Hybrid Closed-loop therapy: Where are we in 2021?

Hybrid closed‐loop systems are characterized by the coexistence of algorithm‐driven automated insulin delivery combined with manual mealtime boluses. Used correctly, these insulin delivery systems offer better glucose control and reduced risk of hypoglycaemia and represent the most advanced form of insulin delivery available for people with type 1 diabetes. The aim of this paper was to compare the currently available commercial hybrid closed‐loop systems in the UK: the Medtronic 670G/780G, Tandem t:slim X2 Control IQ and CamAPS FX systems. The Medtronic 670G/780G systems use Guardian 3 sensor (7‐day use, two to four calibrations per day), while Tandem and CamAPS systems use the calibration‐free Dexcom G6 sensor (10 days). The CamAPS system is available as an android app, whereas the other two systems have the algorithm embedded in the insulin pump. During pivotal studies, depending on the study population and baseline glycated haemoglobin level, these systems achieve a time spent in the target range 3.9 to 10 mmol/L (70 to 180 mg/dL) of 65% to 76% with low burden of hypoglycaemia. All three systems allow a higher glucose target for announced exercise, while the Tandem system offers an additional night‐time tighter target. The CamAPS system offers fully customizable glucose targets and is the only system licensed for use during pregnancy. Additional education is required for both users and healthcare professionals to harness the best performance from these systems as well as to troubleshoot when “automode exits” occur. We provide consensus recommendations to develop pragmatic pathways to guide patients, clinicians and commissioners in making informed decisions on the appropriate use of the diabetes technology

CGM accuracy: Contrasting CE marking with the governmental controls of the USA (FDA) and Australia (TGA) - A narrative review.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence updated guidance for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in 2022, recommending that CGM be available to all people living with type 1 diabetes. Manufacturers can trade in the United Kingdom (UK) with Conformité Européenne (CE) marking without an initial national assessment. The regulatory process for CGM CE marking, in contrast to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) process, is described. Manufacturers operating in the UK provided clinical accuracy studies submitted for CE marking. Critical appraisal of the studies shows several CGM devices have CE marking for wide-ranging indications beyond available data, unlike FDA and TGA approval. The FDA and TGA use tighter controls, requiring comprehensive product-specific clinical data evaluation. In 2018, the FDA published the integrated CGM (iCGM) criteria permitting interoperability. Applying the iCGM criteria to clinical data provided by manufacturers trading in the UK identified several study protocols that minimised glucose variability, thereby improving CGM accuracy on all metrics. These results do not translate into real-life performance. Furthermore, for many CGM devices available in the UK, accuracy reported in the hypoglycaemic range is below iCGM standards, or measurement is absent. We offer a framework to evaluate CGM accuracy studies critically. The review concludes that FDA and TGA-approved indications match the available clinical data, whereas CE marking indications can have discrepancies. The UK can bolster regulation with UK Conformity Assessed marking from January 2025. However, balanced regulation is needed to ensure innovation and timely technological access are not hindered. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Real-world outcomes of Omnipod DASH system use in people with type 1 diabetes: Evidence from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) study

AimsTo evaluate real-world outcomes in people with Type 1 Diabetes (PwT1D) initiated on Omnipod DASH® Insulin Management System.MethodsAnonymized clinical data were submitted to a secure web-based tool within the National Health Service network. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), sensor-derived glucometrics, total daily dose of insulin (TDD), and patient-reported outcome changes between baseline and follow-up were assessed. Individuals were classified to "new-to-pump" (switched from multiple daily injections) and "established-on-pump" (switched from a tethered insulin pump) groups.Results276 individuals from 11 centers [66.7 % female; 92 % White British; median age 41 years (IQR 20-50); diabetes duration 20 years (IQR 11-31); 49.3 % within "new-to-pump" group] were included. Baseline HbA1c was 8.0 ± 1.3 % (64 ± 14 mmol/mol). At follow-up [3 years (IQR 1.5-3.2)], HbA1c reduced by 0.3 % [(3 mmol/mol); p = 0.002] across the total population, 0.4 % [(5 mmol/mol); p = 0.001] in those "new-to-pump" and remained unchanged in those "established-on-pump". TDD decreased in the "new-to-pump" cohort (baseline:44.9 ± 21.0units vs follow-up:38.1 ± 15.4units, p = 0.002). Of those asked, 141/143 (98.6 %) stated Omnipod DASH had a positive impact on quality of life.ConclusionsOmnipod DASH was associated with improvements in HbA1c in PwT1D "new-to-pump" and maintained previous HbA1c levels in those "established-on-pump". User satisfaction in all groups and TDD reduction in those "new-to-pump" were reported

Hybrid Closed Loop Therapy in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes and Above-Target HbA1c: A Real-World Observational Study

ObjectiveWe explored longitudinal changes associated with switching to hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems in adults with type 1 diabetes and elevated HbA1c levels despite the use of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) and insulin pump therapy.Research design and methodsWe undertook a pragmatic, preplanned observational study of participants included in the National Health Service England closed loop pilot. Adults using isCGM and insulin pump across 31 diabetes centers in England with an HbA1c ≥8.5% who were willing to commence HCL therapy were included. Outcomes included change in HbA1c, sensor glucometrics, diabetes distress score, Gold score (hypoglycemia awareness), acute event rates, and user opinion of HCL.ResultsIn total, 570 HCL users were included (median age 40 [IQR 29-50] years, 67% female, and 85% White). Mean baseline HbA1c was 9.4 ± 0.9% (78.9 ± 9.1 mmol/mol) with a median follow-up of 5.1 (IQR 3.9-6.6) months. Of 520 users continuing HCL at follow-up, mean adjusted HbA1c reduced by 1.7% (95% CI 1.5, 1.8; P ConclusionsUse of HCL is associated with improvements in HbA1c, time in range, hypoglycemia, and diabetes-related distress and quality of life in people with type 1 diabetes in the real world

A Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) of Hypoglycemia and Hyperglycemia for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Validated by Clinician Ratings.

BackgroundA 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThe 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