Managing the diversification risk.

D. Gregory,K. Kaufman

1983-12-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Managing antibiotic associated diarrhoea

F. Barbut,J. Meynard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7350.1345

2002-06-08

British Medical Journal

Abstract:Papers p 1361 Diarrhoea is a common adverse effect of antibiotic treatments. Antibiotic associated diarrhoea occurs in about 5-30% of patients either early during antibiotic therapy or up to two months after the end of the treatment.1–3 The frequency of antibiotic associated diarrhoea depends on the definition of diarrhoea, the inciting antimicrobial agents, and host factors. Almost all antibiotics, particularly those that act on anaerobes, can cause diarrhoea, but the risk is higher with aminopenicillins, a combination of aminopenicillins and clavulanate, cephalosporins, and clindamycin. 1 4 5 Host factors for antibiotic associated diarrhoea include age over 65, immunosuppression, being in an intensive care unit, and prolonged hospitalisation.6 Clinical presentations of antibiotic associated diarrhoea range from mild diarrhoea to fulminant pseudomembranous colitis. The latter is characterised by a watery diarrhoea, fever (in 80% of cases), leucocytosis (80%), and the presence of pseudomembranes on endoscopic examination. Severe complications include toxic megacolon, perforation, and shock. Antibiotic associated diarrhoea results from disruption of the normal microflora of the gut by antibiotics. This microflora, composed of 1011 bacteria per gram of intestinal content, forms …
Performance of an Automated Insulin Delivery System: Results of Early Phase Feasibility Studies

Mark Christiansen,Amy Bartee,Amy Lalonde,Richard E Jones,Michelle Katz,Howard Wolpert,Ronald Brazg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2020.0318

Abstract:Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have demonstrated improvements in time-in-range (TIR, blood glucose 70-180 mg/dL) without increasing hypoglycemia. Testing a closed-loop system in an inpatient environment with supervised challenges allows for initial evaluation of performance and safety of the system. Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) were enrolled into two similar studies (n = 10 per study), with 3-day inpatient analysis periods. Participants tested a Lilly hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system comprising an investigational insulin pump, insulin lispro, a pump-embedded model predictive control algorithm, a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and an external dedicated controller. Each protocol included meal-related and exercise challenges to simulate real-world diabetes self-management errors. Only study staff interacted with the HCL system. Performance was assessed using standard CGM metrics overall and within prespecified periods. Results: Participants (25% male) had mean ± standard deviation (SD) age 44.7 ± 14.2 years, T1D duration 30.2 ± 11.1 years, A1C 7.2% ± 0.8%, and insulin usage 0.53 ± 0.21 U/(kg·day). Percentage TIR 70-180 mg/dL (mean ± SD) was 81.2 ± 8.4 overall, 85.2 ± 8.1 outside of challenge periods, 97.3 ± 5.3 during the nocturnal periods, and 74.5 ± 16.2 for the postprandial periods. During challenge periods, percentage TIR for the overbolus challenge was 65.4 ± 29.2 and that for the delayed bolus challenge was 57.1 ± 25.1. No adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, or unanticipated adverse device events occurred while participants were using the HCL system. Conclusions: In participants with T1D, Lilly AID system demonstrated expected algorithm performance and safety with satisfactory glycemic outcomes overall and in response to simulated diabetes management challenges. Additional studies in less supervised conditions and with broader patient populations are warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration number NCT03743285, NCT03849612.
Automated Insulin Delivery with Remote Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Hospitalized Patients with Diabetes: A Multicenter, Single-Arm, Feasibility Trial

Georgia M Davis,Michael S Hughes,Sue A Brown,Judy Sibayan,M Citlalli Perez-Guzman,Meaghan Stumpf,Zachary Thompson,Marina Basina,Ronak M Patel,Joi Hester,Amalia Abraham,Trang T Ly,Cherie Chaney,Marilyn Tan,Liana Hsu,Craig Kollman,Roy W Beck,Rayhan Lal,Bruce Buckingham,Francisco J Pasquel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2023.0304

Abstract:Introduction: Multiple daily injection insulin therapy frequently fails to meet hospital glycemic goals and is prone to hypoglycemia. Automated insulin delivery (AID) with remote glucose monitoring offers a solution to these shortcomings. Research Design and Methods: In a single-arm multicenter pilot trial, we tested the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of the Omnipod 5 AID System with real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for up to 10 days in hospitalized patients with insulin-requiring diabetes on nonintensive care unit medical-surgical units. Primary endpoints included the proportion of time in automated mode and percent time-in-range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) among participants with >48 h of CGM data. Safety endpoints included incidence of severe hypoglycemia and diabetes-related ketoacidosis (DKA). Additional glycemic endpoints, CGM accuracy, and patient satisfaction were also explored. Results: Twenty-two participants were enrolled; 18 used the system for a total of 96 days (mean 5.3 ± 3.1 days per patient), and 16 had sufficient CGM data required for analysis. Median percent time in automated mode was 95% (interquartile range 92%-98%) for the 18 system users, and the 16 participants with >48 h of CGM data achieved an overall TIR of 68% ± 16%, with 0.17% ± 0.3% time <70 mg/dL and 0.06% ± 0.2% time <54 mg/dL. Sensor mean glucose was 167 ± 21 mg/dL. There were no DKA or severe hypoglycemic events. All participants reported satisfaction with the system at study end. Conclusions: The use of AID with a disposable tubeless patch-pump along with remote real-time CGM is feasible in the hospital setting. These results warrant further investigation in randomized trials.
Improved Glycemic Outcomes With Medtronic MiniMed Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Delivery: Results From a Randomized Crossover Trial Comparing Automated Insulin Delivery With Predictive Low Glucose Suspend in People With Type 1 Diabetes

Olivia J Collyns,Renee A Meier,Zara L Betts,Denis S H Chan,Chris Frampton,Carla M Frewen,Niranjala M Hewapathirana,Shirley D Jones,Anirban Roy,Benyamin Grosman,Natalie Kurtz,John Shin,Robert A Vigersky,Benjamin J Wheeler,Martin I de Bock,Olivia J. Collyns,Renee A. Meier,Zara L. Betts,Denis S.H. Chan,Carla M. Frewen,Niranjala M. Hewapathirana,Shirley D. Jones,Robert A. Vigersky,Benjamin J. Wheeler,Martin I. de Bock

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-2250

2021-02-12

Diabetes Care

Abstract:OBJECTIVE To study the MiniMed Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) system, which includes an algorithm with individualized basal target set points, automated correction bolus function, and improved Auto Mode stability. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This dual-center, randomized, open-label, two-sequence crossover study in automated-insulin-delivery–naive participants with type 1 diabetes (aged 7–80 years) compared AHCL to sensor-augmented pump therapy with predictive low glucose management (SAP + PLGM). Each study phase was 4 weeks, preceded by a 2- to 4-week run-in and separated by a 2-week washout. RESULTS The study was completed by 59 of 60 people (mean age 23.3 ± 14.4 years). Time in target range (TIR) 3.9–10 mmol/L (70–180 mg/dL) favored AHCL over SAP + PLGM (70.4 ± 8.1% vs. 57.9 ± 11.7%) by 12.5 ± 8.5% (P < 0.001), with greater improvement overnight (18.8 ± 12.9%, P < 0.001). All age-groups (children [7–13 years], adolescents [14–21 years], and adults [>22 years]) demonstrated improvement, with adolescents showing the largest improvement (14.4 ± 8.4%). Mean sensor glucose (SG) at run-in was 9.3 ± 0.9 mmol/L (167 ± 16.2 mg/dL) and improved with AHCL (8.5 ± 0.7 mmol/L [153 ± 12.6 mg/dL], P < 0.001), but deteriorated during PLGM (9.5 ± 1.1 mmol/L [17 ± 19.8 mg/dL], P < 0.001). TIR was optimal when the algorithm set point was 5.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) compared with 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL), 72.0 ± 7.9% vs. 64.6 ± 6.9%, respectively, with no additional hypoglycemia. Auto Mode was active 96.4 ± 4.0% of the time. The percentage of hypoglycemia at baseline (<3.9 mmol/L [70 mg/dL] and ≤3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) was 3.1 ± 2.1% and 0.5 ± 0.6%, respectively. During AHCL, the percentage time at <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) improved to 2.1 ± 1.4% (P = 0.034) and was statistically but not clinically reduced for ≤3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) (0.5 ± 0.5%; P = 0.025). There was one episode of mild diabetic ketoacidosis attributed to an infusion set failure in combination with an intercurrent illness, which occurred during the SAP + PLGM arm. CONCLUSIONS AHCL with automated correction bolus demonstrated significant improvement in glucose control compared with SAP + PLGM. A lower algorithm SG set point during AHCL resulted in greater TIR, with no increase in hypoglycemia.

endocrinology & metabolism
Feasibility and Preliminary Safety of Smartphone-Based Automated Insulin Delivery in Adolescents and Children With Type 1 Diabetes

Sunil Deshpande,Stuart A Weinzimer,Kathryn Gibbons,Laura M Nally,Kate Weyman,Lori Carria,Melinda Zgorski,Lori M Laffel,Francis J Doyle 3rd,Eyal Dassau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968221116384

Abstract:Background: A smartphone-based automated insulin delivery (AID) controller device can facilitate use of interoperable components and acceptance in adolescents and children. Methods: Pediatric participants (N = 20, 8F) with type 1 diabetes were enrolled in three sequential age-based cohorts: adolescents (12-<18 years, n = 8, 5F), school-age (8-<12 years, n = 7, 2F), and young children (2-<8 years, n = 5, 1F). Participants used the interoperable artificial pancreas system (iAPS) and zone model predictive control (MPC) on an unlocked smartphone for 48 hours, consumed unrestricted meals of their choice, and engaged in various unannounced exercises. Primary outcomes and stopping criteria were defined using fingerstick blood glucose (BG) data; secondary outcomes compared continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data with preceding sensor augmented pump (SAP) therapy. Results: During AID, there was no more than one BG <50 mg/dL except in one young child participant; no instance of more than two episodes of BG ≥300 mg/dL lasting longer than 2 hours; and no adverse events. Despite large meals (total of 404.9 grams of carbs) and unannounced exercise (total of 182 minutes), overall CGM percent time in range (TIR) of 70 to 180 mg/dL during AID was statistically similar to SAP (63.5% vs 57.3%, respectively, P = .145). Overnight glucose standard deviation was 43 mg/dL (vs SAP 57.9 mg/dL, P = .009) and coefficient of variation was 25.7% (vs SAP 34.9%, P < .001). The percent time in closed-loop mode and connected to the CGM was 92.7% and 99.6%, respectively. Surveys indicated that participants and parents/guardians were satisfied with the system. Conclusions: The smartphone-based AID was feasible and safe in sequentially younger cohorts of adolescents and children. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04255381 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04255381).
Improved Satisfaction While Maintaining Safety and High Time in Range (TIR) With a Medtronic Investigational Enhanced Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System (e-AHCL)

Cheng Yi Yuan,Yee W Kong,Tess Amoore,Katrin Brown,Benyamin Grosman,Alicia Jenkins,Hannah Jones,Natalie Kurtz,Melissa H Lee,Richard MacIsaac,Emma Netzer,Barbora Paldus,Lesley Robinson,Anirban Roy,Catriona M Sims,Steven Trawley,Sara Vogrin,David N O'Neal,Yee W. Kong,Melissa H. Lee,Catriona M. Sims,David N. O’Neal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc23-2217

2024-02-21

Diabetes Care

Abstract:OBJECTIVE To determine feasibility and compare acceptance of an investigational Medtronic enhanced Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop (e-AHCL) system in adults with type 1 diabetes with earlier iterations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Nonrandomized three-stage (12 weeks each) exploratory study comparing e-AHCL (Bluetooth-enabled MiniMed 780G insulin pump with automatic data upload [780G] incorporating an updated algorithm; calibration-free all-in-one disposable sensor; 7-day infusion set) preceded by a run-in (non-Bluetooth 780G [670G V4.0 insulin pump] requiring manual data upload; Guardian Sensor 3 [GS3] requiring calibration; 3-day infusion set), stage 1 (780G; GS3; 3-day infusion set), and stage 2 (780G; calibration-free Guardian Sensor 4; 3-day infusion set). Treatment satisfaction was assessed by Diabetes Technology Questionnaire (DTQ)-current (primary outcome) and other validated treatment satisfaction tools with glucose outcomes by continuous glucose monitoring metrics. RESULTS Twenty-one of 22 (11 women) participants (baseline HbA1c 6.7%/50 mmol/mol) completed the study. DTQ-current scores favored e-AHCL (123.1 [17.8]) versus run-in (101.6 [24.2]) and versus stage 1 (110.6 [20.8]) (both P < 0.001) but did not differ from stage 2 (119.4 [16.0]; P = 0.271). Diabetes Medication System Rating Questionnaire short-form scores for “Convenience and Efficacy” favored e-AHCL over run-in and all stages. Percent time in range 70–180 mg/dL was greater with e-AHCL versus run-in and stage 2 (+2.9% and +3.6%, respectively; both P < 0.001). Percent times of <70 mg/dL for e-AHCL were significantly lower than run-in, stage 1, and stage 2 (−0.9%, −0.6%, and −0.5%, respectively; all P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS e-AHCL was feasible. User satisfaction increased compared with earlier Medtronic HCL iterations without compromising glucose control.

endocrinology & metabolism
Twelve-Month Follow-up from a Randomized Controlled Trial of Simplified Meal Announcement Versus Precise Carbohydrate Counting in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Using the MiniMedTM 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System

Goran Petrovski,Judith Campbell,Maheen Pasha,Khalid Hussain,Amel Khalifa,Fareeda Umer,Douha Almajaly,Manar Hamdar,Tim van den Heuvel,Shannon N. Edd

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2023.0429

2024-02-21

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:Background and Aims: Carbohydrate counting is a well-established tool for self-management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and can improve glycemic control and potentially reduce long-term complication risk. However, it can also be burdensome, error-prone, and complicated for the patient. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate glycemic control with carbohydrate counting ("flex") versus simplified meal announcement ("fix") in adolescents with T1D using the MiniMedTM 780G system. The present study reports follow-up data to 12 months. Methods: Adolescents with T1D were randomly assigned 1:1 to use the MiniMedTM 780G system alongside the flex versus fix approaches. Participants were followed for 12 months with outcomes recorded at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was the difference in time-in-range (TIR), and secondary endpoints included glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and other glucose and insulin metrics. Results: At 12 months, TIR (proportion of time with sensor glucose 70–180 mg/dL) was significantly lower in the fix versus flex group (72.9% vs. 80.1%, respectively; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in HbA1c between the fix (6.8% ± 0.5%) and flex groups (6.5% ± 0.5%) at 12 months ( P = 0.092), and mean HbA1c was below 7% at all time points in both arms. Conclusions: Glycemic control with simplified meal announcement was maintained over 12 months. On average, the international consensus targets were met in both arms for all time points. The simplified approach represents a viable alternative to carbohydrate counting, particularly in people who find the latter burdensome; however, carbohydrate counting resulted in superior TIR. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT05069727.

endocrinology & metabolism
Safety Event Outcomes and Glycemic Control with a Hybrid Closed-Loop System Used by Chinese Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

Yu Pei,Weijian Ke,Jing Lu,Yi Lin,Zhijian Zhang,Yongde Peng,Yan Bi,Yanbing Li,Jue Hou,Xiaolu Zhang,Xiaoxiao Chen,Yuri Treminio,Scott W. Lee,John Shin,Andrew S. Rhinehart,Robert A. Vigersky,Yiming Mu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2023.0234

2023-01-01

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:Background: While evidence supports glycemic control benefits for individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) using hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems, HCL automated insulin delivery therapy in China has not been assessed. This study evaluated safety events and effectiveness during HCL system use by Chinese adolescents and adults with T1DM.Methods: Sixty-two participants (n = 12 adolescents with a mean +/- standard deviation [SD] of 15.5 +/- 1.1 years and n = 50 adults [mean +/- SD of 37.6 +/- 11.1 years]) with T1DM and baseline A1C of 7.1% +/- 1.0% underwent a run-in period (similar to 2 weeks) using open-loop Manual Mode (sensor-augmented pump) insulin delivery with the MiniMed (TM) 770G system with the Guardian (TM) Sensor (3) glucose sensor, followed by a study period (4 weeks) with HCL Auto Mode enabled. Analyses compared continuous glucose monitoring data and insulin delivered during the run-in versus study period (Wilcoxon signed-rank test or t-test). Safety events included rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).Results: Compared to baseline run-in, overall Auto Mode use increased time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) from 75.3% to 80.9% (P < 0.001) and reduced time below range (TBR, <70 mg/dL) from 4.7% to 2.2% (P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that participants (n = 29) with baseline A1C <7.0% had TBR that reduced from 5.6% to 2.0%, while participants (n = 21) with baseline A1C >= 7.5% had time above range (TAR, >180 mg/dL) that reduced from 31.6% to 20.8%. Auto Mode use also increased the percentage achieving combined recommendations for time at sensor glucose ranges (i.e., TIR of >70%, TBR of <4% and TAR of <25%) from 24.2% at baseline to 77.4% at study end. Total daily insulin dose reduced from 42.8 +/- 19.8 to 40.7 +/- 18.9 U (P = 0.013). There were no severe hypoglycemic, DKA, or serious adverse events.Conclusions: Chinese adolescents and adults, some of whom met target A1C at baseline, safely achieved significantly improved glycemia with 1 month of MiniMed 770G system use when compared to open-loop insulin delivery. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04663295.
Automated Insulin Delivery for Young People with Type 1 Diabetes and Elevated A1c

Alisa Boucsein,Yongwen Zhou,Venus Michaels,Jillian J Haszard,Craig Jefferies,Esko Wiltshire,Ryan G Paul,Amber Parry-Strong,Maheen Pasha,Goran Petrovski,Martin I de Bock,Benjamin J Wheeler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDoa2400185

Abstract:Background: Automated insulin delivery is the treatment of choice in adults with type 1 diabetes. Data are needed on the efficacy and safety of automated insulin delivery for children and youth with diabetes and elevated glycated hemoglobin levels. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial, we assigned patients with type 1 diabetes in a 1:1 ratio either to use an automated insulin delivery system (MiniMed 780G) or to receive usual diabetes care of multiple daily injections or non--automated pump therapy (control). The patients were children and youth (defined as 7 to 25 years of age) with elevated glycemia (glycated hemoglobin ≥8.5% with no upper limit). The primary outcome was the baseline-adjusted between-group difference in glycated hemoglobin at 13 weeks. Results: A total of 80 patients underwent randomization (37 to automated insulin delivery and 43 to control) and all patients completed the trial. At 13 weeks, the mean (±SD) glycated hemoglobin decreased from 10.5±1.9% to 8.1±1.8% in the automated insulin delivery group but remained relatively consistent in the control group, changing from 10.4±1.6% to 10.6±1.8% (baseline-adjusted between-group difference, -2.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.1 to -1.8; P<0.001). Patients in the automated insulin delivery group spent on average 8.4 hours more in the target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dl than those in the control group. One severe hypoglycemia event and two diabetic ketoacidosis events occurred in the control group, with no such events in the automated insulin delivery group. Conclusions: In this trial of 80 children and youth with elevated glycated hemoglobin, automated insulin delivery significantly reduced glycated hemoglobin compared with usual diabetes care, without resulting in severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis events. (Funded by Lions Clubs New Zealand District 202F and others; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12622001454763.).
[DETECTION, ON THE OCCIPITAL BONE, OF ELASTIC (ULTRASONIC) WAVES INDUCED BY LASER IMPULSES IN THE EYE OF A RABBIT].

L. Amar,M. Brumă,P. Desvignes,M. Leblanc,G. Perdriel,M. Velghe

1964-11-16

Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l Académie des sciences

Abstract:
Six Months of Hybrid Closed-Loop Versus Manual Insulin Delivery With Fingerprick Blood Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Sybil A. McAuley,Melissa H. Lee,Barbora Paldus,Sara Vogrin,Martin I. de Bock,Mary B. Abraham,Leon A. Bach,Morton G. Burt,Neale D. Cohen,Peter G. Colman,Elizabeth A. Davis,Christel Hendrieckx,D. Jane Holmes-Walker,Joey Kaye,Anthony C. Keech,Kavita Kumareswaran,Richard J. MacIsaac,Roland W. McCallum,Catriona M. Sims,Jane Speight,Stephen N. Stranks,Vijaya Sundararajan,Steven Trawley,Glenn M. Ward,Alicia J. Jenkins,Timothy W. Jones,David N. O’Neal,David N. O’Neal,Sybil A. McAuley,Melissa H. Lee,Barbora Paldus,Catriona M. Sims,Richard J. MacIsaac,Glenn M. Ward,Peter G. Colman,Neale D. Cohen,Leon A. Bach,Kavita Kumareswaran,Stephen N. Stranks,Morton G. Burt,D. Jane Holmes-Walker,Roland W. McCallum,Joey Kaye,Jane Speight,Christel Hendrieckx,Jennifer Halliday,Sienna Russell-Green,Steven Trawley,Alicia J. Jenkins,Andrzej Januszewski,Anthony C. Keech,Sara Vogrin,Vijaya Sundararajan,Hanafi Mohammed Husin,Philip M. Clarke,Timothy W. Jones,Elizabeth A. Davis,Martin I. de Bock,Mary B. Abraham,Geoff R. Ambler,Fergus J. Cameron,Jan M. Fairchild,Bruce R. King,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-1447

2020-10-14

Diabetes Care

Abstract:OBJECTIVE To investigate glycemic and psychosocial outcomes with hybrid closed-loop (HCL) versus user-determined insulin dosing with multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump (i.e., standard therapy for most adults with type 1 diabetes). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Adults with type 1 diabetes using MDI or insulin pump without continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) were randomized to 26 weeks of HCL (Medtronic 670G) or continuation of current therapy. The primary outcome was masked CGM time in range (TIR; 70–180 mg/dL) during the final 3 weeks. RESULTS Participants were randomized to HCL (n = 61) or control (n = 59). Baseline mean (SD) age was 44.2 (11.7) years, HbA1c was 7.4% (0.9%) (57 [10] mmol/mol), 53% were women, and 51% used MDI. HCL TIR increased from (baseline) 55% (13%) to (26 weeks) 70% (10%) with the control group unchanged: (baseline) 55% (12%) and (26 weeks) 55% (13%) (difference 15% [95% CI 11, 19]; P < 0.0001). For HCL, HbA1c was lower (median [95% CI] difference −0.4% [−0.6, −0.2]; −4 mmol/mol [−7, −2]; P < 0.0001) and diabetes-specific positive well-being was higher (difference 1.2 [95% CI 0.4, 1.9]; P < 0.0048) without a deterioration in diabetes distress, perceived sleep quality, or cognition. Seventeen (9 device-related) versus 13 serious adverse events occurred in the HCL and control groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In adults with type 1 diabetes, 26 weeks of HCL improved TIR, HbA1c, and their sense of satisfaction from managing their diabetes compared with those continuing with user-determined insulin dosing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. For most people living with type 1 diabetes globally, this trial demonstrates that HCL is feasible, acceptable, and advantageous.

endocrinology & metabolism
Decreasing the Burden of Carbohydrate Counting and Meal Announcement with Automated Insulin Delivery, Meal Recognition, and Autocorrection Doses: A Case Study

Bruce A. Buckingham,Richard M. Bergenstal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2023.0505

2024-02-21

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:The use of automated insulin delivery (AID) has led to a decrease in the burden of diabetes, allowing for better sleep, decreased anxiety about hypoglycemia, and automatic corrections doses, and meal recognition algorithms have provided "forgiveness" for imprecise carbohydrate (CHO) entries and missed or late meal boluses. We provide a case report and review of the current literature assessing the effect of AID on the burden of meal bolus. The case also demonstrates how sensor and pump data provide insight into insulin bolus behavior, and access to integrated cloud-based data has allowed for virtual patient visits. Glucose sensor metrics provides time in range and time below range, and the sensor-derived glucose management indicator provides an assessment of the long-term risk of complications when a laboratory glycated hemoglobin is not available.

endocrinology & metabolism
Evaluation of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system in type 1 diabetes in real-world clinical practice: One-year observational study

Ahmed Eldib,Shilton Dhaver,Karim Kibaa,Astrid Atakov-Castillo,Tareq Salah,Marwa Al-Badri,Abdelrahman Khater,Ryan McCarragher,Omnia Elenani,Elena Toschi,Osama Hamdy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4239/wjd.v15.i3.455

2024-03-15

World Journal of Diabetes

Abstract:BACKGROUND In 2016, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first hybrid closed-loop (HCL) insulin delivery system for adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). There is limited information on the impact of using HCL systems on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with T1D in real-world clinical practice. In this independent study, we evaluated glycemic parameters and PROs over one year of continuous use of Medtronic’s 670G HCL in real-world clinical practice. AIM To assess the effects of hybrid closed loop system on glycemic control and quality of life in adults with T1D. METHODS We evaluated 71 patients with T1D (mean age: 45.5 ± 12.1 years; 59% females; body weight: 83.8 ± 18.7 kg, body mass index: 28.7 ± 5.6 kg/m2, A1C: 7.6% ± 0.8%) who were treated with HCL at Joslin Clinic from 2017 to 2019. We measured A1C and percent of glucose time-in-range (%TIR) at baseline and 12 months. We measured percent time in auto mode (%TiAM) for the last two weeks preceding the final visit and assessed PROs through several validated quality-of-life surveys related to general health and diabetes management. RESULTS At 12 mo, A1C decreased by 0.3% ± 0.1% (P = 0.001) and %TIR increased by 8.1% ± 2.5% (P = 0.002). The average %TiAM was only 64.3% ± 32.8% and was not associated with A1C, %TIR or PROs. PROs, provided at baseline and at the end of the study, showed that the physical functioning submodule of 36Item Short-Form Health Survey increased significantly by 22.9% (P < 0.001). Hypoglycemia fear survey/worry scale decreased significantly by 24.9% (P < 0.000); Problem Areas In Diabetes reduced significantly by -17.2% (P = 0.002). The emotional burden submodules of dietary diversity score reduced significantly by -44.7% (P = 0.001). Furthermore, analysis of Clarke questionnaire showed no increase in awareness of hypoglycemic episodes. WHO-5 showed no improvements in subject’s wellbeing among participants after starting the 670G HCL system. Finally, analysis of Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index showed no difference in sleep quality, sleep latency, or duration of sleep from baseline to 12 mo. CONCLUSION The use of HCL in real-world clinical practice for one year was associated with significant improvements in A1C, %TIR, physical functioning, hypoglycemia fear, emotional distress, and emotional burden related to diabetes management. However, these changes were not associated with time in auto mode.

endocrinology & metabolism
Simple meal announcements and pramlintide delivery versus carbohydrate counting in type 1 diabetes with automated fast-acting insulin aspart delivery: a randomised crossover trial in Montreal, Canada

Elisa Cohen,Michael A Tsoukas,Laurent Legault,Michael Vallis,Julia E Von Oettingen,Emilie Palisaitis,Madison Odabassian,Jean-François Yale,Natasha Garfield,Nikita Gouchie-Provencher,Joanna Rutkowski,Adnan Jafar,Milad Ghanbari,Ahmad Haidar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s2589-7500(24)00092-x

IF: 36.615

2024-06-21

The Lancet Digital Health

Abstract:Summary Background In type 1 diabetes, carbohydrate counting is the standard of care to determine prandial insulin needs, but it can negatively affect quality of life. We developed a novel insulin-and-pramlintide closed-loop system that replaces carbohydrate counting with simple meal announcements. Methods We performed a randomised crossover trial assessing 14 days of (1) insulin-and-pramlintide closed-loop system with simple meal announcements, (2) insulin-and-placebo closed-loop system with carbohydrate counting, and (3) insulin-and-placebo closed-loop system with simple meal announcements. Participants were recruited at McGill University Health Centre (Montreal, QC, Canada). Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) and adolescents (aged 12–17 years) with type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio to a sequence of the three interventions, with faster insulin aspart used in all interventions. Each intervention was separated by a 14–45-day wash-out period, during which participants reverted to their usual insulin. During simple meal announcement interventions, participants triggered a prandial bolus at mealtimes based on a programmed fixed meal size, whereas during carbohydrate counting interventions, participants manually entered the carbohydrate content of the meal and an algorithm calculated the prandial bolus based on insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio. Two primary comparisons were predefined: the percentage of time in range (glucose 3·9–10·0 mmol/L) with a non-inferiority margin of 6·25% (non-inferiority comparison); and the mean Emotional Burden subscale score of the Diabetes Distress Scale (superiority comparison), comparing the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting minus the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements. Analyses were performed on a modified intention-to-treat basis, excluding participants who did not complete all interventions. Serious adverse events were assessed in all participants. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04163874 . Findings 32 participants were enrolled between Feb 14, 2020, and Oct 5, 2021; two participants withdrew before study completion. 30 participants were analysed, including 15 adults (nine female, mean age 39·4 years [SD 13·8]) and 15 adolescents (eight female, mean age 15·7 years [1·3]). Non-inferiority of the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements relative to the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting was reached (difference –5% [95% CI –9·0 to –0·7], non-inferiority p<0·0001). No statistically significant difference was found in the mean Emotional Burden score between the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements and the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting (difference 0·01 [SD 0·82], p=0·93). With the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements, 14 (47%) participants reported mild gastrointestinal symptoms and two (7%) reported moderate symptoms, compared with two (7%) participants reporting mild gastrointestinal symptoms on the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting. No serious adverse events occurred. Interpretation The insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements alleviated carbohydrate counting without degrading glucose control, although quality of life as measured by the Emotional Burden score was not improved. Longer and larger studies with this novel approach are warranted. Funding Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

medicine, general & internal,medical informatics
INTEGRATED INSULIN PUMP AND CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING TECHNOLOGY IN DIABETES CARE TODAY: A PERSPECTIVE OF REAL-LIFE EXPERIENCE WITH THE MINIMED™ 670G HYBRID CLOSED-LOOP SYSTEM.

Kimberly M Webb,Grazia Aleppo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4158/EP-2018-0097

IF: 3.701

2018-07-01

Endocrine Practice

Abstract:OBJECTIVE Intensive glucose management with insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring therapy in insulin-treated patients with diabetes poses many challenges in all aspects of daily life. Automated insulin delivery (AID) is the ultimate goal of insulin replacement therapy to reduce the burden of managing this condition. Many systems are being tested in the clinical research setting, and one hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system has received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for use in type 1 diabetes patients above the age of 14 years. METHODS Literature review and clinical practice experience from the Diabetes and Technology Program at an academic medical center. RESULTS This review outlines recent advances in AID systems, focusing on the FDA-approved MiniMed™ 670G HCL system and the real-life experience 1-year post-release in an academic medical center with over 60 patients on this system. The unique challenges of adapting to this new system outside the clinical trial setting are highlighted, and a training protocol designed specifically for the onboarding of first-time users is described. CONCLUSION HCL insulin therapy offers several advantages, at the same time posing unique challenges to the user. Systematic training of patients with diabetes transitioning to this system is essential for retention and success of use. ABBREVIATIONS AID = automated insulin delivery; CGM = continuous glucose monitoring; FDA = Food and Drug Administration; HbA1c = glycated hemoglobin; HCL = hybrid closed-loop; ICR = insulin to carbohydrate ratio; SAP = sensor augmented pump; T1DM = type 1 diabetes.

Medicine,Engineering
Use of a decision support tool and quick start onboarding tool in individuals with type 1 diabetes using advanced automated insulin delivery: a single-arm multi-phase intervention study

Shekhar Sehgal,Martin De Bock,Benyamin Grosman,Jonathan Williman,Natalie Kurtz,Vanessa Guzman,Andrea Benedetti,Anirban Roy,Kamuran Turksoy,Magaly Juarez,Shirley Jones,Carla Frewen,Antony Watson,Barry Taylor,Benjamin J Wheeler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-024-01709-y

2024-08-30

Abstract:Background: Multiple clinician adjustable parameters impact upon glycemia in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using Medtronic Mini Med 780G (MM780G) AHCL. These include glucose targets, carbohydrate ratios (CR), and active insulin time (AIT). Algorithm-based decision support advising upon potential settings adjustments may enhance clinical decision-making. Methods: Single-arm, two-phase exploratory study developing decision support to commence and sustain AHCL. Participants commenced investigational MM780G, then 8 weeks Phase 1-initial optimization tool evaluation, involving algorithm-based decision support with weekly AIT and CR recommendations. Clinicians approved or rejected CR and AIT recommendations based on perceived safety per protocol. Co-design resulted in a refined algorithm evaluated in a further identically configured Phase 2. Phase 2 participants also transitioned to commercial MM780G following "Quick Start" (algorithm-derived tool determining initial AHCL settings using daily insulin dose and weight). We assessed efficacy, safety, and acceptability of decision support using glycemic metrics, and the proportion of accepted CR and AIT settings per phase. Results: Fifty three participants commenced Phase 1 (mean age 24.4; Hba1c 61.5mmol/7.7%). The proportion of CR and AIT accepted by clinicians increased between Phases 1 and 2 respectively: CR 89.2% vs. 98.6%, p < 0.01; AIT 95.2% vs. 99.3%, p < 0.01. Between Phases, mean glucose percentage time < 3.9mmol (< 70mg/dl) reduced (2.1% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.04); change in mean TIR 3.9-10mmol/L (70-180mg/dl) was not statistically significant: 72.9% ± 7.8 and 73.5% ± 8.6. Quick start resulted in stable TIR, and glycemic metrics compared to international guidelines. Conclusion: The co-designed decision support tools were able to deliver safe and effective therapy. They can potentially reduce the burden of diabetes management related decision making for both health care practitioners and patients. Trial registration: Prospectively registered with Australia/New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry(ANZCTR) on 30th March 2021 as study ACTRN12621000360819.
Adolescents’ Experiences of Using a Smartphone Application Hosting a Closed-loop Algorithm to Manage Type 1 Diabetes in Everyday Life: Qualitative Study

David Rankin,Barbara Kimbell,Janet M. Allen,Rachel E. J. Besser,Charlotte K. Boughton,Fiona Campbell,Daniela Elleri,Julia Fuchs,Atrayee Ghatak,Tabitha Randell,Ajay Thankamony,Nicola Trevelyan,Malgorzata E. Wilinska,Roman Hovorka,Julia Lawton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296821994201

2021-07-14

Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Abstract:Background: Closed-loop technology may help address health disparities experienced by adolescents, who are more likely to have suboptimal glycemic control than other age groups and, because of their age, find diabetes self-management particularly challenging. The CamAPS FX closed-loop has sought to address accessibility and usability issues reported by users of previous prototype systems. It comprises small components and a smartphone app used to: announce meal-time boluses, adjust (“boost” or “ease-off”) closed-loop insulin delivery, customize alarms, and review/share data. We explored how using the CamAPS FX platform influences adolescents’ self-management practices and everyday lives. Methods: Eighteen adolescents were interviewed after having ≥6 months experience using the closed-loop platform. Data were analyzed thematically. Results: Participants reported feeling less burdened and shackled by diabetes because closed-loop components were easier to carry/wear, finger-pricks were not required, the smartphone app provided a discreet and less stigmatizing way of managing diabetes in public, and they were able to customize alarms. Participants also reported checking and reviewing data more regularly, because they did so when using the smartphone for other reasons. Some reported challenges in school settings where use of personal phones was restricted. Participants highlighted how self-management practices were improved because they could easily review glucose data and adjust closed-loop insulin delivery using the “boost” and “ease-off” functions. Some described how using the system resulted in them forgetting about diabetes and neglecting certain tasks. Conclusions: A closed-loop system with small components and control algorithm on a smartphone app can enhance usability and acceptability for adolescents and may help address the health-related disparities experienced by this age group. However, challenges can arise from using a medical app on a device which doubles as a smartphone. Trial registration: Closed Loop From Onset in Type 1 Diabetes (CLOuD); NCT02871089; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02871089
62-OR: Six Months Experience on Meal Announcement with Three Personalized Presets of Carbohydrates vs. Precise Carbohydrate Counting in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Using the MiniMed 780G System

GORAN PETROVSKI,JUDITH CAMPBELL,KHALID HUSSAIN,MAHEEN F. PASHA,SIDRA DIABETES GROUP

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/db23-62-or

IF: 7.7

2023-06-20

Diabetes

Abstract:Objective: To compare six months glycemic control in adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) on MiniMed 780G system that used simplified meal announcement to those that used precise carbohydrate counting. Research Design and Methods: 34 participants (12-18 years) with T1D that initiated MiniMed 780G system were randomly assigned to the Fix group (simplified meal announcement by preset of 3 personalized fixed carbohydrate amounts) or the Flex group (precise carbohydrate counting). After 3 months, participants in Fix group could choose to continue with the same regimen, or to switch to precise carbohydrate counting. HbA1c, Time in Ranges, insulin and sensor data were analyzed after 3 and 6 months. Results: TIR was 73.5±6.7% in the Fix and 80.3±7.4% in the Flex group (p=0.043) at 3 months. 88% of participants (n=15) in Fix group continued to use same regime for the additional 3 months (TIR of 72.7±7.8% in Fix group and 79.4±6.9 in Flex group, p=0.006). HbA1c below 7% was achieved in both groups, without a group difference during the study. Conclusion: Adolescents on the MiniMed 780G system using simplified meal announcement can reach and maintain international targets of glycemic control. This method may be a valuable alternative to precise carbohydrate counting in users, challenged by precise carbohydrate counting. Disclosure G.Petrovski: None. J.Campbell: None. K.Hussain: None. M.F.Pasha: None. Sidra diabetes group: n/a.

endocrinology & metabolism
Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop in Adult Population With Type 1 Diabetes: A Substudy From the ADAPT Randomized Controlled Trial in Users of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Tim van den Heuvel,Ralf Kolassa,Winfried Keuthage,Jens Kroeger,Roseline Ré,Simona de Portu,Linda Vorrink,John Shin,Javier Castañeda,Robert Vigersky,Ohad Cohen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968231161320

2023-03-25

Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Abstract:Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, Ahead of Print. Background:This analysis reports the findings from a predefined exploratory cohort (cohort B) from the ADAPT (ADvanced Hybrid Closed Loop Study in Adult Population with Type 1 Diabetes) study. Adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) with suboptimal glucose control were randomly allocated to an advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system or multiple daily injections of insulin (MDI) plus real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM).Methods:In this prospective, multicenter, exploratory, open-label, randomized controlled trial, 13 participants using MDI + RT-CGM and with HbA1c ≥8.0% were randomized to switch to AHCL (n = 8) or continue with MDI + RT-CGM (n = 5) for six months. Prespecified endpoints included the between-group difference in mean change from baseline in HbA1c, CGM-derived measures of glycemic control, and safety.Results:The mean HbA1c level decreased by 1.70 percentage points in the AHCL group versus a 0.60 percentage point decrease in the MDI + RT-CGM group, with a model-based treatment effect of −1.08 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] = −2.17 to 0.00 percentage points; P = .0508) in favor of AHCL. The percentage of time spent with sensor glucose levels between 70 and 180 mg/dL in the study phase was 73.6% in the AHCL group and 46.4% in the MDI + RT-CGM group; model-based between-group difference of 28.8 percentage points (95% CI = 12.3 to 45.3 percentage points; P = .0035). No diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred in either group.Conclusions:In people with T1D with HbA1c ≥8.0%, the use of AHCL resulted in improved glycemic control relative to MDI + RT-CGM. The scale of improvement suggests that AHCL should be considered as an option for people not achieving good glycemic control on MDI + RT-CGM.
Study protocol for a randomised open-label clinical trial examining the safety and efficacy of the Android Artificial Pancreas System (AAPS) with advanced bolus-free features in adults with type 1 diabetes: the 'CLOSE IT (Closed Loop Open SourcE In Type 1 diabetes) trial

Tom Wilkinson,Dunya Tomic,Erin Boyle,David Burren,Yasser Elghattis,Alicia Jenkins,Celeste Keesing,Sonia Middleton,Natalie Nanayakkara,Jonathan Williman,Martin de Bock,Neale D Cohen,Wilkinson,T.,Tomic,D.,Boyle,E.,Burren,D.,Elghattis,Y.,Jenkins,A.,Keesing,C.,Middleton,S.,Nanayakkara,N.,Williman,J.,de Bock,M.,Cohen,N. D.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078171

IF: 3.006

2024-02-21

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction Multiple automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have become commercially available following randomised controlled trials demonstrating benefits in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, their real-world utility may be undermined by user-associated burdens, including the need to carbohydrate count and deliver manual insulin boluses. There is an important need for a 'fully automated closed loop' (FCL) AID system, without manual mealtime boluses. The (Closed Loop Open SourcE In Type 1 diabetes) trial is a randomised trial comparing an FCL AID system to the same system used as a hybrid closed loop (HCL) in people with T1D, in an outpatient setting over an extended time frame. Methods and analysis Randomised, open-label, parallel, non-inferiority trial comparing the Android Artificial Pancreas System (AAPS) AID algorithm used as FCL to the same algorithm used as HCL. Seventy-five participants aged 18–70 will be randomised (1:1) to one of two treatment arms for 12 weeks: (a) FCL—participants will be advised not to bolus for meals and (b) HCL—participants will use the AAPS AID algorithm as HCL with announced meals. The primary outcome is the percentage of time in target sensor glucose range (3.9–10.0 mmol/L). Secondary outcomes include other glycaemic metrics, safety, psychosocial factors, platform performance and user dietary factors. Twenty FCL arm participants will participate in a 4-week extension phase comparing glycaemic and dietary outcomes using NovoRapid (insulin aspart) to Fiasp (insulin aspart and niacinamide). Ethics and dissemination Approvals are by the Alfred Health Ethics Committee (615/22) (Australia) and Health and Disability Ethics Committees (2022 FULL 13832) (New Zealand). Each participant will provide written informed consent. Data protection and confidentiality will be ensured. Study results will be disseminated by publications, conferences and patient advocacy groups. Trial registration numbers ACTRN12622001400752 and ACTRN12622001401741.

medicine, general & internal

Managing the diversification risk.

Managing antibiotic associated diarrhoea

Performance of an Automated Insulin Delivery System: Results of Early Phase Feasibility Studies

Automated Insulin Delivery with Remote Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Hospitalized Patients with Diabetes: A Multicenter, Single-Arm, Feasibility Trial

Improved Glycemic Outcomes With Medtronic MiniMed Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Delivery: Results From a Randomized Crossover Trial Comparing Automated Insulin Delivery With Predictive Low Glucose Suspend in People With Type 1 Diabetes

Feasibility and Preliminary Safety of Smartphone-Based Automated Insulin Delivery in Adolescents and Children With Type 1 Diabetes

Improved Satisfaction While Maintaining Safety and High Time in Range (TIR) With a Medtronic Investigational Enhanced Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System (e-AHCL)

Twelve-Month Follow-up from a Randomized Controlled Trial of Simplified Meal Announcement Versus Precise Carbohydrate Counting in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Using the MiniMedTM 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System

Safety Event Outcomes and Glycemic Control with a Hybrid Closed-Loop System Used by Chinese Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

Automated Insulin Delivery for Young People with Type 1 Diabetes and Elevated A1c

[DETECTION, ON THE OCCIPITAL BONE, OF ELASTIC (ULTRASONIC) WAVES INDUCED BY LASER IMPULSES IN THE EYE OF A RABBIT].

Six Months of Hybrid Closed-Loop Versus Manual Insulin Delivery With Fingerprick Blood Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Decreasing the Burden of Carbohydrate Counting and Meal Announcement with Automated Insulin Delivery, Meal Recognition, and Autocorrection Doses: A Case Study

Evaluation of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system in type 1 diabetes in real-world clinical practice: One-year observational study

Simple meal announcements and pramlintide delivery versus carbohydrate counting in type 1 diabetes with automated fast-acting insulin aspart delivery: a randomised crossover trial in Montreal, Canada

INTEGRATED INSULIN PUMP AND CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING TECHNOLOGY IN DIABETES CARE TODAY: A PERSPECTIVE OF REAL-LIFE EXPERIENCE WITH THE MINIMED™ 670G HYBRID CLOSED-LOOP SYSTEM.

Use of a decision support tool and quick start onboarding tool in individuals with type 1 diabetes using advanced automated insulin delivery: a single-arm multi-phase intervention study

Adolescents’ Experiences of Using a Smartphone Application Hosting a Closed-loop Algorithm to Manage Type 1 Diabetes in Everyday Life: Qualitative Study

62-OR: Six Months Experience on Meal Announcement with Three Personalized Presets of Carbohydrates vs. Precise Carbohydrate Counting in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Using the MiniMed 780G System

Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop in Adult Population With Type 1 Diabetes: A Substudy From the ADAPT Randomized Controlled Trial in Users of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Study protocol for a randomised open-label clinical trial examining the safety and efficacy of the Android Artificial Pancreas System (AAPS) with advanced bolus-free features in adults with type 1 diabetes: the 'CLOSE IT (Closed Loop Open SourcE In Type 1 diabetes) trial