Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

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).

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.

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).

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).

Pregnancies in type 1 diabetes are high risk, and data in the United States are limited regarding continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based hypoglycemia throughout pregnancy while on sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy.

Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes in the LOIS-P Study (Longitudinal Observation of Insulin use and glucose Sensor metrics in Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes using continuous glucose monitors and insulin pumps) were enrolled before 17 weeks gestation at three U.S. centers and we used their personal insulin pump and a study Dexcom G6 CGM. We analyzed data of 25 pregnant women for CGM hypoglycemia based on international consensus guidelines for percentage time <63 and 54 mg/dL, hypoglycemic events and prolonged hypoglycemia events for 24-h, daytime, and overnight periods, and severe hypoglycemia (SH) episodes.

For a 24-h period, biweekly median percentage of time <63 mg/dL ranged from 0.8% at biweek 4–5 to 3.7% at biweek 14–15 with high variability throughout pregnancy. Median percentage of time <63 and 54 mg/dL was higher overnight than daytime (P < 0.01). Hypoglycemic events occurred throughout the pregnancy, ranged 1–4 events per 2 weeks, significantly decreased after the 20th week, and occurred predominantly during daytime (P < 0.01). For overnight period, hypoglycemia and events were more concentrated from 12 to 3 am. Seven prolonged hypoglycemia events without any associated SH occurred in four participants (16%), primarily overnight. Three participants experienced a single episode of SH.

Our results suggest a higher overall risk of hypoglycemia throughout pregnancy during the overnight period with continued daytime risk of hypoglycemic events in pregnancies complicated by type 1 diabetes.

To evaluate the effectiveness of tele-ophthalmology (TO) versus face-to-face screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) in diabetes care centers (DCC) across India.

This is an observational, multicenter, retrospective, cross-sectional study of DR screening in individuals with diabetes performed across 35 branches of a chain of DCC in 20 cities in India over 1 year. In 30 DCC, DR screening was performed by TO, where retinal images obtained using Fundus on Phone camera were uploaded through the telemedicine network for centralized DR grading by eight retina specialists. In five DCC, DR screening was performed by fundus examination (FE) by the same retina specialists. The rate of detection of sight-threatening DR (STDR) (defined as the presence of proliferative DR and/or diabetic macular edema) through the two modes was compared.

A total of 58,612 individuals were screened for DR from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018: 25,316 by TO and 33,296 by FE. The mean age and mean duration of diabetes of the individuals with diabetes screened by TO was 55.8 ± 11.2 years and 9.5 ± 7.3 years; and in individuals screened by FE, it was 57.5 ± 11.6 years and 11.5 ± 8.0 years respectively. The mean glycated hemoglobin was 8.8% ± 2.1% and 8.5% ± 1.9% in the two groups, respectively. Any DR was detected in 31.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 31.0–32.3) by tele-screening and in 38.5% (95% CI: 37.9–39.0) by FE, whereas STDR was detected in 7.3% (95% CI: 7.0–7.7) by TO and in 10.5% (95% CI: 10.2–10.9) by FE. Overall, 11.4% individuals with diabetes in the TO group, including 4.1% with ungradable images, were advised referral to retina specialists for further management.

Screening for DR at DCC using TO is feasible and effective for STDR detection in India and may be adopted throughout India.

Artificial intelligence-based decision support systems (DSS) need to provide decisions that are not inferior to those given by experts in the field. Recommended insulin dose adjustments on the same individual data set were compared among multinational physicians, and with recommendations made by automated Endo.Digital DSS (ED-DSS).

This was a noninterventional study surveying 20 physicians from multinational academic centers. The survey included 17 data cases of individuals with type 1 diabetes who are treated with multiple daily insulin injections. Participating physicians were asked to recommend insulin dose adjustments based on glucose and insulin data. Insulin dose adjustments recommendations were compared among physicians and with the automated ED-DSS. The primary endpoints were the percentage of comparison points for which there was agreement on the trend of insulin dose adjustments.

The proportion of agreement and disagreement in the direction of insulin dose adjustment among physicians was statistically noninferior to the proportion of agreement and disagreement observed between ED-DSS and physicians for basal rate, carbohydrate-to insulin ratio, and correction factor (P < 0.001 and P ≤ 0.004 for all three parameters for agreement and disagreement, respectively). The ED-DSS magnitude of insulin dose change was consistently lower than that proposed by the physicians.

Recommendations for insulin dose adjustments made by automatization did not differ significantly from recommendations given by expert physicians regarding the direction of change. These results highlight the potential utilization of ED-DSS as a useful clinical tool to manage insulin titration and dose adjustments.

We recently reported that use of an “advanced” hybrid closed-loop system reduced hyperglycemia without increasing hypoglycemia compared to a first-generation system. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate whether this improved performance was specifically related to better mealtime glycemic control.

We conducted a secondary analysis of postprandial glycemic control in an open-label, multinational, randomized crossover trial of 112 participants with type 1 diabetes, aged 14–29, of the Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed-loop system (670G) versus the Medtronic advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system, for 12 weeks each. We compared glycemic and insulin delivery metrics over a 3 h horizon across all meals to assess system performance and outcomes.

Overall meal size and premeal insulin on board were similar during run-in and between 670G and AHCL arms. Compared with 670G arm, premeal, peak, and mean glucose levels were numerically lower in the AHCL arm (167 ± 23, 231 ± 23, and 177 ± 20 mg/dL vs. 175 ± 23, 235 ± 23, and 180 ± 19 mg/dL, respectively), with a trend to lower hyperglycemia level 2 in AHCL arm. Adjusting for premeal glucose level, all postmeal outcomes between 670G and AHCL were statistically similar. Prandial insulin delivery also was similar in both treatment arms (21 ± 9 vs. 23 ± 10 U), with a shift in basal/bolus ratio from 28%/71% in 670G arm to 20%/80% in AHCL arm.

Reduced hyperglycemia with AHCL compared to 670G was not related to early postprandial glycemic excursions after adjusting for premeal glucose level (<3 h after meal), but likely to later (>3 h) postprandial or overnight improvements. Further refinements to mealtime bolus algorithms and strategies may more optimally control prandial glycemic excursions.