Forlenza, Gregory P

Background: Given the faster onset and shorter duration of action of ultra-rapid insulin lispro-aabc (URLi, Lyumjev™ insulin), compared with insulin lispro (a rapid-acting insulin [RAI]), the present study investigated the safety and glycemic outcomes of MiniMed™ 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) use with URLi in youths and adults with T1D. Methods: This 19-site, single-arm, clinical trial enrolled children and adolescents (aged 7–17 years) and adults (aged 18–80 years) with T1D who underwent a run-in period (∼2 weeks) using open loop or automated basal only with an RAI (aspart or lispro), followed by a 3-month study period using URLi with AHCL (AHCL + URLi). End-of-study glycemic metrics and A1c were compared to predefined thresholds and to data from baseline/run-in. Use of recommended optimal settings (ROS, 100 mg/dL glucose target with an active insulin time [AIT] of 2 h) was also assessed. Results: In an intention-to-treat population ( N = 101 pediatric and N = 110 adult participants), percentage of time in range (%TIR) during the last ∼6 weeks of the study period was significantly greater than the predefined thresholds for both the pediatric and adult participants. A1c was unchanged in the pediatric cohort but significantly reduced in the adult cohort (from 7.4 ± 0.9% to 6.9 ± 0.6% [ P < 0.001]). Compared with run-in, study period %TIR and percentage of time in tight target range (%TITR) were significantly increased (pediatric mean %TIRΔ [17.4%] and %TITRΔ [16.0%], respectively, and adult mean %TIRΔ [10.6%] and %TITRΔ [11.6%], respectively; P < 0.001 for all). Additionally, % time above range for both groups was significantly reduced. Use of ROS allowed more participants to achieve recommended glycemic targets. There were no severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis events. Most caregivers agreed that mealtime versus premeal URLi delivery simplified pediatric meal management. Conclusions: Similar to previous studies investigating automated URLi delivery, URLi use in the MiniMed™ 780G system was safe, and glycemic outcomes were favorable for pediatric and adult participants.

The development of automated insulin delivery systems has seen tremendous improvements from individual components to interoperable system combinations of devices and new drugs besides insulin. The components have become progressively smaller, more accurate, and more user friendly. This article summarizes the history of the artificial pancreas from the earliest concepts to fully functional systems to research into further improvements in the future. The authors include many of the developers of this technology who received research support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at various stages to develop these systems.

The development of automated insulin delivery systems has seen tremendous improvements from individual components to interoperable system combinations of devices and new drugs besides insulin. The components have become progressively smaller, more accurate, and more user friendly. This article summarizes the history of the artificial pancreas from the earliest concepts to fully functional systems to research into further improvements in the future. The authors include many of the developers of this technology who received research support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at various stages to develop these systems.

Background: We investigated the potential benefits of automated insulin delivery (AID) among individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in sub-populations of baseline device use determined by continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use status and insulin delivery via multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump. Materials and Methods: In a six-month randomized, multicenter trial, 168 individuals were assigned to closed-loop control (CLC, Control-IQ, Tandem Diabetes Care), or sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. The trial included a two- to eight-week run-in phase to train participants on study devices. The participants were stratified into four subgroups: insulin pump and CGM (pump+CGM), pump-only, MDI and CGM (MDI+CGM), and MDI users without CGM (MDI-only) users. We compared glycemic outcomes among four subgroups. Results: At baseline, 61% were pump+CGM users, 18% pump-only users, 10% MDI+CGM users, and 11% MDI-only users. Mean time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) improved from baseline in the four subgroups using CLC: pump+CGM, 62% to 73%; pump-only, 61% to 70%; MDI+CGM, 54% to 68%; and MDI-only, 61% to 69%. The reduction in time below 70 mg/dL from baseline was comparable among the four subgroups. No interaction effect was detected with baseline device use for TIR ( P = .67) or time below ( P = .77). On the System Usability Questionnaire, scores were high at 26 weeks for all subgroups: pump+CGM: 87.2 ± 12.1, pump-only: 89.4 ± 8.2, MDI+CGM 87.2 ± 9.3, MDI: 78.1 ± 15. Conclusions: There was a consistent benefit in patients with T1D when using CLC, regardless of baseline insulin delivery modality or CGM use. These data suggest that this CLC system can be considered across a wide range of patients.

Background: A composite metric for the quality of glycemia from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) tracings could be useful for assisting with basic clinical interpretation of CGM data. Methods: We assembled a data set of 14-day CGM tracings from 225 insulin-treated adults with diabetes. Using a balanced incomplete block design, 330 clinicians who were highly experienced with CGM analysis and interpretation ranked the CGM tracings from best to worst quality of glycemia. We used principal component analysis and multiple regressions to develop a model to predict the clinician ranking based on seven standard metrics in an Ambulatory Glucose Profile: very low–glucose and low-glucose hypoglycemia; very high–glucose and high-glucose hyperglycemia; time in range; mean glucose; and coefficient of variation. Results: The analysis showed that clinician rankings depend on two components, one related to hypoglycemia that gives more weight to very low-glucose than to low-glucose and the other related to hyperglycemia that likewise gives greater weight to very high-glucose than to high-glucose. These two components should be calculated and displayed separately, but they can also be combined into a single Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia (r = 0.95). The GRI can be displayed graphically on a GRI Grid with the hypoglycemia component on the horizontal axis and the hyperglycemia component on the vertical axis. Diagonal lines divide the graph into five zones (quintiles) corresponding to the best (0th to 20th percentile) to worst (81st to 100th percentile) overall quality of glycemia. The GRI Grid enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals. Conclusion: The GRI is a single-number summary of the quality of glycemia. Its hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia components provide actionable scores and a graphical display (the GRI Grid) that can be used by clinicians and researchers to determine the glycemic effects of prescribed and investigational treatments.

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.

Background: Closed-loop control (CLC) has been shown to improve glucose time in range and other glucose metrics; however, randomized trials >3 months comparing CLC with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy are limited. We recently reported glucose control outcomes from the 6-month international Diabetes Closed-Loop (iDCL) trial; we now report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in this iDCL trial. Methods: Participants were randomized 2:1 to CLC ( N = 112) versus SAP ( N = 56) and completed questionnaires, including Hypoglycemia Fear Survey, Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), Hypoglycemia Awareness, Hypoglycemia Confidence, Hyperglycemia Avoidance, and Positive Expectancies of CLC (INSPIRE) at baseline, 3, and 6 months. CLC participants also completed Diabetes Technology Expectations and Acceptance and System Usability Scale (SUS). Results: The Hypoglycemia Fear Survey Behavior subscale improved significantly after 6 months of CLC compared with SAP. DDS did not differ except for powerless subscale scores, which worsened at 3 months in SAP. Whereas Hypoglycemia Awareness and Hyperglycemia Avoidance did not differ between groups, CLC participants showed a tendency toward improved confidence in managing hypoglycemia. The INSPIRE questionnaire showed favorable scores in the CLC group for teens and parents, with a similar trend for adults. At baseline and 6 months, CLC participants had high positive expectations for the device with Diabetes Technology Acceptance and SUS showing high benefit and low burden scores. Conclusion: CLC improved some PROs compared with SAP. Participants reported high benefit and low burden with CLC. Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT03563313.