Home use of a bihormonal bionic pancreas versus insulin pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre randomised crossover trial

The safety and effectiveness of a continuous, day-and-night automated glycaemic control system using insulin and glucagon has not been shown in a free-living, home-use setting. We aimed to assess whether bihormonal bionic pancreas initialised only with body mass can safely reduce mean glycaemia and hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes who were living at home and participating in their normal daily routines without restrictions on diet or physical activity

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

Consensus recommendations for the use of automated insulin delivery technologies in clinical practice

The 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 6 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

Safety and Performance of the Omnipod Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Adults, Adolescents, and Children with Type 1 Diabetes over 5 Days under Free-Living Conditions

Background: The objective of this study was to assess the safety and performance of the Omnipod\uae personalized model predictive control (MPC) algorithm in adults, adolescents, and children aged 656 years with type 1 diabetes (T1D) under free-living conditions using an investigational device. Materials and Methods: A 96-h hybrid closed-loop (HCL) study was conducted in a supervised hotel/rental home setting following a 7-day outpatient standard therapy (ST) phase. Eligible participants were aged 6-65 years with A1C <10.0% using insulin pump therapy or multiple daily injections. Meals during HCL were unrestricted, with boluses administered per usual routine. There was daily physical activity. The primary endpoints were percentage of time with sensor glucose <70 and 65250 mg/dL. Results: Participants were 11 adults, 10 adolescents, and 15 children aged (mean \ub1 standard deviation) 28.8 \ub1 7.9, 14.3 \ub1 1.3, and 9.9 \ub1 1.0 years, respectively. Percentage time 65250 mg/dL during HCL was 4.5% \ub1 4.2%, 3.5% \ub1 5.0%, and 8.6% \ub1 8.8% per respective age group, a 1.6-, 3.4-, and 2.0-fold reduction compared to ST (P = 0.1, P = 0.02, and P = 0.03). Percentage time <70 mg/dL during HCL was 1.9% \ub1 1.3%, 2.5% \ub1 2.0%, and 2.2% \ub1 1.9%, a statistically significant decrease in adults when compared to ST (P = 0.005, P = 0.3, and P = 0.3). Percentage time 70-180 mg/dL increased during HCL compared to ST, reaching significance for adolescents and children: HCL 73.7% \ub1 7.5% vs. ST 68.0% \ub1 15.6% for adults (P = 0.08), HCL 79.0% \ub1 12.6% vs. ST 60.6% \ub1 13.4% for adolescents (P = 0.01), and HCL 69.2% \ub1 13.5% vs. ST 54.9% \ub1 12.9% for children (P = 0.003). Conclusions: The Omnipod personalized MPC algorithm was safe and performed well over 5 days and 4 nights of use by a cohort of participants ranging from youth aged 656 years to adults with T1D under supervised free-living conditions with challenges, including daily physical activity and unrestricted meals