Alonso, G. Todd

Objective: To analyze insulin delivery and glycemic metrics throughout the menstrual cycle for women with type 1 diabetes using closed loop control (CLC) insulin delivery. Methods: Menstruating women using a CLC system in a clinical trial were invited to record their menstrual cycles through a cycle-tracking application. Sixteen participants provided data for this secondary analysis over three or more complete cycles. Insulin delivery and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data were analyzed in relation to reported cycle phases. Results: Insulin delivery and CGM metrics remained consistent during cycle phases. Intraparticipant variability of CGM metrics and weight-based insulin delivery did not change through cycle phases. Conclusions: For this sample of menstruating women with type 1 diabetes using a CLC system, insulin delivery and glycemic metrics remained stable throughout menstrual cycle phases. Additional studies in this population are needed, particularly among women who report variable glycemic control during their cycles. Trial Registration: NCT03591354.

AbstractBackgroundDiabetes is a risk factor for poor COVID‐19 outcomes, but pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes are poorly represented in current studies.MethodsT1D Exchange coordinated a US type 1 diabetes COVID‐19 registry. Forty‐six diabetes centers submitted pediatric cases for patients with laboratory confirmed COVID‐19. Associations between clinical factors and hospitalization were tested with Fisher's Exact Test. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios for hospitalization.ResultsData from 266 patients with previously established type 1 diabetes aged <19 years with COVID‐19 were reported. Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was the most common adverse outcome (n = 44, 72% of hospitalized patients). There were four hospitalizations for severe hypoglycemia, three hospitalizations requiring respiratory support (one of whom was intubated and mechanically ventilated), one case of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and 10 patients who were hospitalized for reasons unrelated to COVID‐19 or diabetes. Hospitalized patients (n = 61) were more likely than nonhospitalized patients (n = 205) to have minority race/ethnicity (67% vs 39%, P < 0.001), public insurance (64% vs 41%, P < 0.001), higher A1c (11% [97 mmol/mol] vs 8.2% [66 mmol/mol], P < 0.001), and lower insulin pump and lower continuous glucose monitoring use (26% vs 54%, P < 0.001; 39% vs 75%, P < 0.001). Age and gender were not associated with risk of hospitalization. Higher A1c was significantly associated with hospitalization, with an odds ratio of 1.56 (1.34‐1.84) after adjusting for age, gender, insurance, and race/ethnicity.ConclusionsHigher A1c remained the only predictor for hospitalization with COVID‐19. Diabetic ketoacidosis is the primary concern among this group.

OBJECTIVE Limited information is available about glycemic outcomes with a closed-loop control (CLC) system compared with a predictive low-glucose suspend (PLGS) system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS After 6 months of use of a CLC system in a randomized trial, 109 participants with type 1 diabetes (age range, 14–72 years; mean HbA1c, 7.1% [54 mmol/mol]) were randomly assigned to CLC (N = 54, Control-IQ) or PLGS (N = 55, Basal-IQ) groups for 3 months. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitor (CGM)-measured time in range (TIR) for 70–180 mg/dL. Baseline CGM metrics were computed from the last 3 months of the preceding study. RESULTS All 109 participants completed the study. Mean ± SD TIR was 71.1 ± 11.2% at baseline and 67.6 ± 12.6% using intention-to-treat analysis (69.1 ± 12.2% using per-protocol analysis excluding periods of study-wide suspension of device use) over 13 weeks on CLC vs. 70.0 ± 13.6% and 60.4 ± 17.1% on PLGS (difference = 5.9%; 95% CI 3.6%, 8.3%; P &lt; 0.001). Time &gt;180 mg/dL was lower in the CLC group than PLGS group (difference = −6.0%; 95% CI −8.4%, −3.7%; P &lt; 0.001) while time &lt;54 mg/dL was similar (0.04%; 95% CI −0.05%, 0.13%; P = 0.41). HbA1c after 13 weeks was lower on CLC than PLGS (7.2% [55 mmol/mol] vs. 7.5% [56 mmol/mol], difference −0.34% [−3.7 mmol/mol]; 95% CI −0.57% [−6.2 mmol/mol], −0.11% [1.2 mmol/mol]; P = 0.0035). CONCLUSIONS Following 6 months of CLC, switching to PLGS reduced TIR and increased HbA1c toward their pre-CLC values, while hypoglycemia remained similarly reduced with both CLC and PLGS.