Search

Currently patients with diabetes comprise up to 25-30% of the census of adult wards and critical care units in our hospitals. Although evidence suggests that avoidance of hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dL) and hypoglycemia (

Abstract Background: This study evaluated whether education and use of the advanced meter features of the CONTOUR((R)) (Bayer HealthCare LLC, Diabetes Care, Tarrytown, NY) blood glucose monitoring system (BGMS) affect the frequency and pattern of blood glucose testing in insulin-using subjects with diabetes who routinely perform self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Subjects and Methods: Insulin-using subjects with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were enrolled in this 6-month, multicenter, prospective study and randomized to one of two groups. The basic meter features group (BMF group) received basic instruction in the use of the BGMS, whereas the advanced meter features group (AMF group) also received training in the use of advanced features, including the meal marker and audible reminder, and were instructed to use these features. Both groups received education on the importance of postprandial testing. Results: The AMF group (n=105) had significantly greater average weekly postprandial blood glucose testing than the BMF group (n=106) at each follow-up visit (P<0.001) and significantly increased the frequency of paired blood glucose testing (P<0.001) as well. In both groups, glycated hemoglobin decreased significantly as postprandial testing frequency increased (P<0.05). Subject reports indicated that use of advanced features made postmeal SMBG considerably easier to remember, helped them better understand how to make decisions on their own, and increased their confidence in meal choices. Conclusions: Study findings showed that advanced features of the CONTOUR BGMS increased structured testing as measured by postprandial and paired SMBG and were perceived as useful by patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the association of mean and maximum blood glucose (BG) levels with in-hospital mortality and 30-day hospital readmission among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) undergoing invasive cardiovascular (CV) surgery. Research design and methods: The retrospective database analysis consisted of data from 3132 patients from 17 hospitals who underwent an invasive CV surgery during 1/2000-12/2006. Patients with hyperglycemia were identified based on serum BG levels recorded from 12 hours prior to and 24 hours after ICU admission. Separate logistic regression models were used to examine the association of mean and maximum BG levels to in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission, adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities and laboratory values. Results: The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for in-hospital mortality was 1.07 (95% CI: 1.01-1.12; p < .001) for every 0.56-mmol/L increase in mean BG, and OR = 1.06 (95% CI: 1.03-1.08, p < .001) for every 0.56-mmol/L increase in maximum BG. Mean BG was not associated with 30-day readmission while maximum BG had a borderline association: OR = 1.02 (95% CI: 1.00-1.03, p = .06). Limitation: The results are not generalizable to all cardiovascular surgical patients since only those undergoing invasive procedures were included in the study. Conclusions: Higher mean and maximum BG levels were associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality but not with 30-day readmission. Further research is needed to identify optimal BG targets and the effects of avoiding extreme hyperglycemia on patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Managing elderly patients with type 2 diabetes poses particular challenges, so it is important to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability profile of antidiabetic therapies specifically in this patient population. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability profile of liraglutide, a GLP-1 analog, in elderly (>=65 years) and younger (<65 years) patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A pooled analysis of 6 randomized, placebo-controlled, multinational trials included data from 3967 patients aged18 to 80 years with type 2 diabetes and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) of 7% to 11%. Of these, 552 patients >=65 years received liraglutide 1.8 mg, liraglutide 1.2 mg, or placebo; 2231 patients <65 years received liraglutide 1.8 mg, liraglutide 1.2 mg, or placebo for 26 weeks. End points were: change in HbA(1c), fasting plasma glucose, body weight, and blood pressure: as marked to identify elements tracked for change from baseline; hypoglycemic episodes; and adverse events. RESULTS: Reduction in HbA(1c) from baseline was significantly greater with liraglutide 1.8 mg versus placebo (least squares mean difference: >=65 years, 0.91% [95% CI, 0.69-1.12]; <65 years, 1.17% [95% CI, 1.06-1.28]; both, P < 0.0001) and with liraglutide 1.2 mg versus placebo (>=65 years, 0.87% [95% CI, 0.64-1.11]; <65 years, 1.10% [95% CI, 0.98-1.22]; both, P < 0.0001). For fasting plasma glucose, comparable results were observed between liraglutide 1.8 mg or 1.2 mg and placebo for both age groups (P < 0.0001). No statistically significant difference in body weight change was seen with liraglutide between the age groups. The proportion of patients reporting minor hypoglycemia was low and appeared comparable between the >=65-year-old (4.3%-15.2%) and <65-year-old (8%-13.2%) groups. Likewise, adverse events appeared comparable in nature and frequency. CONCLUSION: Liraglutide provides effective glycemic control and is well tolerated in patients >=65 and <65 years of age with type 2 diabetes. These data suggest that liraglutide may be a suitable treatment option for older patients who may have additional age-related complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current clinical guidelines for diabetes care encourage self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) to improve glycemic control. Specific protocols remain variable, however, particularly among non-insulin-using patients. This is due in part to efficacy studies that neglect to consider (1) the performance of monitoring equipment under real-world conditions, (2) whether or how patients have been taught to take action on test results, and (3) the physiological, behavioral, and social circumstances in which SMBG is carried out. As such, a multidisciplinary group of specialists, including several endocrinologists, a health psychologist, a diabetes nurse practitioner, and a patient advocate (the Panel), discuss within this review article how the potential of SMBG might be fully realized in today's healthcare environment. The resulting recommendations cover technological, clinical, behavioral, and research considerations with the aim of achieving short- and long-term benefits, ranging from fewer hypoglycemic episodes to lower complication-related costs. The panel also made suggestions for designing future studies that increase the ability to discern optimal models of SMBG utilization for individuals with diabetes who may, or may not, use insulin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Targeting plasma glucose is a widely accepted practice in the treatment of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Although clinicians have traditionally relied on fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels for diagnosis and as a target for therapy, the focus has expanded to include the contribution of postprandial glucose (PPG) to glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) levels. Objective: This article examines the contributions of FPG and PPG to A1C levels in patients with diabetes and discusses the impact of these findings on insulin treatment strategies for patients who fail to achieve recommended A1C goals. Methods: Relevant articles were identified through a PubMed search of the literature (1975–2007) using the following search terms: fasting plasma glucose, postprandial glucose, postprandial hyperglycemia, and glycemic control. Results: Changes in PPG levels are typically the first signs of abnormal glucose metabolism associated with type 2 DM, and they are a useful measure of glycemic control in patients with near-normal FPG and high A1C levels. A substantial proportion of patients considered to have good glycemic control (A1C <7.0%) may continue to experience elevated PPG levels, which have been linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. FPG levels may predict the degree of postprandial hyperglycemia and the extent of PPG excursion. Conversely, correction of PPG levels may reduce FPG levels by suppressing hepatic glucose production. Evidence indicates that therapy targeting both FPG and PPG is associated with optimal reductions in A1C levels. At very high A1C levels (>9%-10%), FPG may play a greater role in overall glucose control than does PPG, but PPG becomes a more important contributor as A1C levels decrease. Increasing evidence supports the long-term benefits of early initiation of intensive insulin therapy. In particular, prandial insulin therapy may address the issue of postprandial hyperglycemia, which may be insufficiently controlled with oral agents and/or basal insulin alone. Conclusions: Both FPG and PPG affect A1C levels and are important contributors to determining overall glycemic control. Alternative insulin therapies (eg, inhaled insulin) that minimize barriers to insulin therapy and the appropriate targeting of FPG and PPG levels may improve long-term outcomes in patients with diabetes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: The purpose of this study was to generate normative values for periods of euglycemia as well as for daily patterns of glycemic excursions in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes monitored continuously for a maximum period of 21 days and blinded to glucose levels.Research Design and Methods: This was a multicenter, prospective observational study in which 101 consecutive patients with type 1 (n = 60) or type 2 (n = 41) diabetes underwent blinded continuous glucose monitoring. Serial glucose measurements were divided into periods of euglycemia (70-180 mg/dl), hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dl), and hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dl). The proportions of time patients were hypoglycemic, euglycemic, and hyperglycemic and the total areas under the curves (AUCs) were determined.Results: During the observation period the 101 subjects contributed an average 287 +/- 132 h of continuous glucose values. Subjects remained in the euglycemic range for approximately 63% of the total day, were hypoglycemic 8%, and were hyperglycemic 29%. Hypoglycemia was more prevalent nocturnally (11 vs. 7%) and hyperglycemia diurnally (31 vs. 25%). Compared with subjects with type 2 diabetes, type 1 diabetic subjects had more frequent hypoglycemic episodes per day (2.1 vs. 1.0; P < 0.001) that were of longer duration (1.1 vs. 0.7 h; P < 0.0001), reflecting a greater number of hours per day in the hypoglycemic range (2.3 vs. 1.0 h; P < 0.0001). The mean hypoglycemic AUC values were >150% higher for type 1 compared with type 2 diabetic subjects (41 vs. 16, respectively; P < 0.0001).Conclusions: These normative data will assist in study and sample size planning for future investigations of continuous glucose monitoring and allow for qualitative comparisons with trials of therapeutic interventions aimed at reducing the occurrence of glycemic excursions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Intravenous insulin is now the recommended method of diabetes management in critically ill persons in the hospital. The published methods for administering the insulin are complex and are usually limited to intensive care units with a low patient-to-nurse ratio.Research Design and Methods: A computer-directed algorithm for advice on the delivery of intravenous insulin that is flexible in blood glucose timing and advises insulin dosing in a graduated manner has been developed. This software program, known as the Glucommander, has been used extensively by our group. The data were analyzed for this study.Results: The data from 5,080 intravenous insulin runs over 120,683 h show that blood glucose levels can be safely stabilized in a target range without significant hypoglycemia by nonspecialized nurses working on any unit of a general hospital. The mean glucose level reached <150 mg/dl in 3 h. Only 0.6% of all glucose values were <50 mg/dl. The prevalence of hypoglycemia <40 mg/dl was 2.6% of all runs. No hypoglycemia was severe.Conclusions: This computer-directed algorithm is a simple, safe, effective, and robust method for maintaining glycemic control. It has been extensively studied and is applicable in a wide variety of conditions. In contrast to other published intravenous insulin protocols, which have been limited to intensive care units, Glucommander can be used in all units of any hospital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Effective type 2 diabetes management requires prompt intervention if glycemic control is not achieved by nonpharmacological means. This study investigates whether inhaled insulin (INH; Exubera) can achieve target glycemic control in patients failing on diet and exercise.Research Design and Methods: Patients with suboptimal control on diet and exercise (HbA(1c) [A1C] 8-11%) were randomized to 3 months' treatment with either INH before meals (n = 76) or rosiglitazone 4 mg twice a day (n = 69), in conjunction with a diet and exercise regimen. The primary end point was percentage of patients achieving A1C <8.0%.Results: The INH and rosiglitazone groups had comparable baseline A1C values (9.5 vs. 9.4%, respectively). Significantly more patients achieved A1C <8.0% (83 vs. 58%, adjusted odds ratio 7.14 [95% CI 2.48-20.58], P = 0.0003), A1C <7.0% (44 vs. 18%, 4.43 [1.94-10.12]), and A1C < or = 6.5% (28 vs. 7.5% 5.34 [1.83-15.57]) with INH. A1C decrease was greater with INH (-2.3% vs. -1.4%, adjusted treatment group difference: -0.89% [95% CI -1.23 to -0.55]) with final mean A1C values of 7.2 and 8.0% for INH and rosiglitazone, respectively. Hypoglycemia (episodes per subject-month) was higher with INH (0.7 vs. 0.05, risk ratio 14.72 [95% CI 7.51-28.83]), with no severe hypoglycemic episodes. Pulmonary function changes were small and comparable between groups.Conclusions: INH could be an effective therapy for people with type 2 diabetes early in the course of their disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy of bolus insulin aspart and basal insulin glargine was compared with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with aspart in type 1 diabetic patients previously treated with CSII.Research Design and Methods: One hundred patients were enrolled in a randomized, multicenter, open-label, crossover study. After a 1-week run-in period with aspart by CSII, 50 subjects were randomly assigned to MDI therapy (aspart immediately before each meal and glargine at bedtime) and 50 subjects continued CSII. After 5 weeks of the first treatment, subjects crossed over to the alternate treatment for 5 weeks. During the last week of each treatment period, subjects wore a continuous glucose monitoring system for 48-72 h.Results: Mean serum fructosamine levels were significantly lower after CSII therapy than after MDI therapy (343 +/- 47 vs. 355 +/- 50 micromol/l, respectively; P = 0.0001). Continuous glucose monitoring profiles over a 24-h time period showed that glucose exposure was 24 and 40% lower for CSII than MDI as measured by area under the curve (AUC) glucose >/=80 mg/dl (1,270 +/- 742 vs. 1,664 +/- 1,039 mg . h . dl(-1); P < 0.001) and AUC glucose >/=140 mg/dl (464 +/- 452 vs. 777 +/- 746 mg . h . dl(-1), CSII vs. MDI, respectively; P < 0.001). Similar percentages of subjects reported hypoglycemic episodes (CSII: 92%, MDI: 94%) and nocturnal (12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.) hypoglycemic episodes (CSII: 73%, MDI: 72%). Major hypoglycemia was infrequent (CSII: two episodes, MDI: five episodes).Conclusions: In a trial of short duration, CSII therapy with insulin aspart resulted in lower glycemic exposure without increased risk of hypoglycemia, as compared with MDI with insulin aspart and glargine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Replicating endogenous insulin production is the goal of treatment for diabetes mellitus (DM) and is necessary to minimize the risk of vascular complications. The 2 main methods of achieving this goal are continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and multiple daily injections (MDIs) comprising basal and prandial injections.Objective: The objective of this article was to discuss the use of a rapid-acting insulin analogue, insulin aspart, in CSII and MDI compared with other insulins in adult patients with type 1 or type 2 DM.Methods: This article was based on a presentation given by the author at a satellite symposium entitled 'Realising the Value of Modern Insulins: Reaching Further with Rapid-Acting Insulin Analogues' that was convened during the XIXth World Diabetes Congress, December 3, 2006, in Cape Town, South Africa.Results: In patients with type 1 DM, CSII using the rapid-acting insulin analogue insulin aspart has been reported in clinical trials to improve glycemic control compared with MDI therapy using neutral protamine Hagedorn plus insulin aspart (for basal and mealtime coverage, respectively). In patients with type 2 DM, the CSII and MDI regimens offered similar efficacy and tolerability; CSII therapy may be less burdensome, however, with fewer social limitations than MDIs. Not all insulins are equally suited for use in CSII treatment. Although the efficacy of insulin aspart in CSII was comparable to other rapid-acting insulins, the frequency of hypoglycemia was shown to be significantly lower with insulin aspart compared with human insulin or insulin lispro in patients with type 1 DM. The compatibility of insulin aspart and insulin lispro for use in CSII pumps was compared in an 8-week, double-blind, 2-period, crossover study of patients with type 1 DM. The overall adverse-effect score was significantly lower (P < 0.005) with insulin aspart than with insulin lispro, as were scores for pain/burning and inflammation (both, P < 0.01) and dermal redness (P < 0.001). Furthermore, a stability study reported on the suitability of insulin aspart for use in CSII pumps. Quality-of-life scores with CSII have been reported to be higher than with MDI therapy.Conclusion: CSII with the rapid-acting insulin analogue insulin aspart is a viable choice for patients with type 1 or type 2 DM who want close-to-physiologic insulin treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The aim was to evaluate the effect of extended use of the Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System in adults with type 2 diabetes and suboptimal glycaemic control., Materials and Methods: Following an 8-week single-arm, multicentre, outpatient trial of AID in adults with type 2 diabetes and baseline HbA1c ≥ 8% (≥ 64 mmol/mol), participants were given the opportunity to continue use of the AID system in a 26-week (~6 month) extension phase. The primary safety endpoints were percentage of time with sensor glucose ≥ 250 mg/dL and < 54 mg/dL. Additional glycaemic measures, including percentage of time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) and HbA1c, were evaluated. The use of non-insulin anti-hyperglycaemic medications was permitted throughout the entire study., Results: During the initial 8-week study, participants (N = 22) achieved a decrease in percentage of time ≥ 250 mg/dL from 27.4% ± 21.0% to 10.5% ± 8.8% (p < 0.0001), which further decreased to 9.7% ± 9.2% during the extension phase (p = 0.0002 vs. standard therapy). Percentage of time < 54 mg/dL remained low from standard therapy through extension (median [interquartile range] 0.00% [0.00%, 0.06%] vs. 0.02% [0.00%, 0.05%], p > 0.05). HbA1c decreased by 1.6% ± 1.2% (15.5 ± 13.1 mmol/mol, p < 0.0001) and TIR increased by 22.4% ± 19.2% (p < 0.0001) from standard therapy through extension with no significant change in body mass index and without an observed increase in total daily insulin requirements., Conclusions: These longer-term findings of Omnipod 5 AID System use demonstrate the potential value of AID in helping people with type 2 diabetes reach glycaemic targets., (© 2024 Insulet Corporation and The Author(s). Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To evaluate a regimen of inhaled Technosphere insulin (TI) plus insulin degludec in adults with type 1 diabetes, who prestudy were predominately using either an automated insulin delivery (AID) system or multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) with continuous glucose monitoring., Research Design and Methods: At 19 sites, adults with type 1 diabetes were randomly assigned to TI plus insulin degludec (N = 62) or usual care (UC) with continuation of prestudy insulin delivery method (N = 61) for 17 weeks., Results: Prestudy, AID was used by 48% and MDI by 45%. Mean ± SD HbA1c was 7.57% ± 0.97% at baseline and 7.62% ± 1.06% at 17 weeks in the TI group and 7.59% ± 0.80% and 7.54% ± 0.77%, respectively, in the UC group (adjusted difference 0.11%, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.33, P value for noninferiority = 0.01). HbA1c improved from baseline to 17 weeks by >0.5% (5.5 mmol/mol) in 12 (21%) in the TI group and in 3 (5%) in the UC group and worsened by >0.5% (5.5 mmol/mol) in 15 (26%) in the TI group and in 2 (3%) in the UC group. The most common TI side effect was a brief cough; eight participants discontinued TI due to side effects., Conclusions: In adults with type 1 diabetes, HbA1c after 17 weeks with a regimen of TI and degludec was noninferior to UC, which consisted predominately of either AID or MDI. TI should be considered an option for people with type 1 diabetes, particularly those who are motivated to further reduce postprandial hyperglycemia., (© 2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Aim: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have demonstrated improved glycaemic outcomes in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), yet limited data exist on these systems in very young children and their impact on caregivers. We evaluated psychosocial outcomes following use of the tubeless Omnipod® 5 AID System in caregivers of very young children., Materials and Methods: This 3-month single-arm, multicentre, pivotal clinical trial enrolled 80 children aged 2.0-5.9 years with T1D to use the Omnipod 5 AID System. Caregivers completed questionnaires assessing psychosocial outcomes-diabetes distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes), hypoglycaemia confidence (Hypoglycemia Confidence Scale), well-being (World Health Organization 5 Well-Being Index), sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), insulin delivery satisfaction (Insulin Delivery Satisfaction Survey) and system usability (System Usability Scale) at baseline with standard therapy and after 3 months of AID use., Results: Following 3 months of Omnipod 5 use, caregivers experienced significant improvements across all measures, including diabetes-related psychosocial outcomes (Problem Areas in Diabetes; p < 0.0001, Hypoglycemia Confidence Scale; p < 0.01), well-being (World Health Organization 5 Well-Being Index; p < 0.0001) and perceived system usability (System Usability Scale; p < 0.0001). Significant improvements were seen in the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index total score and the overall sleep quality, sleep duration and efficiency subscales (all p < 0.05). Insulin Delivery Satisfaction Survey scores improved on all subscales (greater satisfaction, reduced burden and reduced inconvenience; all p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Caregivers face unique challenges when managing T1D in very young children. While glycaemic metrics have unquestioned importance, these results evaluating psychosocial outcomes reveal additional meaningful benefits and suggest that the Omnipod 5 AID System alleviates some of the burdens caregivers face with diabetes management., (© 2024 Insulet Corporation and The Author(s). Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To examine the efficacy and safety of the tubeless Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery (AID) system compared with pump therapy with a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) in adults with type 1 diabetes with suboptimal glycemic outcomes., Research Design and Methods: In this 13-week multicenter, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial performed in the U.S. and France, adults aged 18-70 years with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c 7-11% (53-97 mmol/mol) were randomly assigned (2:1) to intervention (tubeless AID) or control (pump therapy with CGM) following a 2-week standard therapy period. The primary outcome was a treatment group comparison of time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) during the trial period., Results: A total of 194 participants were randomized, with 132 assigned to the intervention and 62 to the control. TIR during the trial was 4.2h/day higher in the intervention compared with the control group (mean difference 17.5% [95% CI 14.0%, 21.1%]; P < 0.0001). The intervention group had a greater reduction in HbA1c from baseline compared with the control group (mean ± SD -1.24 ± 0.75% [-13.6 ± 8.2 mmol/mol] vs. -0.68 ± 0.93% [-7.4 ± 10.2 mmol/mol], respectively; P < 0.0001), accompanied by a significantly lower time <70 mg/dL (1.18 ± 0.86% vs. 1.75 ± 1.68%; P = 0.005) and >180 mg/dL (37.6 ± 11.4% vs. 54.5 ± 15.4%; P < 0.0001). All primary and secondary outcomes were met. No instances of diabetes-related ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred in the intervention group., Conclusions: Use of the tubeless AID system led to improved glycemic outcomes compared with pump therapy with CGM among adults with type 1 diabetes, underscoring the clinical benefit of AID and bolstering recommendations to establish AID systems as preferred therapy for this population., (© 2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To compare postprandial glucose excursions following a bolus with inhaled technosphere insulin (TI) or subcutaneous rapid-acting analog (RAA) insulin., Research Design and Methods: A meal challenge was completed by 122 adults with type 1 diabetes who were using multiple daily injections (MDI), a nonautomated pump, or automated insulin delivery (AID) and who were randomized to bolus with their usual RAA insulin (n = 61) or TI (n = 61)., Results: The primary outcome, the treatment group difference in area under the curve for glucose >180 mg/dL over 2 h, was less with TI versus RAA (adjusted difference -12 mg/dL, 95% CI -22 to -2, P = 0.02). With TI, the glucose excursion was smaller (P = 0.01), peak glucose lower (P = 0.01), and time to peak glucose shorter (P = 0.006). Blood glucose <70 mg/dL occurred in one participant in each group., Conclusions: Postmeal glucose excursion was smaller with TI than with RAA insulin in a cohort that included both AID and MDI users., (© 2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Background: To evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of the Omnipod ® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System in very young children with type 1 diabetes with up to 2 years of use. Methods: Following a 13-week single-arm, multicenter, pivotal trial that took place after 14 days of standard therapy data collection, participating children (2-5.9 years of age at study enrollment) were provided the option to continue use of the AID system in an extension phase. HbA1c was measured every 3 months, up to 15 months of total use, and continuous glucose monitor metrics were collected through the completion of the extension study (for up to 2 years). Results: Participants ( N  = 80) completed 18.2 [17.4, 23.4] (median [interquartile range]) total months of AID, inclusive of the 3-month pivotal trial. During the pivotal trial, HbA1c decreased from 7.4% ± 1.0% (57 ± 10.9 mmol/mol) to 6.9% ± 0.7% (52 ± 7.7 mmol/mol, P  < 0.0001) and was maintained at 7.0% ± 0.7% (53 ± 7.7 mmol/mol) after 15 months total use ( P  < 0.0001 from baseline). Time in target range (70-180 mg/dL) increased from 57.2% ± 15.3% during standard therapy to 68.1% ± 9.0% during the pivotal trial ( P  < 0.0001) and was maintained at 67.2% ± 9.3% during the extension phase ( P  < 0.0001 from standard therapy). Participants spent a median 97.1% of time in Automated Mode during the extension phase, with one episode of severe hypoglycemia and one episode of diabetic ketoacidosis. Conclusion: This evaluation of the Omnipod 5 AID System indicates that long-term use can safely maintain improvements in glycemic outcomes with up to 2 years of use in very young children with type 1 diabetes. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT04476472.

Background: The Omnipod ® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System was shown to be safe and effective following 3 months of use in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D); however, data on the durability of these results are limited. This study evaluated the long-term safety and effectiveness of Omnipod 5 use in people with T1D during up to 2 years of use. Materials and Methods: After a 3-month single-arm, multicenter, pivotal trial in children (6-13.9 years) and adolescents/adults (14-70 years), participants could continue system use in an extension phase. HbA1c was measured every 3 months for up to 15 months; continuous glucose monitor metrics were collected for up to 2 years. Results: Participants ( N  = 224) completed median (interquartile range) 22.3 (21.7, 22.7) months of AID. HbA1c was reduced in the pivotal trial from 7.7% ± 0.9% in children and 7.2% ± 0.9% in adolescents/adults to 7.0% ± 0.6% and 6.8% ± 0.7%, respectively, ( P  < 0.0001), and was maintained at 7.2% ± 0.7% and 6.9% ± 0.6% after 15 months ( P  < 0.0001 from baseline). Time in target range (70-180 mg/dL) increased from 52.4% ± 15.6% in children and 63.6% ± 16.5% in adolescents/adults at baseline to 67.9% ± 8.0% and 73.8% ± 10.8%, respectively, during the pivotal trial ( P  < 0.0001) and was maintained at 65.9% ± 8.9% and 72.9% ± 11.3% during the extension ( P  < 0.0001 from baseline). One episode of diabetic ketoacidosis and seven episodes of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the extension. Children and adolescents/adults spent median 96.1% and 96.3% of time in Automated Mode, respectively. Conclusion: Our study supports that long-term use of the Omnipod 5 AID System can safely maintain improvements in glycemic outcomes for up to 2 years of use in people with T1D. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT04196140.

Background: During MiniMed™ advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) use by adolescents and adults in the pivotal trial, glycated hemoglobin (A1C) was significantly reduced, time spent in range (TIR) was significantly increased, and there were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). The present study investigated the same primary safety and effectiveness endpoints during AHCL use by a younger cohort with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: An intention-to-treat population ( N  = 160, aged 7-17 years) with T1D was enrolled in a single-arm study at 13 investigational centers. There was a run-in period (∼25 days) using HCL or sensor-augmented pump with/without predictive low-glucose management, followed by a 3-month study period with AHCL activated at two glucose targets (GTs; 100 and 120 mg/dL) for ∼45 days each. The mean ± standard deviation values of A1C, TIR, mean sensor glucose (SG), coefficient of variation (CV) of SG, time at SG ranges, and insulin delivered between run-in and study were analyzed (Wilcoxon signed-rank test or t -test). Results: Compared with baseline, AHCL use was associated with reduced A1C from 7.9 ± 0.9% ( N  = 160) to 7.4 ± 0.7% ( N  = 136) ( P  < 0.001) and overall TIR increased from the run-in 59.4 ± 11.8% to 70.3 ± 6.5% by end of study ( P  < 0.001), without change in CV, time spent below range (TBR) <70 mg/dL, or TBR <54 mg/dL. Relative to longer active insulin time (AIT) settings ( N  = 52), an AIT of 2 h ( N  = 19) with the 100 mg/dL GT increased mean TIR to 73.4%, reduced TBR <70 mg/dL from 3.5% to 2.2%, and reduced time spent above range (TAR) >180 mg/dL from 28.7% to 24.4%. During AHCL use, there was no severe hypoglycemia or DKA. Conclusions: In children and adolescents with T1D, MiniMed AHCL system use was safe, A1C was lower, and TIR was increased. The lowest GT and shortest AIT were associated with the highest TIR and lowest TBR and TAR, all of which met consensus-recommended glycemic targets. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03959423.

Introduction: To assess time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) with postprandial glucose (PPG)-focused titration of ultra rapid lispro (URLi; Lyumjev®) in combination with insulin degludec in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D)., Methods: This phase 2, single-group, open-label, exploratory study was conducted in 31 participants with T1D on multiple daily injection therapy. Participants were treated with insulin degludec and Lispro for an 11-day lead-in and then URLi for a 46-day treatment period consisting of 35-day titration and 11-day endpoint maintenance period. Glucose targets for the titration period were PPG < 140 mg/dL or < 20% increase from premeal, fasting glucose 80-110 mg/dL, and overnight excursion ± 30 mg/dL or less. Participants used the InPen™ bolus calculator and Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)., Results: Primary endpoint mean TIR (70-180 mg/dL) with URLi during the maintenance period was 70.2%. TIR (70-180 mg/dL) and times below/above range were not significantly different with URLi (maintenance) versus lispro (lead-in). HbA1c decreased from 7.1% at screening to 6.8% at endpoint (least squares mean [LSM] change from baseline, - 0.36%; P < 0.001). Fructosamine and 1,5-anhydroglucitol improved (P < 0.001). Mean hourly glucose using CGM was reduced from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM with URLi. Overall highest PPG excursion across meals was significantly reduced at URLi endpoint compared with lispro lead-in (mean 56.5 vs 72.4 mg/dL; P < 0.001). Insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio (U/X g) was reduced (more insulin given) at breakfast at URLi endpoint vs lead-in (LSM 9.0 vs 9.7 g; P = 0.002) and numerically decreased at other meals. Total daily insulin dose (TDD) was higher at URLi endpoint compared with lispro lead-in (mean 50.2 vs 47.0 U; P = 0.046) with similar prandial/TDD ratio (mean 52.1% vs 51.2%). There were no severe hypoglycemia events during the study., Conclusions: URLi in a basal-bolus regimen focusing on PPG targets demonstrated improved overall glycemic control and reduced PPG excursions without increased hypoglycemia in participants with T1D., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT04585776., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: To evaluate time in range metrics and HbA1c in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with ultra rapid lispro (URLi) using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the first time in this population., Methods: This was a Phase 3b, 12-week, single-treatment study in adults with T2D on basal-bolus multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy using basal insulin glargine U-100 along with a rapid-acting insulin analog. Following a 4-week baseline period, 176 participants were newly treated with prandial URLi. Participants used unblinded CGM (Freestyle Libre). Primary endpoint was time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dl) during the daytime period at Week 12 compared to baseline with gated secondary endpoints of HbA1c change from baseline and 24-h TIR (70-180 mg/dl)., Results: Improved glycemic control was observed at Week 12 versus baseline including mean daytime TIR (change from baseline [Δ] 3.8%; P = 0.007), HbA1c (Δ - 0.44%; P < 0.001), and 24-h TIR (Δ 3.3%; P = 0.016) with no significant difference in time below range (TBR). After 12 weeks, there was a statistically significant decrease in postprandial glucose incremental area under curve, overall, across all meals, within 1 h (P = 0.005) or 2 h (P < 0.001) after the start of a meal. Basal, bolus, and total insulin dose were intensified with increased bolus/total dose ratio at Week 12 (50.7%) versus baseline (44.5%; P < 0.001). There were no severe hypoglycemia events during the treatment period., Conclusions: In people with T2D, URLi in an MDI regimen was efficacious with improved glycemic control including TIR, HbA1c, and postprandial glucose without increased hypoglycemia/TBR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04605991., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: Automated insulin delivery (AID) has rarely been studied in adults with type 2 diabetes. We tested the feasibility of using AID for type 2 diabetes with the Omnipod 5 System in a multicenter outpatient trial., Research Design and Methods: Participants previously were using either basal-only or basal-bolus insulin injections, with or without the use of a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and had a baseline HbA1c ≥8% (≥64 mmol/mol). Participants completed 2 weeks of CGM sensor data collection (blinded for those not previously using CGM) with their standard therapy (ST), then transitioned to 8 weeks of AID. Participants who previously used basal-only injections used the AID system in manual mode for 2 weeks before starting AID. Antihyperglycemic agents were continued at clinician discretion. Primary safety outcomes were percentage of time with sensor glucose ≥250 mg/dL and <54 mg/dL during AID. Additional outcomes included HbA1c and time in target range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL)., Results: Participants (N = 24) had a mean (± SD) age of 61 ± 8 years, baseline HbA1c of 9.4% ± 0.9% (79 ± 10 mmol/mol), and diabetes duration of 19 ± 9 years. Percentage of time with sensor glucose ≥250 mg/dL decreased with AID by 16.9% ± 16.2% (P < 0.0001), whereas percentage of time at <54 mg/dL remained low during both ST and AID (median [interquartile range] 0.0% [0.00%, 0.06%] vs. 0.00% [0.00%, 0.03%]; P = 0.4543). HbA1c (± SD) decreased by 1.3% ± 0.7% (14 ± 8 mmol/mol; P < 0.0001) and TIR increased by 21.9% ± 15.2% (P < 0.0001) without a significant change in total daily insulin or BMI with AID., Conclusions: Findings from this feasibility trial of AID in adults with type 2 diabetes with suboptimal glycemic outcomes justify further evaluation of this technology in this population., (© 2023 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To evaluate safety and effectiveness of MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed loop (HCL) in comparison with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy for 6 months in persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Adults (aged 18-80 years), adolescents, and children (aged 2-17 years) with T1D who were using CSII therapy were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to 6 months of HCL intervention (n = 151, mean age of 39.9 ± 19.8 years) or CSII without continuous glucose monitoring (n = 151, 35.7 ± 18.4 years). Primary effectiveness endpoints included change in A1C for Group 1 (baseline A1C >8.0%), from baseline to the end of study, and difference in the end of study percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL (%TBR <70 mg/dL) for Group 2 (baseline A1C ≤8.0%), to show superiority of HCL intervention versus control. Secondary effectiveness endpoints were change in A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 2 and Group 1, respectively, to show noninferiority of HCL intervention versus control. Primary safety endpoints were rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Results: Change in A1C and difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for the overall group were significantly improved, in favor of HCL intervention. In addition, a significant mean (95% confidence interval) change in A1C was observed for both Group 1 (-0.8% [-1.1% to -0.4%], P  < 0.0001) and Group 2 (-0.3% [-0.5% to -0.1%], P  < 0.0001), in favor of HCL intervention. The same was observed for difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 1 (-2.2% [-3.6% to -0.9%]) and Group 2 (-4.9% [-6.3% to -3.6%]) ( P  < 0.0001 for both). There was one DKA event during run-in and six severe hypoglycemic events: two during run-in and four during study (HCL: n = 0 and CSII: n = 4 [6.08 per 100 patient-years]). Conclusions: This RCT demonstrates that the MiniMed 670G HCL safely and significantly improved A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL compared with CSII control in persons with T1D, irrespective of baseline A1C level.

Hyperglucagonemia contributes to hyperglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D); however, novel therapeutics that block glucagon action could improve glycemic control. This phase 2 study evaluated the safety and efficacy of volagidemab, an antagonistic monoclonal glucagon receptor (GCGR) antibody, as an adjunct to insulin therapy in adults with T1D. The primary endpoint was change in daily insulin use at week 12. Secondary endpoints included changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at week 13, in average daily blood glucose concentration and time within target range as assessed by continuous blood glucose monitoring (CGM) and seven-point glucose profile at week 12, incidence of hypoglycemic events, the proportion of subjects who achieve HbA1c reduction of ≥0.4%, volagidemab drug concentrations and incidence of anti-drug antibodies. Eligible participants (n = 79) were randomized to receive weekly subcutaneous injections of placebo, 35 mg volagidemab or 70 mg volagidemab. Volagidemab produced a reduction in total daily insulin use at week 12 (35 mg volagidemab: -7.59 units (U) (95% confidence interval (CI) -11.79, -3.39; P = 0.040 versus placebo); 70 mg volagidemab: -6.64 U (95% CI -10.99, -2.29; P = 0.084 versus placebo); placebo: -1.27 U (95% CI -5.4, 2.9)) without meeting the prespecified significance level (P &lt; 0.025). At week 13, the placebo-corrected reduction in HbA1c percentage was -0.53 (95% CI -0.89 to -0.17, nominal P = 0.004) in the 35 mg volagidemab group and -0.49 (95% CI -0.85 to -0.12, nominal P = 0.010) in the 70 mg volagidemab group. No increase in hypoglycemia was observed with volagidemab therapy; however, increases in serum transaminases, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol and blood pressure were observed. Although the primary endpoint did not meet the prespecified significance level, we believe that the observed reduction in HbA1c and tolerable safety profile provide a rationale for further randomized studies to define the long-term efficacy and safety of volagidemab in patients with T1D., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.)

Aim: To investigate whether an increased bolus: basal insulin ratio (BBR) with liver-targeted bolus insulin (BoI) would increase BoI use and decrease hypoglycaemic events (HEv)., Patient Population and Methods: We enrolled 52 persons (HbA1c 6.9% ± 0.12%, mean ± SEM) with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections. Hepatic-directed vesicle (HDV) was used to deliver 1% of peripheral injected BoI to the liver. A 90-day run-in period was used to introduce subjects to unblinded continuous glucose monitoring and optimize standard basal insulin (BaI) (degludec) and BoI (lispro) dosing. At 90 days, BoI was changed to HDV-insulin lispro and subjects were randomized to an immediate 10% or 40% decrease in BaI dose., Results: At 90 days postrandomization, total insulin dosing was increased by ~7% in both cohorts. The -10% and -40% BaI cohorts were on 7.7% and 13% greater BoI with 6.9% and 30% (P = .02) increases in BBR, respectively. Compared with baseline at randomization, nocturnal level 2 HEv were reduced by 21% and 43%, with 54% and 59% reductions in patient-reported HEv in the -10% and -40% BaI cohorts, respectively., Conclusions: Our study shows that liver-targeted BoI safely decreases HEv and symptoms without compromising glucose control. We further show that with initiation of liver-targeted BoI, the BBR can be safely increased by significantly lowering BaI dosing, leading to greater BoI usage., (© 2022 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Standard insulin infusion sets (IISs) are to be replaced every 2 to 3 days to avoid complications and diabetic ketosis due to set failure. This pivotal trial evaluated the safety and performance of a new extended-wear infusion set (EIS) when used for 7 days by adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: This single-arm, nonrandomized trial enrolled adults (18-80 years of age) with T1D, who used their own MiniMed™ 670G system with insulin lispro or insulin aspart and the EIS for up to 7 days, across 12 consecutive wears. Safety endpoints included incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse device effects (SADEs), unanticipated adverse device effects (UADEs), severe hypoglycemia (SevHypo), severe hyperglycemia (SevHyper), diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and skin infection. The EIS failure rate due to unexplained hyperglycemia (i.e., suspected occlusion), the overall EIS survival rate, glycemic control outcomes (i.e., A1C, mean sensor glucose and time spent in established glucose ranges), total daily insulin delivered, and satisfaction with the EIS were determined. Results: The intention to treat population ( n  = 259, 48% men, 45.0 ± 14.1 years) wore a total of 3041 EIS devices. No SADE, UADE, or DKA events was reported. Overall rates of SAEs, SevHypo, SevHyper, and skin infection were 3.8, 2.5, 104.1, and 20.1 events per 100 participant-years. The rate of EIS failure due to unexplained hyperglycemia at the end of day 7 was 0.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.51) and 0.4% (95% CI: 0.16-1.00) for insulin lispro and aspart use, respectively. Overall EIS survival rate at the end of day 7 was 77.8% (95% CI: 76.2-79.3), glycemic control did not change, and participants reported greater satisfaction with the EIS compared with standard IISs worn before the study ( P  < 0.001). Conclusions: This investigation demonstrates that the EIS, when worn for up to 7 days, was safe and rated with high satisfaction, without adversely affecting glycemic control in adults with T1D. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04113694 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04113694).

Aims: To evaluate psychosocial outcomes for adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using the tubeless Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System., Methods: A single-arm, multicenter (across the United States), prospective safety and efficacy study of the tubeless AID system included 115 adults with T1D. Participants aged 18-70 years completed questionnaires assessing psychosocial outcomes - diabetes distress (T1-DDS), hypoglycemic confidence (HCS), well-being (WHO-5), sleep quality (PSQI), insulin delivery satisfaction (IDSS), diabetes treatment satisfaction (DTSQ), and system usability (SUS) - before and after 3 months of AID use. Associations among participant characteristics, psychosocial measures and glycemic outcomes were evaluated using linear regression analyses., Results: Adults using the tubeless AID system demonstrated improvements in diabetes-specific psychosocial measures, including diabetes distress, hypoglycemic confidence, insulin delivery satisfaction, diabetes treatment satisfaction, and system usability after 3 months (all P < 0.001). No changes in general well-being or sleep quality were observed. The psychosocial outcomes assessed were not consistently associated with baseline participant characteristics (i.e., age, sex, diabetes duration, glycemic outcomes including percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL, percent time below range < 70 mg/dL, hemoglobin A1c, or insulin regimen)., Conclusions: Use of the Omnipod 5 AID system was associated with significant improvements in diabetes-related psychosocial outcomes for adults with T1D., Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT04196140., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Very young children with type 1 diabetes often struggle to achieve glycemic targets, putting them at risk for long-term complications and creating an immense management burden for caregivers. We conducted the first evaluation of the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System in this population., Research Design and Methods: A total of 80 children aged 2.0-5.9 years used the investigational system in a single-arm study for 13 weeks following 14 days of baseline data collection with their usual therapy., Results: There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis. By study end, HbA1c decreased by 0.55% (6.0 mmol/mol) (P < 0.0001). Time with sensor glucose levels in target range 70-180 mg/dL increased by 10.9%, or 2.6 h/day (P < 0.0001), while time with levels <70 mg/dL declined by median 0.27% (P = 0.0204)., Conclusions: Use of the automated insulin delivery system was safe, and participants experienced improved glycemic measures and reduced hypoglycemia during the study phase compared with baseline., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To evaluate glycemic outcomes in the Wireless Innovation for Seniors with Diabetes Mellitus (WISDM) randomized clinical trial (RCT) participants during an observational extension phase. Research Design and Methods: WISDM RCT was a 26-week RCT comparing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in 203 adults aged ≥60 years with type 1 diabetes. Of the 198 participants who completed the RCT, 100 (98%) CGM group participants continued CGM (CGM-CGM cohort) and 94 (98%) BGM group participants initiated CGM (BGM-CGM cohort) for an additional 26 weeks. Results: CGM was used a median of >90% of the time at 52 weeks in both cohorts. In the CGM-CGM cohort, median time <70 mg/dL decreased from 5.0% at baseline to 2.6% at 26 weeks and remained stable with a median of 2.8% at 52 weeks ( P  < 0.001 baseline to 52 weeks). Participants spent more time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) (mean 56% vs. 64%; P  < 0.001) and had lower hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (mean 7.6% [59 mmol/mol] vs. 7.4% [57 mmol/mol]; P  = 0.01) from baseline to 52 weeks. In BGM-CGM, from 26 to 52 weeks median time <70 mg/dL decreased from 3.9% to 1.9% ( P  < 0.001), TIR increased from 56% to 60% ( P  = 0.006) and HbA1c decreased from 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) to 7.3% (57 mmol/mol) ( P  = 0.025). In BGM-CGM, a severe hypoglycemic event was reported for nine participants while using BGM during the RCT and for two participants during the extension phase with CGM ( P  = 0.02). Conclusions: CGM use reduced hypoglycemia without increasing hyperglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes. These data provide further evidence for fully integrating CGM into clinical practice. Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03240432).

Introduction: This trial assessed safety and effectiveness of an advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system with automated basal (Auto Basal) and automated bolus correction (Auto Correction) in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Materials and Methods: This multicenter single-arm study involved an intent-to-treat population of 157 individuals (39 adolescents aged 14-21 years and 118 adults aged ≥22-75 years) with T1D. Study participants used the MiniMed™ AHCL system during a baseline run-in period in which sensor-augmented pump +/- predictive low glucose management or Auto Basal was enabled for ∼14 days. Thereafter, Auto Basal and Auto Correction were enabled for a study phase (∼90 days), with glucose target set to 100 or 120 mg/dL for ∼45 days, followed by the other target for ∼45 days. Study endpoints included safety events and change in mean A1C, time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) and time below range (TBR, <70 mg/dL). Run-in and study phase values were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test or paired t -test. Results: Overall group time spent in closed loop averaged 94.9% ± 5.4% and involved only 1.2 ± 0.8 exits per week. Compared with run-in, AHCL reduced A1C from 7.5% ± 0.8% to 7.0% ± 0.5% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, n  = 155), TIR increased from 68.8% ± 10.5% to 74.5% ± 6.9% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test), and TBR reduced from 3.3% ± 2.9% to 2.3% ± 1.7% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Similar benefits to glycemia were observed for each age group and were more pronounced for the nighttime (12 AM-6 AM). The 100 mg/dL target increased TIR to 75.4% ( n  = 155), which was further optimized at a lower active insulin time (AIT) setting (i.e., 2 h), without increasing TBR. There were no severe hypoglycemic or diabetic ketoacidosis events during the study phase. Conclusions: These findings show that the MiniMed AHCL system is safe and allows for achievement of recommended glycemic targets in adolescents and adults with T1D. Adjustments in target and AIT settings may further optimize glycemia and improve user experience. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03959423.

Background: Expert opinion guidelines and limited data from clinical trials recommend adjustment to bolus insulin doses based on continuous glucose monitor (CGM) trend data, yet minimal evidence exists to support this approach. We performed a clinical evaluation of a novel CGM-informed bolus calculator (CIBC) with automatic insulin bolus dose adjustment based on CGM trend used with sensor-augmented pump therapy. Materials and Methods: In this multicenter, outpatient study, participants 6-70 years of age with type 1 diabetes (T1D) used the Omnipod ® 5 System in Manual Mode, first for 7 days without a connected CGM (standard bolus calculator, SBC, phase 1) and then for 7 days with a connected CGM using the CIBC (CIBC phase 2). The integrated bolus calculator used stored pump settings plus user-estimated meal size and/or either a manually entered capillary glucose value (SBC phase) or an imported current CGM value and trend (CIBC phase) to recommend a bolus amount. The CIBC automatically increased or decreased the suggested bolus amount based on the CGM trend. Results: Twenty-five participants, (mean ± standard deviation) 27 ± 15 years of age, with T1D duration 12 ± 9 years and A1C 7.0% ± 0.9% completed the study. There were significantly fewer sensor readings <70 mg/dL 4 h postbolus with the CIBC compared to the SBC (2.1% ± 2.0% vs. 2.8 ± 2.7, P  = 0.03), while percent of sensor readings >180 and 70-180 mg/dL remained the same. There was no difference in insulin use or number of boluses given between the two phases. Conclusion: The CIBC was safe when used with the Omnipod 5 System in Manual Mode, with fewer hypoglycemic readings in the postbolus period compared to the SBC. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04320069).

Objective: Advances in diabetes technology have transformed the treatment paradigm for type 1 diabetes, yet the burden of disease is significant. We report on a pivotal safety study of the first tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery system with customizable glycemic targets., Research Design and Methods: This single-arm, multicenter, prospective study enrolled 112 children (age 6-13.9 years) and 129 adults (age 14-70 years). A 2-week standard therapy phase (usual insulin regimen) was followed by 3 months of automated insulin delivery. Primary safety outcomes were incidence of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis. Primary effectiveness outcomes were change in HbA 1c and percent time in sensor glucose range 70-180 mg/dL ("time in range")., Results: A total of 235 participants (98% of enrolled, including 111 children and 124 adults) completed the study. HbA 1c was significantly reduced in children by 0.71% (7.8 mmol/mol) (mean ± SD: 7.67 ± 0.95% to 6.99 ± 0.63% [60 ± 10.4 mmol/mol to 53 ± 6.9 mmol/mol], P < 0.0001) and in adults by 0.38% (4.2 mmol/mol) (7.16 ± 0.86% to 6.78 ± 0.68% [55 ± 9.4 mmol/mol to 51 ± 7.4 mmol/mol], P < 0.0001). Time in range was improved from standard therapy by 15.6 ± 11.5% or 3.7 h/day in children and 9.3 ± 11.8% or 2.2 h/day in adults (both P < 0.0001). This was accomplished with a reduction in time in hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL among adults (median [interquartile range]: 2.00% [0.63, 4.06] to 1.09% [0.46, 1.75], P < 0.0001), while this parameter remained the same in children. There were three severe hypoglycemia events not attributable to automated insulin delivery malfunction and one diabetic ketoacidosis event from an infusion site failure., Conclusions: This tubeless automated insulin delivery system was safe and allowed participants to significantly improve HbA 1c levels and time in target glucose range with a very low occurrence of hypoglycemia., (© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Background: The objective of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of the first commercial configuration of a tubeless automated insulin delivery system, Omnipod ® 5, in children (6-13.9 years) and adults (14-70 years) with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in an outpatient setting. Materials and Methods: This was a single-arm, multicenter, prospective clinical study. Data were collected over a 14-day standard therapy (ST) phase followed by a 14-day hybrid closed-loop (HCL) phase, where participants ( n  = 36) spent 72 h at each of three prespecified glucose targets (130, 140, and 150 mg/dL, 9 days total) then 5 days with free choice of glucose targets (110-150 mg/dL) using the Omnipod 5. Remote safety monitoring alerts were enabled during the HCL phase. Primary endpoints were difference in time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) between ST and HCL phases and proportion of participants reporting serious device-related adverse events. Results: Mean TIR was significantly higher among children in the free-choice period overall (64.9% ± 12.2%, P  < 0.01) and when using a 110 mg/dL target (71.2% ± 10.2%, P  < 0.01), a 130 mg/dL target (61.5% ± 7.7%, P  < 0.01), and a 140 mg/dL target (64.8% ± 11.6%, P  < 0.01), and among adults using a 130 mg/dL target (75.1% ± 11.6%, P  < 0.05), compared to the ST phase (children: 51.0% ± 13.3% and adults: 65.6% ± 15.7%). There were no serious device-related adverse events reported during the HCL phase, nor were there episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis. Conclusion: The Omnipod 5 System was safe and effective when used at glucose targets from 110 to 150 mg/dL for 14 days at home in children and adults with T1D.

Background: Young adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) tend to have higher A1C than older adults and are at increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Oral adjuncts to insulin have not been previously studied in this population. Methods: In this phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, adults aged 18-30 years with T1D and A1C ≥9.0% were randomly assigned to placebo ( n  = 42) or sotagliflozin 400 mg ( n  = 43), in addition to insulin for 12 weeks. Insulin doses were adjusted to meet glucose targets (preprandial 80-130 mg/dL, postprandial <180 mg/dL). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in A1C at week 12. Results: From a baseline of 9.8%, mean A1C decreased by 1.0% with placebo and 1.3% with sotagliflozin (-0.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.8 to 0.1]; P  = 0.10 vs. placebo). In the prespecified A1C ≤10.0% subgroup, the treatment difference was -0.8% (-1.3 to -0.2; P  = 0.006), favoring sotagliflozin. Overall, relative to placebo, postprandial glucose (PPG) decreased by 56.6 mg/dL (-89.7 to -23.6; P  < 0.001) and weight decreased by 2.37 kg (-3.5 to -1.2; P  < 0.001). More patients achieved an A1C <7.0% with sotagliflozin (16.3%) than placebo (2.4%; P  = 0.026). Rates of documented hypoglycemia and severe hypoglycemia were similar between groups. One DKA event occurred with placebo, and none occurred with sotagliflozin. Conclusions: In young adults with T1D and suboptimal glycemic control, sotagliflozin plus insulin for 12 weeks numerically improved A1C and significantly improved A1C goal attainment, PPG, and body weight. Sotagliflozin plus insulin was generally well tolerated without any episodes of DKA (NCT02383940).

Background: Ultra rapid lispro (URLi) is a new insulin lispro formulation that has accelerated absorption and improved postprandial glucose control compared with insulin lispro (Humalog ® ). The compatibility and safety of URLi versus lispro were evaluated in patients with type 1 diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (insulin pump). Methods: In this phase 3, double-blind, crossover study, 49 patients were randomized to two 6-week treatment periods, after a 2-week lead-in period on lispro. The primary endpoint was the rate of infusion set failures due to a pump occlusion alarm, or unexplained hyperglycemia with blood glucose >13.9 mmol/L (250 mg/dL) that did not decrease within 1 h after a correction bolus. Results: There was no significant difference in the rate of infusion set failures between URLi and lispro (0.03 vs. 0.05 events/30 days, P  = 0.375). A higher rate of premature infusion set changes was observed with URLi (1.13 vs. 0.78 events/30 days; P  = 0.028), translating to one additional infusion set change approximately every 3 months. A trend toward improved glycemic control was observed with URLi treatment: Time in range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L (71-180 mg/dL) was 65.7% ± 1.3% versus 63.0% ± 1.3%. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 46.9% of patients on URLi treatment and 18.8% on lispro. This difference was driven by an increase in infusion site reactions-more than 90% were mild. Incidence of all other TEAEs and severe hypoglycemia was similar between treatments. Conclusions: URLi was compatible with insulin pump use with a safety profile similar to lispro.

Introduction: The PIONEER 7 trial demonstrated superior glycemic control and weight loss with once-daily oral semaglutide with flexible dose adjustment versus sitagliptin 100 mg in type 2 diabetes. This 52-week extension evaluated long-term oral semaglutide treatment and switching from sitagliptin to oral semaglutide., Research Design and Methods: A 52-week, open-label extension commenced after the 52-week main phase. Patients on oral semaglutide in the main phase continued treatment (n=184; durability part); those on sitagliptin were rerandomized to continued sitagliptin (n=98) or oral semaglutide (n=100; initiated at 3 mg) (switch part). Oral semaglutide was dose-adjusted (3, 7, or 14 mg) every 8 weeks based on glycated hemoglobin (HbA 1c ) (target <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol)) and tolerability. Secondary endpoints (no primary) included changes in HbA 1c and body weight., Results: In the durability part, mean (SD) changes in HbA 1c and body weight from week 0 were -1.5% (0.8) and -1.3% (1.0) and -2.8 kg (3.8) and -3.7 kg (5.2) at weeks 52 and 104, respectively. In the switch part, mean changes in HbA 1c from week 52 to week 104 were -0.2% for oral semaglutide and 0.1% for sitagliptin (difference -0.3% (95% CI -0.6 to 0.0); p=0.0791 (superiority not confirmed)). More patients achieved HbA 1c <7.0% with oral semaglutide (52.6%) than sitagliptin (28.6%; p=0.0011) and fewer received rescue medication (9% vs 23.5%). Respective mean changes in body weight were -2.4 kg and -0.9 kg (difference -1.5 kg (95% CI -2.8 to -0.1); p=0.0321). Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported with oral semaglutide., Conclusions: Long-term oral semaglutide with flexible dose adjustment maintained HbA 1c reductions, with additional body weight reductions, and was well tolerated. Switching from sitagliptin to flexibly dosed oral semaglutide maintained HbA 1c reductions, helped more patients achieve HbA 1c targets with less use of additional glucose-lowering medication, and offers the potential for additional reductions in body weight., Trial Registration Number: NCT02849080., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JBB reports contracted consulting fees paid to the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA) from Adocia, AstraZeneca, Dance Biopharm, Dexcom, Elcelyx Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Fractyl, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lexicon, MannKind, Metavention, NovaTarg, Novo Nordisk, Orexigen, PhaseBio, Sanofi, Senseonics, Shenzhen HighTide, Takeda, vTv Therapeutics, and Zafgen; grant support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GI Dynamics, GlaxoSmithKline, Intarcia Therapeutics, Johnson & Johnson, Lexicon, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Orexigen, Sanofi, Scion NeuroStim, Takeda, Theracos, and vTv Therapeutics; personal fees from Neurimmune AG and Fortress Biotech; and holds stock options in Mellitus Health, PhaseBio, and Stability Health. BWB reports personal fees from Adocia, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, Janssen, Lilly, MannKind, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Senseonics; grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Diasome, Janssen, Lilly, MannKind, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Senseonics; and holds shares in Aseko. AM reports board membership and consultancy fees paid to KU Leuven (Leuven, Belgium) from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi; and payment for lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. YMC reports grants from AstraZeneca, LG, and Sanofi; and consulting fees from Hanmi. EC, CLH, and MAN are employees of and hold shares in Novo Nordisk. TRP reports board membership and personal fees from Adocia, Arecor, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi; and payment for lectures from Novo Nordisk., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides real-time assessment of glucose levels and may be beneficial in reducing hypoglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes., Objective: To determine whether CGM is effective in reducing hypoglycemia compared with standard blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in older adults with type 1 diabetes., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 22 endocrinology practices in the United States among 203 adults at least 60 years of age with type 1 diabetes., Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to use CGM (n = 103) or standard BGM (n = 100)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was CGM-measured percentage of time that sensor glucose values were less than 70 mg/dL during 6 months of follow-up. There were 31 prespecified secondary outcomes, including additional CGM metrics for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and glucose control; hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c); and cognition and patient-reported outcomes, with adjustment for multiple comparisons to control for false-discovery rate., Results: Of the 203 participants (median age, 68 [interquartile range {IQR}, 65-71] years; median type 1 diabetes duration, 36 [IQR, 25-48] years; 52% female; 53% insulin pump use; mean HbA1c, 7.5% [SD, 0.9%]), 83% used CGM at least 6 days per week during month 6. Median time with glucose levels less than 70 mg/dL was 5.1% (73 minutes per day) at baseline and 2.7% (39 minutes per day) during follow-up in the CGM group vs 4.7% (68 minutes per day) and 4.9% (70 minutes per day), respectively, in the standard BGM group (adjusted treatment difference, -1.9% (-27 minutes per day); 95% CI, -2.8% to -1.1% [-40 to -16 minutes per day]; P <.001). Of the 31 prespecified secondary end points, there were statistically significant differences for all 9 CGM metrics, 6 of 7 HbA1c outcomes, and none of the 15 cognitive and patient-reported outcomes. Mean HbA1c decreased in the CGM group compared with the standard BGM group (adjusted group difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -0.4% to -0.1%; P <.001). The most commonly reported adverse events using CGM and standard BGM, respectively, were severe hypoglycemia (1 and 10), fractures (5 and 1), falls (4 and 3), and emergency department visits (6 and 8)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults aged 60 years or older with type 1 diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring compared with standard blood glucose monitoring resulted in a small but statistically significant improvement in hypoglycemia over 6 months. Further research is needed to understand the long-term clinical benefit., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03240432.