Brown, Sue A.

OBJECTIVE The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) requires a low C-peptide level for insulin pump coverage unless the individual is β-cell autoantibody positive, which precludes coverage of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems for many people with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In the Randomized Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Control-IQ+ Technology in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Using Basal-Bolus Insulin Therapy study evaluating the t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ+ technology, adults with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes were categorized into high C-peptide (n = 195) and low C-peptide (n = 59) groups based on CMS criteria. RESULTS In the AID group, mean HbA1c decreased from baseline by 0.8%, which was significantly greater than in the control group with both high (P < 0.001) and low (P = 0.02) C-peptide levels. Results were similar in participants ≥65 years old. CONCLUSIONS The benefit of AID is present with high and low C-peptide levels. Thus, requiring a low C-peptide level as a prerequisite for AID therapy is not warranted.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.