Search

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 AiDAPT trial. Data were analysed descriptively. An online workshop involving (n=15) trial team members was used to inform recommendations.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-hour technical support, especially when supporting technology naïve 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 longer-term workloads could be reduced because closed-loop lessened women’s need for glycaemic 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.

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-dst-10.1177_19322968231161076 for Variation in the Current Use of Technology to Support Diabetes Management in UK Hospitals: Results of a Survey of Health Care Professionals by Alistair Lumb, Shivani Misra, Gerry Rayman, Parizad Avari, Daniel Flanagan, Pratik Choudhary and Ketan Dhatariya in Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-dst-10.1177_19322968231161076 for Variation in the Current Use of Technology to Support Diabetes Management in UK Hospitals: Results of a Survey of Health Care Professionals by Alistair Lumb, Shivani Misra, Gerry Rayman, Parizad Avari, Daniel Flanagan, Pratik Choudhary and Ketan Dhatariya in Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-dst-10.1177_19322968221085273 for A Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) of Hypoglycemia and Hyperglycemia for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Validated by Clinician Ratings by David C. Klonoff, Jing Wang, David Rodbard, Michael A. Kohn, Chengdong Li, Dorian Liepmann, David Kerr, David Ahn, Anne L. Peters, Guillermo E. Umpierrez, Jane Jeffrie Seley, Nicole Y. Xu, Kevin T. Nguyen, Gregg Simonson, Michael S. D. Agus, Mohammed E. Al-Sofiani, Gustavo Armaiz-Pena, Timothy S. Bailey, Ananda Basu, Tadej Battelino, Sewagegn Yeshiwas Bekele, Pierre-Yves Benhamou, B. Wayne Bequette, Thomas Blevins, Marc D. Breton, Jessica R. Castle, James Geoffrey Chase, Kong Y. Chen, Pratik Choudhary, Mark A. Clements, Kelly L. Close, Curtiss B. Cook, Thomas Danne, Francis J. Doyle, Angela Drincic, Kathleen M. Dungan, Steven V. Edelman, Niels Ejskjaer, Juan C. Espinoza, G. Alexander Fleming, Gregory P. Forlenza, Guido Freckmann, Rodolfo J. Galindo, Ana Maria Gomez, Hanna A. Gutow, Lutz Heinemann, Irl B. Hirsch, Thanh D. Hoang, Roman Hovorka, Johan H. Jendle, Linong Ji, Shashank R. Joshi, Michael Joubert, Suneil K. Koliwad, Rayhan A. Lal, M. Cecilia Lansang, Wei-An (Andy) Lee, Lalantha Leelarathna, Lawrence A. Leiter, Marcus Lind, Michelle L. Litchman, Julia K. Mader, Katherine M. Mahoney, Boris Mankovsky, Umesh Masharani, Nestoras N. Mathioudakis, Alexander Mayorov, Jordan Messler, Joshua D. Miller, Viswanathan Mohan, James H. Nichols, Kirsten Nørgaard, David N. O’Neal, Francisco J. Pasquel, Athena Philis-Tsimikas, Thomas Pieber, Moshe Phillip, William H. Polonsky, Rodica Pop-Busui, Gerry Rayman, Eun-Jung Rhee, Steven J. Russell, Viral N. Shah, Jennifer L. Sherr, Koji Sode, Elias K. Spanakis, Deborah J. Wake, Kayo Waki, Amisha Wallia, Melissa E. Weinberg, Howard Wolpert, Eugene E. Wright, Mihail Zilbermint and Boris Kovatchev in Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-dst-10.1177_19322968221137335 for Insulin Pumps and Hybrid Close Loop Systems Within Hospital: A Scoping Review and Practical Guidance From the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care by Parizad Avari, Alistair Lumb, Daniel Flanagan, Gerry Rayman, Shivani Misra, Pratik Choudhary and Ketan Dhatariya in Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Additional file 1. NDPS protocol.

Additional file 4. Additional data Tables A and B.

Additional file 5: Figure 2: Directed acyclic graph (DAG).

Additional file 2. Final statistical analysis plan.

Additional file 3. CONSORT checklist.

OBJECTIVE: Despite advances in technology, optimal glucose control remains elusive and neonatal complications remain ubiquitous in type 1 diabetes (T1D) pregnancy. Our aim was to examine the safety, efficacy, and longer-term feasibility of day-and-night closed-loop insulin delivery. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We recruited 16 pregnant women (mean [SD]: age 32.8 [5.0] years, T1D duration 19.4 [10.2] years, HbA1c 8.0% [1.1], and BMI 26.6 [4.4] kg/m2) to an open-label, randomized, crossover trial. Participants completed 28 days of closed-loop and sensor-augmented pump (SAP) insulin delivery separated by a washout period. Afterward, participants could continue to use the closed-loop system up to 6 weeks postpartum. The primary end point was the proportion of time with glucose levels within the target range (63-140 mg/dL). RESULTS: The proportion of time with glucose levels within target was comparable during closed-loop and SAP insulin delivery (62.3 vs. 60.1% [95% CI -4.1 to 8.3]; P = 0.47). Mean glucose and time spent hyperglycemic >140 mg/dL also did not differ (131.4 vs. 131.4 mg/dL [P = 0.85] and 36.6 vs. 36.1% [P = 0.86], respectively). During closed-loop, fewer hypoglycemic episodes occurred (median 8 [range 1-17] vs. 12.5 [1-53] over 28 days; P = 0.04) and less time at

Background: Offloading interventions are commonly used in clinical practice to heal foot ulcers. The aim of this updated systematic review is to investigate the effectiveness of offloading interventions to heal diabetic foot ulcers. Methods: We updated our previous systematic review search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to also include original studies published between July 29, 2014 and August 13, 2018 relating to four offloading intervention categories in populations with diabetic foot ulcers: (a) offloading devices, (b) footwear, (c) other offloading techniques, and (d) surgical offloading techniques. Outcomes included ulcer healing, plantar pressure, ambulatory activity, adherence, adverse events, patient-reported measures, and cost-effectiveness. Included controlled studies were assessed for methodological quality and had key data extracted into evidence and risk of bias tables. Included non-controlled studies were summarised on a narrative basis. Results: We identified 41 studies from our updated search for a total of 165 included studies. Six included studies were meta-analyses, 26 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 13 other controlled studies, and 120 non-controlled studies. Five meta-analyses and 12 RCTs provided high-quality evidence for non-removable knee-high offloading devices being more effective than removable offloading devices and therapeutic footwear for healing plantar forefoot and midfoot ulcers. Total contact casts (TCCs) and non-removable knee-high walkers were shown to be equally effective. Moderate-quality evidence exists for removable knee-high and ankle-high offloading devices being equally effective in healing, but knee-high devices have a larger effect on reducing plantar pressure and ambulatory activity. Low-quality evidence exists for the use of felted foam and surgical offloading to promote healing of plantar forefoot and midfoot ulcers. Very limited evidence exists for the efficacy of any offloading intervention for healing plantar heel ulcers, non-plantar ulcers, and neuropathic ulcers with infection or ischemia. Conclusion: Strong evidence supports the use of non-removable knee-high offloading devices (either TCC or non-removable walker) as the first-choice offloading intervention for healing plantar neuropathic forefoot and midfoot ulcers. Removable offloading devices, either knee-high or ankle-high, are preferred as second choice over other offloading interventions. The evidence bases to support any other offloading intervention is still weak and more high-quality controlled studies are needed in these areas.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Women with diabetes remain at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with poor pregnancy preparation. However, women with type 2 diabetes are less aware of and less likely to access pre-pregnancy care (PPC) compared with women with type 1 diabetes. We developed and evaluated a community-based PPC programme with the aim of improving pregnancy preparation in all women with pregestational diabetes. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study comparing pregnancy preparation measures before and during/after the PPC intervention in women with pre-existing diabetes from 1 June 2013 to 28 February 2017. The setting was 422 primary care practices and ten National Health Service specialist antenatal diabetes clinics. A multifaceted approach was taken to engage women with diabetes and community healthcare teams. This included identifying and sending PPC information leaflets to all eligible women, electronic preconception care templates, online education modules and resources, and regional meetings and educational events. Key outcomes were preconception folic acid supplementation, maternal HbA1c level, use of potentially harmful medications at conception and gestational age at first presentation, before and during/after the PPC programme. RESULTS: A total of 306 (73%) primary care practices actively participated in the PPC programme. Primary care databases were used to identify 5075 women with diabetes aged 18-45 years. PPC leaflets were provided to 4558 (89.8%) eligible women. There were 842 consecutive pregnancies in women with diabetes: 502 before and 340 during/after the PPC intervention. During/after the PPC intervention, pregnant women with type 2 diabetes were more likely to achieve target HbA1c levels ≤48 mmol/mol (6.5%) (44.4% of women before vs 58.5% of women during/after PPC intervention; p = 0.016) and to take 5 mg folic acid daily (23.5% and 41.8%; p = 0.001). There was an almost threefold improvement in 'optimal' pregnancy preparation in women with type 2 diabetes (5.8% and 15.1%; p = 0.021). Women with type 1 diabetes presented for earlier antenatal care during/after PPC (54.0% vs 67.3% before 8 weeks' gestation; p = 0.003) with no other changes. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: A pragmatic community-based PPC programme was associated with clinically relevant improvements in pregnancy preparation in women with type 2 diabetes. To our knowledge, this is the first community-based PPC intervention to improve pregnancy preparation for women with type 2 diabetes. DATA AVAILABILITY: Further details of the data collection methodology, individual clinic data and the full audit reports for healthcare professionals and service users are available from https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/clinical-audits-and-registries/our-clinical-audits-and-registries/national-pregnancy-in-diabetes-audit .

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated closed-loop insulin delivery with a model predictive control (MPC) algorithm during early (12-16 weeks) and late gestation (28-32 weeks) in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Ten women with type 1 diabetes (age 31 years, diabetes duration 19 years, BMI 24.1 kg/m(2), booking A1C 6.9%) were studied over 24 h during early (14.8 weeks) and late pregnancy (28.0 weeks). A nurse adjusted the basal insulin infusion rate from continuous glucose measurements (CGM), fed into the MPC algorithm every 15 min. Mean glucose and time spent in target (63-140 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (>140 to ≥ 180 mg/dL), and hypoglycemic (140 mg/dL) was 7% (0-40%) in early and 0% (0-6%) in late pregnancy (P = 0.25) and hypoglycemic (