3.4-5.2]), followed by adults (2.7% [1.7-4.0]), and older adults (1.8% [1.2-2.2]); P  < 0.001 for difference between age groups. Time spent in hypoglycemia during nighttime (midnight-05:59) was lower than during daytime (06:00-23:59) across all age groups. Conclusion: Time in hypoglycemia was highest in the pediatric age group during closed-loop insulin delivery. Hypoglycemia burden was lowest overnight across all age groups.

Diabetes technologies represent a paradigm shift in type 1 diabetes care. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) pumps and continuous glucose monitors (CGM) improve glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, enhance time in optimal glycemic range, limit severe hypoglycemia, and reduce diabetes distress. The artificial pancreas or closed-loop system connects these devices via a control algorithm programmed to maintain target glucose, partially relieving the person living with diabetes of this constant responsibility. Automating insulin delivery reduces the input required from those wearing the device, leading to better physiological and psychosocial outcomes. Hybrid closed-loop therapy systems, requiring user-initiated prandial insulin doses, are the most advanced closed-loop systems commercially available. Fully closed-loop systems, requiring no user-initiated insulin boluses, and dual hormone systems have been shown to be safe and efficacious in the research setting. Clinical adoption of closed-loop therapy remains in early stages despite recent technological advances. People living with diabetes, health care professionals, and regulatory agencies continue to navigate the complex path to equitable access. We review the available devices, evidence, clinical implications, and barriers regarding these innovatory technologies., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

We evaluated the use of hybrid closed-loop (HCL) insulin delivery with faster insulin aspart (Fiasp) in very young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). In a double-blind, multicenter, randomized, crossover study, children aged 2-6 years with T1D underwent two 8-week periods of HCL using CamAPS FX with Fiasp and standard insulin aspart (IAsp), in random order. Primary endpoint was between-treatment difference in time in target range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L. We randomized 25 participants: mean (±standard deviation) age 5.1 ± 1.3 years, baseline HbA1c 55 ± 9 mmol/mol. Time in range was not significantly different between interventions (64% ± 9% vs. 65% ± 9% for HCL with Fiasp vs. IAsp; mean difference -0.33% [95% confidence interval: -2.13 to 1.47; P  = 0.71]). There was no significant difference in time with glucose <3.9 mmol/L. No post-randomization severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis events occurred. Use of Fiasp with CamAPS FX HCL demonstrated no significant difference in glycemic outcomes compared with IAsp in very young children with T1D. Clinical trials registration: NCT04759144.

Aims: Fully closed-loop insulin delivery has been shown in clinical trials to be safe and improve glucose control compared with standard insulin therapy in the inpatient setting. We investigated the feasibility of implementing the approved CamAPS HX fully closed-loop system in a hospital setting., Methods: This implementation project was conducted in a large teaching hospital in Cambridge, UK. Healthcare professional training was multimodal including face-to-face workshops, online learning modules and supported by standard operating procedures. Set-up and maintenance of closed-loop devices were undertaken by the inpatient diabetes team. Selection of suitable patients was multidisciplinary and prioritised those with more challenging diabetes management. Demographic and clinical data were collected from electronic health records and diabetes data management platforms., Results: In the 12 months since the closed-loop system was implemented, 32 inpatients (mean ± SD age 61 ± 16 years, 8 females, 24 males) used closed-loop insulin delivery during their admission, across medical and surgical wards in the hospital with a total of 555 days of closed-loop glucose control (median [IQR]: 14 [6, 22] days per inpatient). The time spent in target glucose range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L was 53.3 ± 18.3%. Mean glucose was 10.7 ± 1.9 mmol/L with 46.0 ± 18.2% of time spent with glucose >10.0 mmol/L. Time spent with sensor glucose below 3.9 mmol/L was low (median [IQR]: 0.38 [0.00, 0.85]). There were no episodes of severe hypoglycaemia or diabetic ketoacidosis during closed-loop use., Conclusions: We have demonstrated that the fully closed-loop system can be safely and effectively implemented by a diabetes outreach team in complex medical and surgical inpatients with challenging glycaemic control., (© 2023 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Diabetes UK.)

Background: Interest is growing in how closed-loop systems can support attainment of within-target glucose levels amongst pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. We explored healthcare professionals' views about how, and why, pregnant women benefitted from using the CamAPS FX system during the AiDAPT trial., Methods: We interviewed 19 healthcare professionals who supported women using closed-loop during the trial. Our analysis focused on identifying descriptive and analytical themes relevant to clinical practice., Results: Healthcare professionals highlighted clinical and quality-of-life benefits to using closed-loop in pregnancy; albeit, they attributed some of these to the continuous glucose monitoring component. They emphasised that the closed-loop was not a panacea and that, to gain maximum benefit, an effective collaboration between themselves, the woman and the closed-loop was needed. Optimal performance of the technology, as they further noted, also required women to interact with the system sufficiently, but not excessively; a requirement that they felt some women had found challenging. Even where healthcare professionals felt that this balance was not achieved, they suggested that women had still benefitted from using the system. Healthcare professionals reported difficulties predicting how specific women would engage with the technology. In light of their trial experiences, healthcare professionals favoured an inclusive approach to closed-loop rollout in routine clinical care., Conclusions: Healthcare professionals recommended that closed-loop systems be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes in the future. Presenting closed-loop systems to pregnant women and healthcare teams as one pillar of a three-party collaboration may help promote optimal use., (© 2023 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Diabetes UK.)

Introduction: Medical devices, including high-risk medical devices, have greatly contributed to recent improvements in the management of diabetes. However, the clinical evidence that is submitted for regulatory approval is not transparent, and thus a comprehensive summary of the evidence for high-risk devices approved for managing diabetes in Europe is lacking. In the framework of the Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices group, we will, therefore, perform a systematic review and meta-analysis, which will evaluate the efficacy, safety and usability of high-risk medical devices for the management of diabetes., Method and Analysis: This study has been reported according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We will search Embase (Elsevier), Medline All (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley), Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science) to identify interventional and observational studies that evaluate the efficacy and/or safety and/or usability of high-risk medical devices for the management of diabetes. No language or publication dates' limits will be applied. Animal studies will be excluded. In accordance with the Medical Device Regulation in European Union, high-risk medical devices are those in classes IIb and III. The following medical devices for diabetes management are considered as having a high risk: implantable continuous glucose monitoring systems, implantable pumps and automated insulin delivery devices. Selection of studies, data extraction and quality of evidence assessment will be performed independently by two researchers. Sensitivity analysis will be performed to identify and explain potential heterogeneity., Ethics and Dissemination: No ethical approval is needed for this systematic review, as it is based in already published data. Our findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42022366871., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RH reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Dexcom and Novo Nordisk, receiving license fees from BBraun, and being director at CamDiab. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Aims: To explore healthcare professionals' views about the training and support needed to rollout closed-loop technology to pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. Methods: We interviewed ( n  = 19) healthcare professionals who supported pregnant women using CamAPS FX closed-loop during the Automated insulin Delivery Amongst Pregnant women with Type 1 diabetes (AiDAPT) trial. Data were analyzed descriptively. An online workshop involving ( n  = 15) trial team members was used to inform recommendations. Ethics approvals were obtained in conjunction with those for the wider trial. Results: Interviewees expressed enthusiasm for a national rollout of closed-loop, but anticipated various challenges, some specific to use during pregnancy. These included variations in insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring expertise and difficulties embedding and retaining key skills, due to the relatively small numbers of pregnant women using closed-loop. Inexperienced staff also highlighted difficulties interpreting data downloads. To support rollout, interviewees recommended providing expert initial advice training, delivered by device manufacturers together with online training resources and specific checklists for different systems. They also highlighted a need for 24 h technical support, especially when supporting technology naive women after first transitioning onto closed-loop in early pregnancy. They further recommended providing case-based meetings and mentorship for inexperienced colleagues, including support interpreting data downloads. Interviewees were optimistic that if healthcare professionals received training and support, their long-term workloads could be reduced because closed-loop lessened women's need for glycemic management input, especially in later pregnancy. Conclusions: Interviewees identified challenges and opportunities to rolling-out closed-loop and provided practical suggestions to upskill inexperienced staff supporting pregnant women using closed-loop. A key priority will be to determine how best to develop mentorship services to support inexperienced staff delivering closed-loop. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04938557.

The significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers, and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past 6 years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society.)

The central role of pancreas in glucose regulation imposes high demands on perioperative glucose management in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. In a post hoc subgroup analysis of a randomized controlled trial, we evaluated the perioperative use of subcutaneous (SC) fully closed-loop (FCL; CamAPS HX) versus usual care (UC) insulin therapy in patients undergoing partial or total pancreatic resection. Glucose control was compared using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics (% time with CGM values between 5.6 and 10.0 mmol/L and more). Over the time of hospitalization, FCL resulted in better glucose control than UC with more time spent in the target range 5.6-10.0 mmol/L (mean [standard deviation] % time in target 77.7% ± 4.6% and 41.1% ± 19.5% in FCL vs. UC subjects, respectively; mean difference 36.6% [95% confidence interval 18.5-54.8]), without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. Findings suggest that an adaptive SC FCL approach effectively accommodated the highly variable insulin needs in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. Clinical trials registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04361799.

In adults with type 2 diabetes, the benefits of fully closed-loop insulin delivery, which does not require meal bolusing, are unclear. In an open-label, single-center, randomized crossover study, 26 adults with type 2 diabetes (7 women and 19 men; (mean ± s.d.) age, 59 ± 11 years; baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), 75 ± 15 mmol mol -1 (9.0% ± 1.4%)) underwent two 8-week periods to compare the CamAPS HX fully closed-loop app with standard insulin therapy and a masked glucose sensor (control) in random order, with a 2-week to 4-week washout between periods. The primary endpoint was proportion of time in target glucose range (3.9-10.0 mmol l -1 ). Analysis was by intention to treat. Thirty participants were recruited between 16 December 2020 and 24 November 2021, of whom 28 were randomized to two groups (14 to closed-loop therapy first and 14 to control therapy first). Proportion of time in target glucose range (mean ± s.d.) was 66.3% ± 14.9% with closed-loop therapy versus 32.3% ± 24.7% with control therapy (mean difference, 35.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval (CI), 28.0-42.6 percentage points; P < 0.001). Time > 10.0 mmol l -1 was 33.2% ± 14.8% with closed-loop therapy versus 67.0% ± 25.2% with control therapy (mean difference, -35.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -42.8 to -27.5 percentage points; P < 0.001). Mean glucose was lower during the closed-loop therapy period than during the control therapy period (9.2 ± 1.2 mmol l -1 versus 12.6 ± 3.0 mmol l -1 , respectively; mean difference, -3.6 mmol l -1 ; 95% CI, -4.6 to -2.5 mmol l -1 ; P < 0.001). HbA1c was lower following closed-loop therapy (57 ± 9 mmol mol -1 (7.3% ± 0.8%)) than following control therapy (72 ± 13 mmol mol -1 (8.7% ± 1.2%); mean difference, -15 mmol mol -1 ; 95% CI, -11 to -20 mmol l -1 (mean difference, -1.4%; 95% CI, -1.0 to -1.8%); P < 0.001). Time < 3.9 mmol l -1 was similar between treatments (a median of 0.44% (interquartile range, 0.19-0.81%) during the closed-loop therapy period versus a median of 0.08% (interquartile range, 0.00-1.05%) during the control therapy period; P = 0.43). No severe hypoglycemia events occurred in either period. One treatment-related serious adverse event occurred during the closed-loop therapy period. Fully closed-loop insulin delivery improved glucose control without increasing hypoglycemia compared with standard insulin therapy and may represent a safe and efficacious method to improve outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04701424)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Aim: To examine changes in the lived experience of type 1 diabetes after use of hybrid closed loop (CL), including the CamAPS FX CL system., Materials and Methods: The primary study was conducted as an open-label, single-period, randomized, parallel design contrasting CL versus insulin pump (with or without continuous glucose monitoring). Participants were asked to complete patient-reported outcomes before starting CL and 3 and 6 months later. Surveys assessed diabetes distress, hypoglycaemia concerns and quality of life. Qualitative focus group data were collected at the completion of the study., Results: In this sample of 98 youth (age range 6-18, mean age 12.7 ± 2.8 years) and their parents, CL use was not associated with psychosocial benefits overall. However, the subgroup (n = 12) using the CamAPS FX system showed modest improvements in quality of life and parent distress, reinforced by both survey (p < .05) and focus group responses. There were no negative effects of CL use reported by study participants., Conclusions: Closed loop use via the CamAPS FX system was associated with modest improvements in aspects of the lived experience of managing type 1 diabetes in youth and their families. Further refinements of the system may optimize the user experience., (© 2022 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Over the last five years, closed-loop insulin delivery systems have transitioned from research-only to real-life use. A number of systems have been commercialized and are increasingly used in clinical practice. Given the rapidity of new developments in the field, understanding the capabilities and key similarities and differences of current systems can be challenging. This review aims to provide an update on the state of the field of closed-loop insulin delivery systems, including emerging technologies., Areas Covered: We summarize key clinical safety and efficacy evidence of commercial and emerging insulin-only hybrid closed-loop systems for type 1 diabetes. A literature search was conducted and clinical trials using closed-loop systems during free-living conditions were identified to report on safety and efficacy data. We comment on emerging technologies and adjuncts for closed-loop systems, as well as non-technological priorities in closed-loop insulin delivery., Expert Opinion: Commercial hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems are efficacious, consistently improving glycemic control when compared to standard therapy. Challenges remain in widespread adoption due to clinical inertia and the lack of resources to embrace technological developments by health care professionals.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop (HCL) automated insulin delivery in very young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) on caregivers' well-being, fear of hypoglycemia, and sleepiness., Research Design and Methods: We conducted a multinational, open-label, randomized crossover study. Children (age 1-7 years) with T1D received treatment for two 4-month periods in random order, comparing HCL with sensor augmented pump (control). At baseline and after each treatment period, caregivers were invited to complete World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index, Hypoglycemia Fear Survey, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale questionnaires., Results: Caregivers of 74 children (mean ± SD age 5 ± 2 years and baseline HbA1c 7.3 ± 0.7%; 42% female) participated. Results revealed significantly lower scores for hypoglycemia fear (P < 0.001) and higher scores for well-being (P < 0.001) after HCL treatment. A trend toward a reduction in sleepiness score was observed (P = 0.09)., Conclusions: Our results suggest better well-being and less hypoglycemia fear in caregivers of very young children with T1D on CamAPS FX HCL., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

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.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objective: Perioperative management of glucose levels remains challenging. We aimed to assess whether fully closed-loop subcutaneous insulin delivery would improve glycemic control compared with standard insulin therapy in insulin-requiring patients undergoing elective surgery., Research Design and Methods: We performed a single-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Patients with diabetes (other than type 1) undergoing elective surgery were recruited from various surgical units and randomly assigned using a minimization schedule (stratified by HbA1c and daily insulin dose) to fully closed-loop insulin delivery with fast-acting insulin aspart (closed-loop group) or standard insulin therapy according to local clinical practice (control group). Study treatment was administered from hospital admission to discharge (for a maximum of 20 days). The primary end point was the proportion of time with sensor glucose in the target range (5.6-10.0 mmol/L)., Results: Forty-five patients were enrolled and assigned to the closed-loop (n = 23) or the control (n = 22) group. One patient (closed-loop group) withdrew from the study before surgery and was not analyzed. Participants underwent abdominal (57%), vascular (23%), orthopedic (9%), neuro (9%), or thoracic (2%) surgery. The mean proportion of time that sensor glucose was in the target range was 76.7 ± 10.1% in the closed-loop and 54.7 ± 20.8% in the control group (mean difference 22.0 percentage points [95% CI 11.9; 32.0%]; P < 0.001). No episodes of severe hypoglycemia (<3.0 mmol/L) or hyperglycemia with ketonemia or any study-related adverse events occurred in either group., Conclusions: In the context of mixed elective surgery, the use of fully closed-loop subcutaneous insulin delivery improves glucose control without a higher risk of hypoglycemia., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objectives: We explored parents' views about healthcare professionals having remote access to their young child's insulin and glucose data during a clinical trial to inform use of data sharing in routine pediatric diabetes care., Research Design and Methods: Interviews with 33 parents of 30 children (aged 1-7 years) with type 1 diabetes participating in a randomized trial (KidsAP02) comparing hybrid closed-loop system use with sensor-augmented pump therapy. Data were analyzed using a qualitative descriptive approach., Results: Parents reported multiple benefits to healthcare professionals being able to remotely access their child's glucose and insulin data during the trial, despite some initial concerns regarding the insights offered into everyday family life. Key benefits included: less work uploading/sharing data; improved consultations; and, better clinical input and support from healthcare professionals between consultations. Parents noted how healthcare professionals' real-time data access facilitated remote delivery of consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic, and how these were more suitable for young children than face-to-face appointments. Parents endorsed use of real-time data sharing in routine clinical care, subject to caveats regarding data access, security, and privacy. They also proposed that, if data sharing were used, consultations for closed-loop system users in routine clinical care could be replaced with needs-driven, ad-hoc contact., Conclusions: Real-time data sharing can offer clinical, logistical, and quality-of-life benefits and enhance opportunities for remote consultations, which may be more appropriate for young children. Wider rollout would require consideration of ethical and cybersecurity issues and, given the heightened intrusion on families' privacy, a non-judgmental, collaborative approach by healthcare professionals., (© 2022 The Authors. Pediatric Diabetes published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims: To explore parents' experiences of using remote monitoring technology when caring for a very young child with type 1 diabetes during a clinical trial., Methods: Interviews were conducted with parents of 30 children (aged 1-7 years) participating in a trial (the KidsAP02 study) comparing hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery with sensor-augmented pump therapy. In both arms, parents had access to remote monitoring technology. Data analysis focused on identification of descriptive themes., Results: Remote monitoring technology gave parents improved access to data which helped them pre-empt and manage glucose excursions. Parents observed how, when children were in their own care, they could be more absent while present, as their attention could shift to non-diabetes-related activities. Conversely, when children were others' care, remote monitoring enabled parents to be present while absent, by facilitating oversight and collaboration with caregivers. Parents described how remote monitoring made them feel more confident allowing others to care for their children. Parents' confidence increased when using a hybrid closed-loop system, as less work was required to keep glucose in range. Benefits to children were also highlighted, including being able to play and sleep uninterrupted and attend parties and sleepovers without their parents. While most parents welcomed the increased sense of control remote monitoring offered, some noted downsides, such as lack of respite from caregiving responsibilities., Conclusions: Remote monitoring can offer manifold benefits to both parents and very young children with type 1 diabetes. Some parents, however, may profit from opportunities to take 'time out'., (© 2022 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Diabetes UK.)

Aims: To explore parents' experiences of using a hybrid closed-loop system (CamAPS FX) when caring for a very young child (aged 1-7 years) with type 1 diabetes., Methods: Interviews with n = 33 parents of 30 children who used the system during a randomised controlled trial. Data analysis used a descriptive thematic approach., Results: While some parents were initially reticent about handing control to the system, all reported clinical benefits to using the technology, having to do less diabetes-related work and needing less clinical input over time. Parents welcomed opportunities to enhance the system's efficacy (using Ease-off and Boost functions) as required. Parents described how the system's automated glucose control facilitated more normality, including sleeping better, worrying less about their child, and feeling more confident and able to outsource care. Parents also described more normality for the child (alongside better sleep, mood and concentration, and lessened distress) and siblings. Parents liked being able to administer insulin using a smartphone, but suggested refinements to device size and functionality., Conclusions: Using a hybrid closed-loop system in very young children can facilitate greater normality and may result in a lessened demand for health professionals' input. Systems may need to be customised for very young children., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)