The Type of Patient Training Does Not Impact Outcomes in the First 90 Days of Automated Insulin Delivery Use

Seema Meighan,Julia L Douvas,Andrew Rearson,Robert Squaresky,Andrea Kelly,Brynn E Marks

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2024.0096

2024-05-29

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:Diabetes Technology &Therapeutics, Volume 0, Issue ja, -Not available-.

endocrinology & metabolism

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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.
Impact of Missed and Late Meal Boluses on Glycemic Outcomes in Automated Insulin Delivery-Treated Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: A Two-Center, Population-Based, Cohort Study

Christian Laugesen,Tobias Ritschel,Ajenthen Ranjan,Liana J Hsu,John Bagterp Jørgensen,Jannet Svensson,Laya Ekhlaspour,Bruce A Buckingham,Kirsten Norgaard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2024.0022

2024-05-29

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:Diabetes Technology &Therapeutics, Volume 0, Issue ja, -Not available-.

endocrinology & metabolism
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.).
Enhancing equity in access to automated insulin delivery systems in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse group of children with type 1 diabetes

Pemberton,J.,Collins,L.,Drummond,L.,Dias,R. P.,Krone,R.,Kershaw,M.,Uday,S.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2024-004045

2024-05-16

BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

Abstract:Introduction Manufacturer-supported didactic teaching programmes offer effective automated insulin delivery (AID) systems onboarding in children and young people (CYP) with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, this approach has limited flexibility to accommodate the needs of families requiring additional support. Research design and methods Evaluate the efficacy of an inperson manufacturer-supported didactic teaching programme (Group A), in comparison to a flexible flipped learning approach delivered virtually or inperson (Group B). Retrospective analysis of CYP with T1D using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), who were initiated on AID systems between 2021 and 2023. Compare CGM metrics from baseline to 90 days for both groups A and B. Additionally, compare the two groups for change in CGM metrics over the 90-day period (), patient demographics and onboarding time. Results Group A consisted of 74 CYP (53% male) with median age of 13.9 years and Group B 91 CYP (54% male) with median age of 12.7 years. From baseline to 90 days, Group A lowered mean (±SD) time above range (TAR, >10.0 mmol/L) from 47.6% (±15.0) to 33.2% (±15.0) (p<0.001), increased time in range (TIR, 3.9–10.0 mmol/L) from 50.4% (±14.0) to 64.7% (±10.2) (p<0.001). From baseline to 90 days, Group B lowered TAR from 51.3% (±15.1) to 34.5% (±11.3) (p<0.001) and increased TIR from 46.5% (±14.5) to 63.7% (±11.0) (p<0.001). There was no difference from baseline to 90 days for time below range (TBR, <3.9 mmol/L) for Group A and Group B. TAR, TIR and TBR for both groups were comparable. Group B consisted of CYP with higher socioeconomic deprivation, greater ethnic diversity and lower carer education achievement (p<0.05). The majority of Group B (n=79, 87%) chose virtual flipped learning, halving diabetes educator time and increasing onboarding cadence by fivefold. Conclusions A flexible virtual flipped learning programme increases onboarding cadence and capacity to offer equitable AID system onboarding.

endocrinology & metabolism
Efficacy of an Education Program for People With Diabetes and Insulin Pump Treatment (INPUT): Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial

Dominic Ehrmann,Bernhard Kulzer,Melanie Schipfer,Bernhard Lippmann-Grob,Thomas Haak,Norbert Hermanns

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc18-0917

2018-10-10

Diabetes Care

Abstract:OBJECTIVE Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) is the most advanced form of insulin delivery, but it requires structured education to provide users with the necessary knowledge/skills and to support their motivation. Currently, no structured education program designed to provide this training has been evaluated. We developed a CSII-specific, structured education program (Insulin Pump Treatment [INPUT]) and evaluated its impact on glycemic control, behavior, and psychosocial status. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This was a multicenter, randomized, parallel trial with a 6-month follow-up. Eligible participants (age 16–75 years) currently were treated with insulin pump therapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to the INPUT program or to usual care using a computer-generated algorithm, with study center as the stratification factor. The primary outcome was HbA1c change from baseline to 6 months. Secondary outcomes were incidence of severe hypoglycemia and changes in behavioral and psychosocial measures. RESULTS Between 1 April 2016 and 26 April 2016, 268 people with diabetes and a mean duration of CSII therapy of 9.5 years were randomly assigned to the INPUT group (n = 135) or control group (n = 133). At 6 months, HbA1c improved in the INPUT group (8.33 ± 0.8 vs. 8.04 ± 0.9; P < 0.0001) but not in the control group (8.33 ± 1.0 vs. 8.27 ± 1.0; P = 0.11). The between-group difference in HbA1c reduction was significant, favoring INPUT (−0.28% vs. −0.06%, Δ −0.22%, 95% CI −0.38 to −0.06; P = 0.0029). The incidence rate ratio of severe hypoglycemia was 3.55 times higher for participants in the control group than for those in the INPUT group (95% CI 1.50–8.43; P = 0.0041). CONCLUSIONS The INPUT education program led to a significant improvement in glycemic control and incidence of severe hypoglycemia in insulin pump users.
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.
Removing Barriers, Bridging the Gap, and the Changing Role of the Health Care Professional with Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

Kathryn Lingen,David Maahs,Natalie Bellini,Diana Isaacs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2023.0440

2024-02-21

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:As all people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and some with type 2 diabetes (T2D) require insulin, there is a need to develop management methods that not only achieve glycemic targets but also reduce the burden of living with diabetes. After insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors, the next step in the evolution of diabetes technology is automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, which have transformed intensive insulin management over the past decade, as these systems address the shortcomings of previous management options. However, AID use remains fairly limited, and access represents a major barrier to use for many people with diabetes, despite these systems being standard of care. Therefore, the future of AID will necessitate addressing barriers related to social determinants of health, finances, and an expansion of the number and type of health care professionals (HCPs) prescribing AID systems. These crucial steps will be essential to ensure that everyone with intensively managed diabetes can use AID systems. The impact of implementing these changes will create a shift in the future of diabetes care that will result in achievement of more targeted glycemia and psychosocial outcomes for all people with diabetes and an expansion of the role of all HCPs in AID-related diabetes care. Even more importantly, by addressing social determinants of health and clinical inertia related to AID, the field can address disparities in outcomes across countries, race, gender, socioeconomic status, and insurance status. Furthermore, the increased use of AID system will provide more time during appointments for a shift in the discussion away from fine tuning insulin dosing and toward a focus on more topics related to behavior and conversations about general health. This will include psychosocial outcomes, and quality of life. In addition, these changes can hopefully allow for time to discuss more general issues, such as cardiovascular health, obesity prevention, diabetes-related complications, and other health-related concerns.

endocrinology & metabolism
Clinical perspective on innovative insulin delivery technologies in diabetes management

Güvenç Koçkaya,Tadej Battelino,Goran Petrovski,Johan Jendle,Beatrix Sármán,Nancy Elbarbary,Damla Gökşen,Mohammed Alharbi,Birol Tibet,Amir Mustapha Sharaf,Selin Ökçün,Filiz Öztürk,Mustafa Kurnaz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2024.1308319

2024-10-01

Abstract:Introduction: The primary objective of this study is to report the results of an online questionnaire and the in-person discussion sessions of physicians specializing in diabetes care in which their opinions about current diabetes management was obtained. Methods: The Diabetes Innovation Summit 2023 drew attendance from a diverse group of specialized physicians from multiple countries. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to examine the technologies and medical needs associated with diabetes management. Using the results of the review, a questionnaire was developed by three experts from the steering committee to solicit feedback from specialized physicians. The online survey was made accessible between 10th December 2022 and 10th January 2023. Following the online survey, six structured in-person discussion sessions were conducted with specialized physicians from the Middle East, Central-Eastern Europe, and North Africa regions. Results: The study revealed that about 59% of survey requests were answered, with many participants being pediatric endocrinologists from North Africa. Around 60% of diabetes patients followed Multiple Daily Injections (MDI) according to specialized physicians. Among MDI users, 62% employed Blood Glucose Monitors (BGM), 31% used intermittent-scanning Continuous Glucose Monitors (isCGM), and 23% used CGM. In North Africa, nearly 90% of patients used MDI due to financial constraints. While physicians focused on both Time in Range (TIR) and HbA1c for MDI-treated patients, satisfaction with TIR achieved was expressed by 31%, while 74·1% believed Real-Time CGM (rtCGM) was effective. Concerns arose about potentially misleading HbA1c results and the relatively low patient achievement of target TIR despite CGM usage. The Smart MDI System was seen favorably compared to other applications. The system's affordability was a significant barrier, particularly in the Middle East and Africa. Conclusion: The present study highlights that physicians are generally supportive of utilizing new technology. The questionnaires and the open discussion revealed the expectation that the Smart MDI technology provides better control, primarily by identifying missed boluses, while expressing concerns on the use of the technology by teenagers and children, who might forget the device and be reluctant to use in public, and by the older population, who might be challenged by the technology.
Automated Insulin Delivery Technology in the Hospital: Update on Safety and Efficacy Data

Bithika Thompson,Mary E. Boyle,Janna C. Castro,Christopher Dodoo,Curtiss B. Cook

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eprac.2024.07.012

IF: 3.701

2024-09-01

Endocrine Practice

Abstract:Objective Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems are a rapidly growing component in the area of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy. As more patients use these systems in the outpatient setting, it is important to assess safety if their use is allowed to continue in the inpatient setting. Methods Analysis was conducted of the records of patients using AID technology upon admission to our hospital between June 2020 and December 2022. Adverse events and glycemic control of AID users were compared with patients using non-AID systems and with patients who had CSII discontinued. Results There were 185 patients analyzed: 64 on AID, 86 on non-AID, and 35 who had CSII discontinued. The number of patients on AID increased over the course of the observation period, whereas non-AID users decreased. Pairwise comparisons indicated that patient-stay mean glucose levels and percentage of hypoglycemic events were similar between all groups, but the percentage of patient hyperglycemic measurements was significantly lower in the AID cohort. No adverse events (diabetic ketoacidosis, pump site complications, equipment malfunction) were reported in any either CSII cohort. Conclusion The type of CSII technology encountered in the hospital is shifting from non-AID toward AID technologies. This analysis supports earlier findings that outpatient AID systems can be successfully transitioned into the inpatient setting. Further study is needed to define if AID systems offer any advantage in glycemic control.

endocrinology & metabolism
1132-P: Understanding Patients New to Insulin—Baseline Evaluation of Participants in the “Implementation and Testing of a Diabetes Discharge Intervention to Improve Safety during Transitions of Care” Study

KRISTEN LEE,COLLEEN M. SMYRNIOTIS,CAROLINE A. CLINGAN,KEVIN M.V. CARTHY,CHRISTINA COVENTRY,KA'DERRICKA DAVIS,STEPHEN J. FREEMAN,JUNGWHA J. LEE,JING SONG,JANE L. HOLL,STACY BAILEY,AMISHA WALLIA

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/db24-1132-p

IF: 7.7

2024-06-14

Diabetes

Abstract:Objective: Describe baseline patient characteristics, needs, and stress of new to insulin at hospital discharge. Methods: Single site RCT to evaluate a DM Discharge Toolkit on mean 30-day glucose is ongoing among English speaking patients (pts), 21 - 80 years, with expected survival > 90 days, new to insulin at discharge. Results: Among 97 eligible, 67 approached, and 40 enrolled (consent rate 60%). Mean age was 51.9 years +11.4; 55% were male; 35% had public insurance; 52% identified as black, 30% white, and >22% Hispanic/Latino, with 23 (58%) prior DM. Mean glucose was 374 +213 and median HbA1C 11.4 [9.6, 13.3]. Nearly 30% had limited literacy (Single Item Literacy Screener, >2), though > 90% had home internet and reported its use for health information. Acceptability of research continuous glucose meter (CGM) at discharge was high (48%). Stress was also high, over 60% reported elevated perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale >14), 35% with prior DM reported elevated DM distress (Diabetes Distress Score > 2.0). A majority (60%) had > 1 health-related social need (HRSN), 12.5% had > 3; food insecurity (22.5%), transportation (15%) and medication affordability (12.5%) were highest. Conclusion: Our medically/socially complex cohort of DM patients consented to RCT, including many of minority race/ethnicity. These patients have high levels of disease and non-disease specific stress and multiple HRSN that could affect safe insulin delivery. Interestingly, most accessed and used technology/internet, and were open to DM technology (CGM). Achieving better glycemic control in our sickest patients demands comprehensive, multi-modal interventions which can leverage DM technology to enhance care delivery. Disclosure K. Lee: None. C.M. Smyrniotis: None. C.A. Clingan: None. K.M.V. Carthy: None. C. Coventry: None. K. Davis: None. S.J. Freeman: None. J.J. Lee: None. J. Song: None. J.L. Holl: None. S. Bailey: Consultant; Gilead Sciences, Inc. Research Support; Gilead Sciences, Inc., Pfizer Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Lundbeck. Consultant; Lundbeck. A. Wallia: Research Support; UnitedHealth Group, Novo Nordisk. Funding R18 HS026143, NIH/AHRQ

endocrinology & metabolism
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.
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
Automated insulin delivery system: A solution for moderate to high-risk Ramadan fasting in people living with type 1 diabetes

Cecilia Outenah,Khadijatou Ly Sall,Alfred Penfornis,amadou corlaie,Dured Dardari

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2024.0168

2024-06-19

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:Diabetes Technology &Therapeutics, Volume 0, Issue ja, -Not available-.

endocrinology & metabolism
Insulin dose optimization using an automated artificial intelligence-based decision support system in youths with type 1 diabetes

Revital Nimri,Tadej Battelino,Lori M. Laffel,Robert H. Slover,Desmond Schatz,Stuart A. Weinzimer,Klemen Dovc,Thomas Danne,Moshe Phillip,Shlomit Shalitin,Rachel Bello,Michal Nevo-Shenker,Naama Fisch-Shvalb,Galit Shiovitch-Mantzuri,Orit Choresh,Irit Drutz,Yehiel Nava,Alona Hemo,Orna Hermon,Rachel Nave,Natasa Bratina,Darja Smigoe-Schweiger,Brigita Mali,Ana Gianini,Urska Sever,Barbara Murn Berkopec,Michelle Katz,Elvira Isganaitis,Sanjeev Mehta,Heidi Quinn,Nisha Naik,Zijing Guo,Lisa Volkening,Gregory Forlenza,R. Paul Wadwa,G. Todd Alonso,Laurel Messer,Lindsey Towers,Katie Thivener,Cari Berget,Samantha Lange,Emily Jost,Maria Rossick-Solis,Michael Haller,Paul Hiers,Laura Jacobsen,Madison Smith,Anastasia O’Neill,Jennifer Hosford,Alexis Perry,Eda Cengiz,Jennifer Sherr,Kathryn Gibbons,Lori Carria,Melinda Zgorski,Torben Biester,Olga Kordonouri,Thekla von dem Berge,Sarah Biester,Kerstin Remus,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-1045-7

IF: 82.9

2020-09-01

Nature Medicine

Abstract:Despite the increasing adoption of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring devices, most people with type 1 diabetes do not achieve their glycemic goals<a href="/articles/s41591-020-1045-7#ref-CR1">1</a>. This could be related to a lack of expertise or inadequate time for clinicians to analyze complex sensor-augmented pump data. We tested whether frequent insulin dose adjustments guided by an automated artificial intelligence-based decision support system (AI-DSS) is as effective and safe as those guided by physicians in controlling glucose levels. ADVICE4U was a six-month, multicenter, multinational, parallel, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial in 108 participants with type 1 diabetes, aged 10–21 years and using insulin pump therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT03003806). Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive remote insulin dose adjustment every three weeks guided by either an AI-DSS, (AI-DSS arm, n = 54) or by physicians (physician arm, n = 54). The results for the primary efficacy measure—the percentage of time spent within the target glucose range (70–180 mg dl−1 (3.9–10.0 mmol l−1))—in the AI-DSS arm were statistically non-inferior to those in the physician arm (50.2 ± 11.1% versus 51.6 ± 11.3%, respectively, P < 1 × 10−7). The percentage of readings below 54 mg dl−1 (<3.0 mmol l−1) within the AI-DSS arm was statistically non-inferior to that in the physician arm (1.3 ± 1.4% versus 1.0 ± 0.9%, respectively, P < 0.0001). Three severe adverse events related to diabetes (two severe hypoglycemia, one diabetic ketoacidosis) were reported in the physician arm and none in the AI-DSS arm. In conclusion, use of an automated decision support tool for optimizing insulin pump settings was non-inferior to intensive insulin titration provided by physicians from specialized academic diabetes centers.

biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology,medicine, research & experimental
Navigating the Unique Challenges of Automated Insulin Delivery Systems to Facilitate Effective Uptake, Onboarding, and Continued Use

Molly L Tanenbaum,Persis V Commissariat,Emma G Wilmot,Karin Lange

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968241275963

2024-08-30

Abstract:Advances in diabetes technologies have enabled automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, which have demonstrated benefits to glycemia, psychosocial outcomes, and quality of life for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Despite the many demonstrated benefits, AID systems come with their own unique challenges: continued user attention and effort, barriers to equitable access, personal costs vs benefits, and integration of the system into daily life. The purpose of this narrative review is to identify challenges and opportunities for supporting uptake and onboarding of AID systems to ultimately support sustained AID use. Setting realistic expectations, providing comprehensive training, developing willingness to adopt new treatments and workflows, upskilling of diabetes team members, and increasing flexibility of care to tailor care to individual needs, preferences, lifestyle, and personal goals will be most effective in facilitating effective, widespread, person-centered implementation of AID systems.
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
Effect of 6 months of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial protocol

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

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020274

IF: 3.006

2018-06-09

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction: Manual determination of insulin dosing largely fails to optimise glucose control in type 1 diabetes. Automated insulin delivery via closed-loop systems has improved glucose control in short-term studies. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of 6 months' closed-loop compared with manually determined insulin dosing on time-in-target glucose range in adults with type 1 diabetes. Methods and analysis: This open-label, seven-centre, randomised controlled parallel group clinical trial will compare home-based hybrid closed-loop versus standard diabetes therapy in Australia. Adults aged ≥25 years with type 1 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy (via multiple daily injections or insulin pump, total enrolment target n=120) will undertake a run-in period including diabetes and carbohydrate-counting education, clinical optimisation and baseline data collection. Participants will then be randomised 1:1 either to 26 weeks of MiniMed 670G hybrid closed-loop system therapy (Medtronic, Northridge, CA, USA) or continuation of their current diabetes therapy. The hybrid closed-loop system delivers insulin automatically to address basal requirements and correct to target glucose level, while bolus doses for meals require user initiation and carbohydrate estimation. Analysis will be intention to treat, with the primary outcome time in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) during the final 3 weeks of intervention. Secondary outcomes include: other CGM parameters, HbA1c, severe hypoglycaemia, psychosocial well-being, sleep, cognition, electrocardiography, costs, quality of life, biomarkers of vascular health and hybrid closed-loop system performance. Semistructured interviews will assess the expectations and experiences of a subgroup of hybrid closed-loop users. Ethics and dissemination: The study has Human Research Ethics Committee approval. The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Results will be disseminated at scientific conferences and via peer-reviewed publications. Trial registration number: ACTRN12617000520336; Pre-results.
Einstellung zur Insulinpumpentherapie bei Menschen mit Typ-1-Diabetes sechs Monate nach Umstellung im Vergleich zu mehrfach täglichen Insulininjektionen – Eine Beobachtungstudie

Norbert Hermanns,Dominic Ehrmann,Bernhard Kulzer,Lucas Kalt,Jochen Seufert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2280-8966

2024-10-05

Diabetologie und Stoffwechsel

Abstract:Hintergrund Obwohl die Insulinpumpentherapie (CSII) derzeit im Vergleich zur Insulininjektionstherapie eine deutlich physiologischere Methode der Insulinsubstitution darstellt, wenden in Deutschland im Vergleich zu anderen Ländern weniger Menschen mit einem Typ-1-Diabetes diese Therapieform an. Eine Bedeutung könnten hierbei psychologische Faktoren wie Erwartungen und Einstellungen gegenüber einer Insulinpumpentherapie zukommen. In dieser nicht-interventionellen Beobachtungsstudie wurden die Einstellungen zur Insulinpumpentherapie erwachsener Insulinpumpenträger 6 Monate nach Neueinstellung mit Erwachsenen mit einer mehrfachen täglichen Insulininjektionstherapie (MDI) verglichen. Methoden Einstellungen zur CSII-Therapie wurden mit dem Insulin Pump Attitudes Questionnaire (IPA-Q) erfasst, sowohl bei Teilnehmern der YES-Studie, einer nicht-interventionellen Post Market Surveillance Study zur Effektivität und Sicherheit der mylife YpsoPump (ohne Hybrid-Closed-Loop Algorithmus (= CSII-Nutzer), als auch bei MDI-Anwendern der IPA-Q-Evaluierungsstudie. Ergebnisse Es wurden die Fragebogendaten von n=191 Teilnehmern (CSII-Nutzer: n=81 Teilnehmer der YES-Studie; MDI-Nutzer: n=110 Teilnehmer der IPA-Q Evaluierungsstudie) ausgewertet. CSII-Nutzer, die eine mylife YpsoPump verwenden, standen 6 Monate nach der Neueinstellung oder Umstellung auf eine CSII-Therapie einer solchen signifikant positiver gegenüber als Nutzer einer MDI-Therapie, während gleichzeitig weniger Nachteile der Insulinpumpentherapie berichtet wurden. Schlussfolgerungen Diese Studie zeigt eine hohe Relevanz psychologischer Faktoren für die Akzeptanz und Implementierung einer Insulinpumpentherapie. Strukturierte Diabetesschulungen für Menschen mit Typ-1-Diabetes und eine gute technische Einweisung bei Personen, die sich für eine Insulinpumpentherapie entschieden haben, können dazu beitragen, unrealistische Erwartungen und inadäquate negative Einstellungen zur Insulinpumpentherapie abzubauen. Background Although insulin pump therapy (CSII) is currently the most physiological method of insulin delivery compared to insulin injection therapy, fewer people with type 1 diabetes in Germany use this form of therapy compared to other countries. Psychological factors such as expectations and attitudes towards insulin pump therapy could play a role in this respect. In this non-interventional observational study, attitudes of insulin pump users 6 months after starting insulin pump therapy respectively after switching to another insulin pump model were compared with those of people on multiple daily insulin injection (MDI) therapy. Methods Attitudes towards CSII therapy were measured using the Insulin Pump Attitudes Questionnaire (IPA-Q), both in participants of the YES study, a non-interventional post market surveillance study on the effectiveness and safety of the mylife YpsoPump without hybrid-closed-loop algorithm (= CSII users), and in MDI users of the IPA-Q evaluation study. Results The questionnaire data of n=191 participants (CSII users: n=81 participants of the YES study; MDI users: n=110 participants of the IPA-Q evaluation study) were analyzed. CSII users using a mylife YpsoPump were significantly more positive about CSII therapy 6 months after starting or switching to CSII therapy than MDI users, while fewer disadvantages of insulin pump therapy were reported. Conclusions This study demonstrates in particular the high relevance of psychological factors for the acceptance and implementation of insulin pump therapy. Structured diabetes education for people with type 1 diabetes and good technical instruction for people who have opted for insulin pump therapy can help to reduce unrealistic expectations and inadequate negative attitudes towards insulin pump therapy. Received: 19 December 2023 Accepted after revision: 08 February 2024 Article published online: 04 October 2024 © 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

endocrinology & metabolism
Real-World Evidence of Automated Insulin Delivery System Use

Elizabeth G. Considine,Jennifer L. Sherr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2023.0442

2024-02-21

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:Objective: Pivotal trials of automated insulin delivery (AID) closed-loop systems have demonstrated a consistent picture of glycemic benefit, supporting approval of multiple systems by the Food and Drug Administration or Conformité Européenne mark receipt. To assess how pivotal trial findings translate to commercial AID use, a systematic review of retrospective real-world studies was conducted. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for articles published after 2018 with more than five nonpregnant individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Data were screened/extracted in duplicate for sample size, AID system, glycemic outcomes, and time in automation. Results: Of 80 studies identified, 20 met inclusion criteria representing 171,209 individuals. Time in target range 70–180 mg/dL (3.9–10.0 mmol/L) was the primary outcome in 65% of studies, with the majority of reports (71%) demonstrating a >10% change with AID use. Change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was reported in nine studies (range 0.1%–0.9%), whereas four reported changes in glucose management indicator (GMI) with a 0.1%–0.4% reduction noted. A decrease in HbA1c or GMI of >0.2% was achieved in two-thirds of the studies describing change in HbA1c and 80% of articles where GMI was described. Time below range <70 mg/dL ( 90% time in automation. Conclusion: With larger and more diverse populations, and follow-up periods of longer duration (∼9 months vs. 3–6 months for pivotal trials), real-world retrospective analyses confirm pivotal trial findings. Given the glycemic benefits demonstrated, AID is rapidly becoming the standard of care for all people living with T1D. Individuals should be informed of these systems and differences between them, have access to and coverage for these technologies, and receive support as they integrate this mode of insulin delivery into their lives.

endocrinology & metabolism
1172-P: Evaluating Factors that Predict Time Spent in Automated Mode (AM) among Youth with Type 1 Diabetes Using AID

JODY GRUNDMAN,RACHEL L. LONGENDYKE,AMANDA G. PERKINS,MAUREEN MONAGHAN,RANDI STREISAND,SHIDEH MAJIDI

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/db24-1172-p

IF: 7.7

2024-06-14

Diabetes

Abstract:Introduction: Demographic and medical factors influencing AID AM use were evaluated to better understand inequities in glycemic outcomes among youth with T1D. Methods: Retrospective chart review was conducted for 74 youth with T1D who started AID between 12/1/2022 to 5/31/2023 to examine time spent in AM 0-3 and 3-6 months after AID initiation. Mixed effects models assessed age, T1D duration, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance, AID system and input, and CGM metrics’ impact on time spent in AM. X2 and Mann Whitney U tests assessed for differences between youth with optimal (>90%) and suboptimal (<90%) time spent in AM. Results: Demographic and glycemic characteristics are described in Table 1. Race/ethnicity differed significantly among optimal and suboptimal AID use with NHB youth more likely to have suboptimal use (3mo p<.05, 6mo<0.001). Youth with optimal AID use had better glycemic outcomes at 3 and 6 months versus suboptimal use. Mixed effects models demonstrated that AID system type (p<.05) was predictive of optimal AM use at 3 months. Younger age at pump start, longer duration of T1D, more boluses/day, and higher % CGM wear time (all p’s <.05) were associated with higher AID use at 6 months. Conclusions: Youth with optimal AID use had significantly better glycemic outcomes. Efforts to address individual level AID use and barriers can help to promote optimal AM use and improve health outcomes for all youth living with T1D. Disclosure J. Grundman: Research Support; Dexcom, Inc. R.L. Longendyke: None. A.G. Perkins: Research Support; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Dexcom, Inc. M. Monaghan: Employee; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. R. Streisand: None. S. Majidi: Other Relationship; Sanofi.

endocrinology & metabolism

The Type of Patient Training Does Not Impact Outcomes in the First 90 Days of Automated Insulin Delivery Use

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

Impact of Missed and Late Meal Boluses on Glycemic Outcomes in Automated Insulin Delivery-Treated Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: A Two-Center, Population-Based, Cohort Study

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

Enhancing equity in access to automated insulin delivery systems in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse group of children with type 1 diabetes

Efficacy of an Education Program for People With Diabetes and Insulin Pump Treatment (INPUT): Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial

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

Removing Barriers, Bridging the Gap, and the Changing Role of the Health Care Professional with Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

Clinical perspective on innovative insulin delivery technologies in diabetes management

Automated Insulin Delivery Technology in the Hospital: Update on Safety and Efficacy Data

1132-P: Understanding Patients New to Insulin—Baseline Evaluation of Participants in the “Implementation and Testing of a Diabetes Discharge Intervention to Improve Safety during Transitions of Care” Study

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

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

Automated insulin delivery system: A solution for moderate to high-risk Ramadan fasting in people living with type 1 diabetes

Insulin dose optimization using an automated artificial intelligence-based decision support system in youths with type 1 diabetes

Navigating the Unique Challenges of Automated Insulin Delivery Systems to Facilitate Effective Uptake, Onboarding, and Continued Use

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

Effect of 6 months of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial protocol

Einstellung zur Insulinpumpentherapie bei Menschen mit Typ-1-Diabetes sechs Monate nach Umstellung im Vergleich zu mehrfach täglichen Insulininjektionen – Eine Beobachtungstudie

Real-World Evidence of Automated Insulin Delivery System Use

1172-P: Evaluating Factors that Predict Time Spent in Automated Mode (AM) among Youth with Type 1 Diabetes Using AID