Search

Objective: To determine feasibility and compare acceptance of an investigational Medtronic enhanced advanced hybrid closed-loop (e-AHCL) system in adults with type 1 diabetes with earlier iterations., Research Design and Methods: This nonrandomized three-stage (12 weeks each) exploratory study compared e-AHCL (Bluetooth-enabled MiniMed 780G insulin pump with automatic data upload [780G] incorporating an updated algorithm; calibration-free all-in-one disposable sensor; 7-day infusion set) preceded by a run-in (non-Bluetooth 780G [670G V4.0 insulin pump] requiring manual data upload; Guardian Sensor 3 [GS3] requiring calibration; 3-day infusion set), stage 1 (780G; GS3; 3-day infusion set), and stage 2 (780G; calibration-free Guardian Sensor 4; 3-day infusion set). Treatment satisfaction was assessed by Diabetes Technology Questionnaire (DTQ)-current (primary outcome) and other validated treatment satisfaction tools with glucose outcomes by continuous glucose monitoring metrics., Results: Twenty-one of 22 (11 women) participants (baseline HbA1c 6.7%/50 mmol/mol) completed the study. DTQ-current scores favored e-AHCL (123.1 [17.8]) versus run-in (101.6 [24.2]) and versus stage 1 (110.6 [20.8]) (both P < 0.001) but did not differ from stage 2 (119.4 [16.0]; P = 0.271). Diabetes Medication System Rating Questionnaire short-form scores for "Convenience and Efficacy" favored e-AHCL over run-in and all stages. Percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL was greater with e-AHCL versus run-in and stage 2 (+2.9% and +3.6%, respectively; both P < 0.001). Percent times of <70 mg/dL for e-AHCL were significantly lower than run-in, stage 1, and stage 2 (-0.9%, -0.6%, and -0.5%, respectively; all P < 0.01)., Conclusions: e-AHCL was feasible. User satisfaction increased compared with earlier Medtronic HCL iterations without compromising glucose control., (© 2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy among older adults with type 1 diabetes., Research Design and Methods: This open-label, randomized (1:1), crossover trial compared 4 months of closed-loop versus sensor-augmented pump therapy. Eligible adults were aged ≥60 years, with type 1 diabetes (duration ≥10 years), using an insulin pump. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) time in range (TIR; 3.9-10.0 mmol/L)., Results: There were 30 participants (mean age 67 [SD 5] years), with median type 1 diabetes duration of 38 years (interquartile range [IQR] 20-47), randomized (n = 15 to each sequence); all completed the trial. The mean TIR was 75.2% (SD 6.3) during the closed-loop stage and 69.0% (9.1) during the sensor-augmented pump stage (difference of 6.2 percentage points [95% CI 4.4 to 8.0]; P < 0.0001). All prespecified CGM metrics favored closed loop over the sensor-augmented pump; benefits were greatest overnight. Closed loop reduced CGM time <3.9 mmol/L during 24 h/day by 0.5 percentage points (95% CI 0.3 to 1.1; P = 0.0005) and overnight by 0.8 percentage points (0.4 to 1.1; P < 0.0001) compared with sensor-augmented pump. There was no significant difference in HbA1c between closed-loop versus sensor-augmented pump stages (7.3% [IQR, 7.1-7.5] (56 mmol/mol [54-59]) vs. 7.5% [7.1-7.9] (59 mmol/mol [54-62]), respectively; P = 0.13). Three severe hypoglycemia events occurred during the closed-loop stage and two occurred during the sensor-augmented pump stage; no hypoglycemic events required hospitalization. One episode of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred during the sensor-augmented pump stage; no serious adverse events occurred during the closed-loop stage., Conclusions: Closed-loop therapy is an effective treatment option for older adults with long-duration type 1 diabetes, and no safety issues were identified. These older adults had higher TIR accompanied by less time below range during closed loop than during sensor-augmented pump therapy. Of particular clinical importance, closed loop reduced the time spent in hypoglycemic range overnight., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To investigate glycemic and psychosocial outcomes with hybrid closed-loop (HCL) versus user-determined insulin dosing with multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump (i.e., standard therapy for most adults with type 1 diabetes)., Research Design and Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes using MDI or insulin pump without continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) were randomized to 26 weeks of HCL (Medtronic 670G) or continuation of current therapy. The primary outcome was masked CGM time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL) during the final 3 weeks., Results: Participants were randomized to HCL ( n = 61) or control ( n = 59). Baseline mean (SD) age was 44.2 (11.7) years, HbA 1c was 7.4% (0.9%) (57 [10] mmol/mol), 53% were women, and 51% used MDI. HCL TIR increased from (baseline) 55% (13%) to (26 weeks) 70% (10%) with the control group unchanged: (baseline) 55% (12%) and (26 weeks) 55% (13%) (difference 15% [95% CI 11, 19]; P < 0.0001). For HCL, HbA 1c was lower (median [95% CI] difference -0.4% [-0.6, -0.2]; -4 mmol/mol [-7, -2]; P < 0.0001) and diabetes-specific positive well-being was higher (difference 1.2 [95% CI 0.4, 1.9]; P < 0.0048) without a deterioration in diabetes distress, perceived sleep quality, or cognition. Seventeen (9 device-related) versus 13 serious adverse events occurred in the HCL and control groups, respectively., Conclusions: In adults with type 1 diabetes, 26 weeks of HCL improved TIR, HbA 1c , and their sense of satisfaction from managing their diabetes compared with those continuing with user-determined insulin dosing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. For most people living with type 1 diabetes globally, this trial demonstrates that HCL is feasible, acceptable, and advantageous., (© 2020 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: Despite the challenges of living with type 1 diabetes, many adolescents achieve "resilient outcomes": high engagement in self-management behaviors such as self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), good quality of life (QOL), and within-target glycemic outcomes (HbA 1c ). Adaptive diabetes-related behaviors (i.e., "strengths") are associated with resilient outcomes, yet the combination of risks and strengths in relation to resilient outcomes is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate relations among diabetes strengths and resilient outcomes in the context of psychological and family risk factors., Research Design and Methods: A total of 471 Australian adolescents with type 1 diabetes (mean age 15.7 ± 1.9 years; diabetes duration 6.9 ± 4.2 years; 62% female; 53% using insulin pumps) completed a national cross-sectional survey about their diabetes-related strengths, risk factors (depressive/anxiety symptoms, family conflict), and resilient outcomes (SMBG frequency, general QOL, HbA 1c )., Results: Greater diabetes strengths were significantly related to resilient outcomes: more frequent SMBG ( r = 0.39), lower HbA 1c ( r = -0.31), and higher general QOL ( r = 0.50), as well as to lower risks: fewer depressive ( r = -0.45) and anxiety ( r = -0.40) symptoms and less conflict ( r = 0.28). In multivariate regressions, diabetes strengths consistently related to all resilient outcomes beyond significant risk factors., Conclusions: In a large sample of Australian adolescents, diabetes strengths were strongly related to key resilient outcomes, even in the presence of well-documented psychological and family risk factors. More research is needed to determine whether strengths reduce or buffer other risks. Given the associations with self-management, HbA 1c , and general QOL, monitoring and enhancing diabetes strengths may support resilience promotion during a vulnerable developmental period., (© 2017 by the American Diabetes Association.)