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.

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.

This best practice guide is written with the aim of providing an overview of current hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems in use within the United Kingdom's (UK) National Health Service (NHS) and to provide education and advice for their management on both an individual and clinical service level. The environment of diabetes technology, and particularly HCL systems, is rapidly evolving. The past decade has seen unprecedented advances in the development of HCL systems. These systems improve glycaemic outcomes and reduce the burden of treatment for people with type 1 diabetes (pwT1D). It is anticipated that access to these systems will increase in England as a result of updates in National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance providing broader support for the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for pwT1D. NICE is currently undertaking multiple-technology appraisal into HCL systems. Based on experience from centres involved in supporting advanced technologies as well as from the recent NHS England HCL pilot, this guide is intended to provide healthcare professionals with UK expert consensus on the best practice for initiation, optimisation and ongoing management of HCL therapy.

Introduction. Parents of children living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) often report short and/or poor quality sleep. The development of closed-loop systems promises to transform the management of T1D. This study compared sleep quality and quantity in caregivers of children using a closed-loop system (CL) or sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. Method. Data from sleep diaries, accelerometers, and questionnaires were provided by forty parents (classified as caregiver 1 (main analyses) or 2 (supplementary analyses) based on their contribution towards treatment management) of 21 very young children aged 1 to 7 years living with T1D (mean age: 4.7 (SD = 1.7)). Assessments were made at a single post-randomisation time point when the child was completing either the 16-week CL arm (n = 10) or the 16-week SAP arm (n = 11) of the main study. Results. Overall, there was a mixed pattern of results and group differences were not statistically significant at the p

Funder: Addenbrooke's Charitable Trust, 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.

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

Funder: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme; Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001922, Funder: National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre; Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100018956, Funder: Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International; Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000901, 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.

Background: Older adults with type 1 diabetes have distinct characteristics that can make optimising glycaemic control challenging. We sought to test our hypothesis that hybrid closed-loop glucose control is safe and more effective than sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy in older adults with type 1 diabetes. Methods: In an open-label, multicentre, multinational (UK and Austria), randomised, crossover study, adults aged 60 years and older with type 1 diabetes using insulin pump therapy underwent two 16-week periods comparing hybrid closed-loop (CamAPS FX, CamDiab, Cambridge, UK) and SAP therapy in random order. Block randomisation by means of central randomisation software to one of two treatment sequences was stratified by centre. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time sensor glucose was in target range between 3·9 and 10·0 mmol/L. Analysis for the primary endpoint and adverse events was by intention-to-treat. The study has completed and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04025762. Findings: 38 participants were enrolled. One participant withdrew during run-in because of difficulties with the study pump infusion sets. 37 participants (median [IQR] age 68 [63-70] years, mean [SD] baseline glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c]; 7·4% [0·9%]; 57 [10] mmol/mol) were randomly assigned between Sept 4, 2019, and Oct 2, 2020. The proportion of time with glucose between 3·9 and 10·0 mmol/L was significantly higher in the closed-loop group compared to the SAP group (79·9% [SD 7·9] vs 71·4% [13·2], difference 8·6 percentage points [95% CI 6·3 to 11·0]; p, This work was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases under the grant number 1DP3DK112176-01. Additional support for the artificial pancreas work from National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, and JDRF. Dexcom supplied discounted continuous glucose monitoring devices. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the funders.

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

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.).

BACKGROUND The possible advantage of hybrid closed-loop therapy (i.e., artificial pancreas) over sensor-augmented pump therapy in very young children with type 1 diabetes is unclear. METHODS In this multicenter, randomized, crossover trial, we recruited children 1 to 7 years of age with type 1 diabetes who were receiving insulin-pump therapy at seven centers across Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom. Participants received treatment in two 16-week periods, in random order, in which the closed-loop system was compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy (control). The primary end point was the between-treatment difference in the percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was in the target range (70 to 180 mg per deciliter) during each 16-week period. The analysis was conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary end points included the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state (glucose level, >180 mg per deciliter), the glycated hemoglobin level, the mean sensor glucose level, and the percentage of time spent in a hypoglycemic state (glucose level