Listening to women: experiences of using closed-loop in type 1 diabetes pregnancy

Introduction: Recent high-profile calls have emphasized that women's experiences should be considered in maternity care provisioning. We explored women's experiences of using closed-loop during type 1 diabetes (T1D) pregnancy to inform decision-making about antenatal rollout and guidance and support given to future users. Methods: We interviewed 23 closed-loop participants in the Automated insulin Delivery Among Pregnant women with T1D (AiDAPT) trial after randomization to closed-loop and ∼20 weeks later. Data were analyzed thematically. Results: Women described how closed-loop lessened the physical and mental demands of diabetes management, enabling them to feel more normal and sleep better. By virtue of spending increased time-in-range, women also worried less about risks to their baby and being judged negatively by health care professionals. Most noted that intensive input and support during early pregnancy had been crucial to adjusting to, and developing confidence in, the technology. Women emphasized that attaining pregnancy glucose targets still required ongoing effort from themselves and the health care team. Women described needing education to help them determine when, and how, to intervene and when to allow the closed-loop to operate without interference. All women reported more enjoyable pregnancy experiences as a result of using closed-loop; some also noted being able to remain longer in paid employment. Conclusions: Study findings endorse closed-loop use in T1D pregnancy by highlighting how the technology can facilitate positive pregnancy experiences. To realize fully the benefits of closed-loop, pregnant women would benefit from initial intensive oversight and support together with closed-loop specific education and training. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04938557

Flash glucose monitoring with the FreeStyle Libre 2 compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: the FLASH-UK randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Optimising glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D) remains challenging. Flash glucose monitoring with FreeStyle Libre 2 (FSL2) is a novel alternative to the current standard of care self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). No randomised controlled trials to date have explored the potential benefits of FSL2 in T1D. We aim to assess the impact of FSL2 in people with suboptimal glycaemic control T1D in comparison with SMBG. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, randomised (via stochastic minimisation), parallel design study conducted at eight UK secondary and primary care centres will aim to recruit 180 people age ≥16 years with T1D for >1 year and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.5%-11%. Eligible participants will be randomised to 24 weeks of FSL2 (intervention) or SMBG (control) periods, after 2-week of blinded sensor wear. Participants will be assessed virtually or in-person owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. HbA1c will be measured at baseline, 12 and 24 weeks (primary outcome). Participants will be contacted at 4 and 12 weeks for glucose optimisation. Control participants will wear a blinded sensor during the last 2 weeks. Psychosocial outcomes will be measured at baseline and 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes include sensor-based metrics, insulin doses, adverse events and self-report psychosocial measures. Utility, acceptability, expectations and experience of using FSL2 will be explored. Data on health service resource utilisation will be collected. ANALYSIS: Efficacy analyses will follow intention-to-treat principle. Outcomes will be analysed using analysis of covariance, adjusted for the baseline value of the corresponding outcome, minimisation factors and other known prognostic factors. Both within-trial and life-time economic evaluations, informed by modelling from the perspective of the National Health Service setting, will be performed. ETHICS: The study was approved by Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (reference 19/NW/0081). Informed consent will be sought from all participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03815006. PROTOCOL VERSION: 4.0 dated 29 June 2020.Diabetes U

Automated closed-loop insulin delivery for the management of type 1 diabetes during pregnancy: the AiDAPT RCT

Background There are over 2000 pregnancies annually in women with type 1 diabetes in the UK. Despite recent improvements in diabetes technology, most women cannot achieve and maintain the recommended pregnancy glucose targets. Thus, one in two babies experience complications requiring neonatal care unit admission. Recent studies demonstrate that hybrid closed-loop therapy, in which algorithms adjust insulin delivery according to continuous glucose measurements, is effective for managing type 1 diabetes outside of pregnancy, but efficacy during pregnancy is unclear. Objective To examine the clinical efficacy of hybrid closed-loop compared to standard insulin therapy in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. Design A multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised, controlled trial in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. Setting Nine antenatal diabetes clinics in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Participants Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and above-target glucose levels, defined as glycated haemoglobin A1c of ≥ 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) in early pregnancy. Interventions A hybrid closed-loop system compared to standard insulin delivery (via insulin pump or multiple daily injections) with continuous glucose monitoring. Outcome measures The primary outcome is the difference between the intervention and control groups in percentage time spent in the pregnancy glucose target range (3.5–7.8 mmol/l) as measured by continuous glucose monitoring from 16 weeks’ gestation until delivery. Secondary outcomes include overnight time in range, time above range (> 7.8 mmol/l), glycated haemoglobin A1c, safety outcomes (diabetic ketoacidosis, severe hypoglycaemia, adverse device events), psychosocial functioning obstetric and neonatal outcomes. Results The percentage of time that maternal glucose levels were within target range was higher with closed-loop than standard insulin therapy: 68.2 ± 10.5 in closed-loop and 55.6 ± 12.5 in the control group (mean‑adjusted difference 10.5 percentage points, 95% confidence interval 7.0 to 14.0; p < 0.001). Results were consistent in secondary outcomes, with less time above range (−10.2%, 95% confidence interval −13.8 to −6.6%; p < 0.001), higher overnight time in range (12.3%, 95% confidence interval 8.3 to 16.2%; p < 0.001) and lower glycated haemoglobin A1c (−0.31%, 95% confidence interval −0.50 to −0.12%; p < 0.002) all favouring closed-loop. The treatment effect was apparent from early pregnancy and consistent across clinical sites, maternal glycated haemoglobin A1c categories and previous insulin regimen. Maternal glucose improvements were achieved with 3.7 kg less gestational weight gain and without additional hypoglycaemia or total daily insulin dose. There were no unanticipated safety problems (six vs. five severe hypoglycaemia cases, one diabetic ketoacidosis per group) and seven device-related adverse events associated with closed-loop. There were no between-group differences in patient-reported outcomes. There was one shoulder dystocia in the closed-loop group and four serious birth injuries, including one neonatal death in the standard care group. Limitations Our results cannot be extrapolated to closed-loop systems with higher glucose targets, and our sample size did not provide definitive data on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Conclusions Hybrid closed-loop therapy significantly improved maternal glycaemia during type 1 diabetes pregnancy. Our results support National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline recommendations that hybrid closed-loop therapy should be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. Future work Future trials should examine the effectiveness of hybrid closed-loop started before pregnancy, or as soon as possible after pregnancy confirmation

Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) Technologies in Clinical Practice

International audienceThe 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 six 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

Suicide and type 1 diabetes: a complex issue

Suicide is the leading cause of death among young people aged 20–24 years in the UK. Furthermore, suicide attempts are at least 20 times higher than the number of suicide deaths, and together with intentional self-injury present a significant public health challenge.1 The risk of suicidal behaviour is higher in people with type 1 diabetes, with up to 7% of deaths in young adults being a result of suicide.2 Despite being avoidable, it is an under-recognised cause of death in people with type 1 diabetes and it is important that diabetes health care professionals are aware of this risk and its management. Identification of those at risk of suicide or intentional self-injury is challenging because existing standard screening tools, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, lack efficacy when used with people who have diabetes.3 Furthermore, there is hesitancy to implement screening for depression and suicide if health care professionals feel ill-equipped to respond or do not have appropriate resources to support their patients who report depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, or intentional self-injury

Two-centre real-world pilot of a biopsychosocial digital health tool to deliver personalised visits and enhance value of rtCGM

<br/

Protocol paper: multi-centre randomised controlled trial evaluating a pre-clinic diabetes assessment and mapped care planning intervention amongst adults with type 1, type 2 or pre-diabetes

Background: existing therapeutic interventions to treat diabetes are well known, yet the majority of people with diabetes do not consistently achieve blood glucose targets (even individual therapy targets) for optimal health, despite the large range of treatment options available. Such outcomes have remained stubbornly poor for decades with &lt;25% adults with diabetes achieving glycaemic targets. Patient behaviour, individually supported in routine clinical care, is an important missing component to improved outcomes, in a medical healthcare model not ideally suited to supporting successful diabetes management. Methods: a multi-centre, parallel group, individually randomised trial comparing consultation duration in adults with type 1, type 2 or pre-diabetes using the Spotlight Consultations pre-clinic assessment compared to usual care in the Spotlight-AQ study. Two hundred adults with type 1, type 2 or pre-diabetes attending routine care outpatient appointments across up to ten participating sites will be invited to participate. Intervention: an outpatient pre-clinic intervention delivered within 1 week prior to scheduled routine outpatient appointment. Primary outcome measure: Duration of routine outpatient consultation. Secondary outcome measures: Functional health status Diabetes distress Depression Treatment satisfaction Impact on self-care behaviours HCP burnout HCP treatment satisfaction and burden Hypoglycaemia (time less than 70mg/dL)Hyperglycaemia (time above 180 mg/dL)Change in weight Change in HbA1cCost effectiveness of intervention Discussion: results from the study will provide valuable insights into patient-professional communication practices within routine care and recommendations will be made, as necessary, for improvements to that. If the intervention is shown to be clinically and cost-effective, the feedback from participants and healthcare professionals will be used to make any improvements prior to its deployment to support improved communication and associated health outcomes. Ethics and dissemination: The trial was approved by the Wales REC7 Research Ethics Committee (21/WA/0020). Results will be disseminated through national and international conferences, scientific journals, newsletters, magazines and social media. Target audiences include consultants and other clinicians in diabetes, and medical professionals or scientists overall. Trial registration: ISRCTN15511689.</p

The psychosocial burdens of living with diabetes

Aim: to better understand the prevalence of self-reported psychosocial burdens and the unmet needs identified by people with diabetes in relation to routine diabetes visits.Methods: an English language, online survey was distributed via social media, key stakeholder networks, charity and advocacy groups to adults with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes. Survey items were designed by members of the FDA RESCUE Collaborative Community Governing Committee prior to pilot testing with potential participants. Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted; as well as thematic analyses on free text responses using NVivo v14.Results: 478 participants completed the survey. 373 (78%) had type 1 diabetes, 346 (73%) identified as a woman and 433 (91%) were white. Most participants had experienced self-reported (rather than diagnosed) anxiety and depression (n=323 and n=313 respectively), as well as fear of low blood sugars (n=294), low mood (n=290) and diabetes-related distress (n=257). 68% reported diabetes had negatively affected self-esteem and 62% to feelings of loneliness but 93% reported friends/family/work colleagues were supportive when needed. 272 (57%) reported their diabetes team had never raised the topic of mental health. The overwhelming majority stated the best thing their diabetes team could do to help was to simply ask about mental well-being; listen with empathy and without judgement; and practice skills to understand psychosocial issues in diabetes.Conclusion: integrating psychosocial discussions and support within routine healthcare visits is crucial to improve outcomes for people with diabetes. Such a biopsychosocial model of healthcare has long been advocated by regulatory bodies.<br/

User and Healthcare Professional Perspectives on Do-It-Yourself Artificial Pancreas Systems: A Need for Guidelines

A growing number of individuals with type 1 diabetes are choosing to use “do-it-yourself” artificial pancreas systems (DIY APS) to support their diabetes self-management. Observational and self-report data of glycemic benefits of DIY APS are promising; however, without rigorous clinical trials or regulation from governing bodies, liability and user safety continue to be central concerns for stakeholders. Despite DIY APS having been used for several years now, there are no guidelines to assist users and healthcare professionals in addressing DIY APS use in routine clinical care. This commentary reports key stakeholders’ perspectives presented at the annual Advanced Technologies and Treatments in Diabetes conference in February 2020. Important considerations to inform the development of clinical care guidelines are also presented to generate further debate

Liraglutide and the management of overweight and obesity in people with severe mental illness: qualitative sub-study

Background: People with severe mental illness are two to three times more likely to be overweight or have obesity than the general population and this is associated with significant morbidity and premature mortality. Liraglutide 3 mg is a once daily injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist that is licensed for the treatment of obesity in the general population and has the potential to be used in people with severe mental illness. Aims: To record the expectations and experiences of people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorders or first episode psychosis taking daily liraglutide 3 mg injections in a clinical trial for the treatment of obesity. To seek the views of healthcare professionals about the feasibility of delivering the intervention in routine care. Methods: Qualitative interviews were undertaken with a purposive sub-sample of people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorders or first episode psychosis with overweight or obesity who were treated with a daily injection of liraglutide 3 mg in a double-blinded, randomised controlled pilot study evaluating the use of liraglutide for the treatment of obesity. Interviews were also conducted with healthcare professionals. Results: Seventeen patient participants were interviewed. Sixteen took part in the baseline interview, eight completed both baseline and follow-up interviews, and one took part in follow-up interview only. Mean interview duration was thirteen minutes (range 5-37 min). Despite reservations by some participants about the injections before the study, most of those who completed the trial reported no challenges in the timing of or administering the injections. Key themes included despondency regarding prior medication associated weight gain, quality of life impact of weight loss, practical aspects of participation including materials received and clinic attendance. Healthcare professionals reported challenges with recruitment, however, overall it was a positive experience for them and for participants. Conclusion: Liraglutide appears to be an acceptable therapy for obesity in this population with limited side effects. The quality of life benefits realised by several intervention participants reinforce the biomedical benefits of achieved weight loss.</p