Trial of Hybrid Closed-Loop Control in Young Children with Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop control systems of insulin delivery may improve glycemic outcomes in young children with type 1 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of initiating a closed-loop system virtually are unclear. METHODS: In this 13-week, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, children who were at least 2 years of age but younger than 6 years of age who had type 1 diabetes to receive treatment with a closed-loop system of insulin delivery or standard care that included either an insulin pump or multiple daily injections of insulin plus a continuous glucose monitor. The primary outcome was the percentage of time that the glucose level was in the target range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter, as measured by continuous glucose monitoring. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of time that the glucose level was above 250 mg per deciliter or below 70 mg per deciliter, the mean glucose level, the glycated hemoglobin level, and safety outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 102 children underwent randomization (68 to the closed-loop group and 34 to the standard-care group); the glycated hemoglobin levels at baseline ranged from 5.2 to 11.5%. Initiation of the closed-loop system was virtual in 55 patients (81%). The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the glucose level was within the target range increased from 56.7±18.0% at baseline to 69.3±11.1% during the 13-week follow-up period in the closed-loop group and from 54.9±14.7% to 55.9±12.6% in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference, 12.4 percentage points [equivalent to approximately 3 hours per day]; 95% confidence interval, 9.5 to 15.3; P<0.001). We observed similar treatment effects (favoring the closed-loop system) on the percentage of time that the glucose level was above 250 mg per deciliter, on the mean glucose level, and on the glycated hemoglobin level, with no significant between-group difference in the percentage of time that the glucose level was below 70 mg per deciliter. There were two cases of severe hypoglycemia in the closed-loop group and one case in the standard-care group. One case of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving young children with type 1 diabetes, the glucose level was in the target range for a greater percentage of time with a closed-loop system than with standard care. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; PEDAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04796779.).

Managing Diabetes in Pregnancy Before, During, and After COVID-19.

Background: Pregnant women with diabetes are identified as being more vulnerable to the severe effects of COVID-19 and advised to stringently follow social distancing measures. Here, we review the management of diabetes in pregnancy before and during the lockdown. Methods: Majority of antenatal diabetes and obstetric visits are provided remotely, with pregnant women attending hospital clinics only for essential ultrasound scans and labor and delivery. Online resources for supporting women planning pregnancy and for self-management of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using intermittent or continuous glucose monitoring are provided. Retinal screening procedures, intrapartum care, and the varying impact of lockdown on maternal glycemic control are considered. Alternative screening procedures for diagnosing hyperglycemia during pregnancy and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are discussed. Case histories describe the remote initiation of insulin pump therapy and automated insulin delivery in T1D pregnancy. Results: Initial feedback suggests that video consultations are well received and that the patient experiences for women requiring face-to-face visits are greatly improved. As the pandemic eases, formal evaluation of remote models of diabetes education and technology implementation, including women's views, will be important. Conclusions: Research and audit activities will resume and we will find new ways for supporting pregnant women with diabetes to choose their preferred glucose monitoring and insulin delivery.

The change in glycaemic control immediately after COVID-19 vaccination in people with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: Evidence suggests that some people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) experience temporary instability of blood glucose (BG) levels after COVID-19 vaccination. We aimed to assess this objectively. METHODS: We examined the interstitial glucose profile of 97 consecutive adults (age ≥ 18 years) with T1DM using the FreeStyle Libre® flash glucose monitor in the periods immediately before and after their first COVID-19 vaccination. The primary outcome measure was percentage (%) interstitial glucose readings within the target range 3.9-10 mmol/L for 7 days prior to the vaccination and the 7 days after the vaccination. Data are mean ± standard error. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in the % interstitial glucose on target (3.9-10.0) for the 7 days following vaccination (mean 52.2% ± 2.0%) versus pre-COVID-19 vaccination (mean 55.0% ± 2.0%) (p = 0.030). 58% of individuals with T1DM showed a reduction in the 'time in target range' in the week after vaccination. 30% showed a decrease of time within the target range of over 10%, and 10% showed a decrease in time within target range of over 20%. The change in interstitial glucose proportion on target in the week following vaccination was most pronounced for people taking metformin/dapagliflozin + basal bolus insulin (change -7.6%) and for people with HbA1c below the median (change -5.7%). CONCLUSION: In T1DM, we have shown that initial COVID-19 vaccination can cause temporary perturbation of interstitial glucose, with this effect more pronounced in people talking oral hypoglycaemic medication plus insulin, and when HbA1c is lower.

Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on glycemic control in type 1 diabetes.

AIM: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced governments to impose lockdown policies, thus impacting patients with chronic diseases, such as type 1 diabetes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of lockdown on glycemic control in type 1 diabetes patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients using a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion device during the nationwide lockdown. Children and adolescents aged 2-18 years followed up at the Pediatric Endocrinology Unit of Hospitalar São João in Portugal were included in the study. We collected data on the age, weight, insulin doses, and glycemic control of the patients before and after the restrictions. RESULTS: The study included 100 patients, 59 males, with a mean age of 12.5 years. Baseline data showed a suboptimal glycemic control with a median HbA1c of 7.9%. The lockdown was associated with an increase in the body mass index (BMI) of all patients (p = 0.009), particularly girls and older teenagers. Metabolic control deteriorated in the 10-13 age group (p = 0.03), with a 0.4% increase in HbA1c. CONCLUSION: To date, this is the largest study on the impact of lockdown on type 1 diabetes in patients using an insulin pump. The results highlight the importance of physical activity, parental supervision, and continuation of healthcare assistance through telemedicine in young individuals with type 1 diabetes.

Current provision and HCP experiences of remote care delivery and diabetes technology training for people with type 1 diabetes in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid implementation of remote care delivery in type 1 diabetes. We studied current modes of care delivery, healthcare professional experiences and impact on insulin pump training in type 1 diabetes care in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: The UK Diabetes Technology Network designed a 48-question survey aimed at healthcare professionals providing care in type 1 diabetes. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three healthcare professionals (48% diabetes physicians, 52% diabetes educators and 88% working in adult services) from approximately 75 UK centres (52% university hospitals, 46% general and community hospitals), responded to the survey. Telephone consultations were the main modality of care delivery. There was a higher reported time taken for video consultations versus telephone (p < 0.001). Common barriers to remote consultations were patient familiarity with technology (72%) and access to patient device data (67%). We assessed the impact on insulin pump training. A reduction in total new pump starts (73%) and renewals (61%) was highlighted. Common barriers included patient digital literacy (61%), limited healthcare professional experience (46%) and time required per patient (44%). When grouped according to size of insulin pump service, pump starts and renewals in larger services were less impacted by the pandemic compared to smaller services. CONCLUSION: This survey highlights UK healthcare professional experiences of remote care delivery. While supportive of virtual care models, a number of factors highlighted, especially patient digital literacy, need to be addressed to improve virtual care delivery and device training.

Factors Affecting the Incidence, Progression, and Severity of COVID-19 in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus.

OBJECTIVES: This study screened for factors affecting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) incidence in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients, appraised vitamin D's efficacy in preventing COVID-19, and assessed the effects of clinical characteristics, glycemic status, vitamin D, and hydroxychloroquine administration on COVID-19's progression and severity in T1DM patients. METHODS: This retrospective research on 150 adults was conducted at Security Forces Hospital, Riyadh, KSA. Participants were allocated to three groups (50/group): control, T1DM, and T1DM with COVID-19. Participants' fasting blood glucose (FBG), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), complete blood count, vitamin D, C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, D-dimer, liver and kidney function, and hydroxychloroquine treatment were retrieved and analyzed. RESULTS: The percentages of comorbidities and not taking hydroxychloroquine were significantly higher among T1DM patients with COVID-19 than patients with T1DM only. Mean vitamin D level was significantly lower in T1DM with COVID-19 patients than in the other two groups. Vitamin D showed a significant negative correlation with LDH, CRP, ESR, ferritin, and D-dimer, which was the most reliable predictor of COVID-19 severity in T1DM patients. CONCLUSION: Comorbidities and vitamin D deficiency are risk factors for COVID-19 in patients with T1DM. Patients who do not take hydroxychloroquine and have higher FBG and HbA1c levels are vulnerable to COVID-19. Vitamin D may be useful for preventing COVID-19 in T1DM patients. Comorbidities, higher FBG and HbA1c levels, not taking hydroxychloroquine, and vitamin D inadequacy elevate COVID-19 progression and severity in patients with T1DM.

Nursing interventions for people with type 1 diabetes and frequent hypoglycaemia.

Type 1 diabetes is a lifelong condition which affects all age ranges, for reasons unknown, and the UK has one of the highest incidences of this complex condition in the world. Type 1 diabetes is caused by autoimmune damage to the insulin-producing ß-cells found in the pancreatic islet cells, leading to severe insulin deficiency. People with diabetes need to achieve a target glyosylated haemoglobin level to avoid macro- and microvascular complications, but there is the associated risk of hypoglycaemic events. These can vary in severity and consequences but will likely always cause worry for the person living with diabetes. There are many risk factors and reasons to be explored when looking at hypoglycaemia. This case study explores the nursing interventions that can be safely worked through and prioritised, within the community setting, to allow people with diabetes to be safe from severe hypoglycaemia, thus improving their quality of life and safety, as well as reducing costs for the NHS.

Glucose control in home-isolated adults with type 1 diabetes affected by COVID-19 using continuous glucose monitoring.

PURPOSE: This study is aimed at evaluating changes in metrics of glucose control in home-isolated patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system. METHODS: We included adults aged 18-45 years with type 1 diabetes, using CGM, followed by telemedicine at a Southern Italian University Hospital. Thirty-two home-quarantined subjects with SARS-CoV-2 positive swab constituted the COVID-19 group. Thirty age-matched diabetic individuals without COVID-19 formed the control group. The effects of COVID-19 on glycemic control in patients infected were assessed at different time points [2 weeks before-COVID-19 (Time 1), 2 weeks during-COVID-19 (Time 2) and 2 weeks after COVID-19 (Time 3)] and compared with those without infection. RESULTS: A significant reduction of TIR (Time 1 vs Time 2, %, 60.1 ± 16.6 vs 55.4 ± 19.2, P = 0.03), associated with a significant increase of TAR level 2 (10.1 ± 7.3 vs 16.7 ± 12.9, P < 0.001), GMI (7.1 ± 0.6 vs 7.5 ± 0.8, P < 0.001), CV (37.3 ± 7.1 vs 39.6 ± 7.0, P = 0.04), mean glucose values (mg/dL, 160.2 ± 26.5 vs 175.5 ± 32.6, P = 0.001) and standard deviation (59.2 ± 13.1 vs 68.6 ± 17.7, P = 0.001) was observed in patients with COVID-19. No significant change of glycemic metrics was found in the NO COVID-19 group across the time. CONCLUSION: Young home-isolated patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 showed a worsening of glucose control during COVID-19, as compared with age-matched diabetic subjects without the infection.

COVID-19 Pandemic and Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes: No Significant Change in Glycemic Control During The Pandemic Lockdown of 2020.

Importance: There is no consensus on the impact of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown on glycemic control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the US. Aim: To determine the impact of the pandemic lockdown of March 15th through July 6th, 2020 on glycemic control after controlling for confounders. Subjects and Methods: An observational study of 110 subjects of mean age 14.8 ± 4.9 years(y), [male 15.4 ± 4.0y, (n=57); female 14.1 ± 3.8y, (n=53), p=0.07] with T1D of 6.31 ± 4.3y (95% CI 1.0-19.7y). Data were collected at 1-4 months before the lockdown and 1-4 months following the lifting of the lockdown at their first post-lockdown clinic visit. Results: There was no significant change in A1c between the pre- and post-pandemic lockdown periods, 0.18 ± 1.2%, (95% CI -0.05 to 0.41), p=0.13. There were equally no significant differences in A1c between the male and female subjects, -0.16 ± 1.2 vs -0.19 ± 1.2%, p=0.8; insulin pump users and non-pump users, -0.25 ± 1.0 vs -0.12 ± 1.4%, p=0.5; and pubertal vs prepubertal subjects, 0.18 ± 1.3 vs -0.11 ± 0.3%, p=0.6. The significant predictors of decrease in A1c were pre-lockdown A1c (p<0.0001) and the use of CGM (p=0.019). The CGM users had significant reductions in point-of-care A1c (0.4 ± 0.6%, p=0.0012), the CGM-estimated A1c (p=0.0076), mean glucose concentration (p=0.022), a significant increase in sensor usage (p=0.012), with no change in total daily dose of insulin (TDDI). The non-CGM users had significantly increased TDDI (p<0.0001) but no change in HbA1c, 0.06 ± 1.8%, p=0.86. Conclusions: There was no change in glycemic control during the pandemic lockdown of 2020 in US children.

Improved glycaemia during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown is sustained post-lockdown and during the "Eat Out to Help Out" Government Scheme, in adults with Type 1 diabetes in the United Kingdom.

AIMS: The majority of studies report that the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown did not have a detrimental effect on glycaemia. We sought to explore the impact of lockdown on glycaemia and whether this is sustained following easing of restrictions. METHODS: Retrospective, observational analysis in adults and children with type 1 diabetes attending a UK specialist centre, using real-time or intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring. Data from the following 28-day time periods were collected: (i) pre-lockdown; (ii) during lockdown; (iii) immediately after lockdown; and (iv) a month following relaxation of restrictions (coinciding with Government-subsidised restaurant food). Data were analysed for times in glycaemic ranges and are expressed as median (IQR). RESULTS: 145 adults aged 35.5 (25.8-51.3) years with diabetes duration of 19.0 (7.0-29.0) years on multiple daily injections of insulin (60%) and continuous insulin infusion (40%) were included. In adults, % time in range (70-180mg/dL) increased during lockdown (60.2 (45.2-69.3)%) compared to pre-lockdown (56.7 (43.5-65.3)%; p<0.001). This was maintained in the post-lockdown time periods. Similarly, % time above range (>180mg/dL) reduced in lockdown compared to pre-lockdown (p = 0.01), which was sustained thereafter. In children, no significant changes to glycaemia were observed during lockdown. In multivariable analysis, a greater increase in %TIR 3.9-10mmol/L (70-180mg/dL) during lockdown was associated with higher levels of deprivation (coefficient: 4.208, 95% CI 0.588 to 7.828; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Glycaemia in adults improved during lockdown, with people from more deprived areas most likely to benefit. This effect was sustained after easing of restrictions, with government-subsidised restaurant eating having no adverse impact on glycaemia.

Anxiety, depression, and glycemic control during Covid-19 pandemic in youths with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Our study aims to assess the impact of lockdown during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on glycemic control and psychological well-being in youths with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: We compared glycemic metrics during lockdown with the same period of 2019. The psychological impact was evaluated with the Test of Anxiety and Depression. RESULTS: We analyzed metrics of 117 adolescents (87% on Multiple Daily Injections and 100% were flash glucose monitoring/continuous glucose monitoring users). During the lockdown, we observed an increase of the percentage of time in range (TIR) (p<0.001), with a significant reduction of time in moderate (p=0.002), and severe hypoglycemia (p=0.001), as well as the percentage of time in hyperglycemia (p<0.001). Glucose variability did not differ (p=0.863). The glucose management indicator was lower (p=0.001). 7% of youths reached the threshold-score (≥115) for anxiety and 16% for depression. A higher score was associated with lower TIR [p=0.028, p=0.012]. CONCLUSIONS: Glycemic control improved during the first lockdown period with respect to the previous year. Symptoms of depression and anxiety were associated with worse glycemic control; future researches are necessary to establish if this improvement is transient and if psychological difficulties will increase during the prolonged pandemic situation.

Diabetes and COVID19: a bidirectional relationship.

The advent and rapid spread of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID19) pandemic across the world has focused attention on the relationship of commonly occurring comorbidities such as diabetes on the course and outcomes of this infection. While diabetes does not seem to be associated with an increased risk of COVID19 infection per se, it has been clearly demonstrated that the presence of hyperglycemia of any degree predisposes to worse outcomes, such as more severe respiratory involvement, ICU admissions, need for mechanical ventilation and mortality. Further, COVID19 infection has been associated with the development of new-onset hyperglycemia and diabetes, and worsening of glycemic control in pre-existing diabetes, due to direct pancreatic damage by the virus, body's stress response to infection (including cytokine storm) and use of diabetogenic drugs such as corticosteroids in the treatment of severe COVID19. In addition, public health measures taken to flatten the pandemic curve (such as lockdowns) can also adversely impact persons with diabetes by limiting their access to clinical care, healthy diet, and opportunities to exercise. Most antidiabetic medications can continue to be used in patients with mild COVID19 but switching over to insulin is preferred in severe disease.

Improved individual and population-level HbA1c estimation using CGM data and patient characteristics.

Machine learning and linear regression models using CGM and participant data reduced HbA1c estimation error by up to 26% compared to the GMI formula, and exhibit superior performance in estimating the median of HbA1c at the cohort level, potentially of value for remote clinical trials interrupted by COVID-19.

Diabetic ketoacidosis drives COVID-19 related hospitalizations in children with type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a risk factor for poor COVID-19 outcomes, but pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes are poorly represented in current studies. METHODS: T1D Exchange coordinated a US type 1 diabetes COVID-19 registry. Forty-six diabetes centers submitted pediatric cases for patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19. Associations between clinical factors and hospitalization were tested with Fisher's Exact Test. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios for hospitalization. RESULTS: Data from 266 patients with previously established type 1 diabetes aged <19 years with COVID-19 were reported. Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was the most common adverse outcome (n = 44, 72% of hospitalized patients). There were four hospitalizations for severe hypoglycemia, three hospitalizations requiring respiratory support (one of whom was intubated and mechanically ventilated), one case of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and 10 patients who were hospitalized for reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or diabetes. Hospitalized patients (n = 61) were more likely than nonhospitalized patients (n = 205) to have minority race/ethnicity (67% vs 39%, P < 0.001), public insurance (64% vs 41%, P < 0.001), higher A1c (11% [97 mmol/mol] vs 8.2% [66 mmol/mol], P < 0.001), and lower insulin pump and lower continuous glucose monitoring use (26% vs 54%, P < 0.001; 39% vs 75%, P < 0.001). Age and gender were not associated with risk of hospitalization. Higher A1c was significantly associated with hospitalization, with an odds ratio of 1.56 (1.34-1.84) after adjusting for age, gender, insurance, and race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Higher A1c remained the only predictor for hospitalization with COVID-19. Diabetic ketoacidosis is the primary concern among this group.

Teleassistance for Patients With Type 1 Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of a Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine use in chronic disease management has markedly increased during health emergencies due to COVID-19. Diabetes and technologies supporting diabetes care, including glucose monitoring devices, software analyzing glucose data, and insulin delivering systems, would facilitate remote and structured disease management. Indeed, most of the currently available technologies to store and transfer web-based data to be shared with health care providers. OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, we provided our patients the opportunity to manage their diabetes remotely by implementing technology. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of 2 virtual visits on glycemic control parameters among patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) during the lockdown period. METHODS: This prospective observational study included T1D patients who completed 2 virtual visits during the lockdown period. The glucose outcomes that reflected the benefits of the virtual consultation were time in range (TIR), time above range, time below range, mean daily glucose, glucose management indicator (GMI), and glycemic variability. This metric was generated using specific computer programs that automatically upload data from the devices used to monitor blood or interstitial glucose levels. If needed, we changed the ongoing treatment at the first virtual visit. RESULTS: Among 209 eligible patients with T1D, 166 completed 2 virtual visits, 35 failed to download glucose data, and 8 declined the visit. Among the patients not included in the study, we observed a significantly lower proportion of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) users (n=7/43, 16% vs n=155/166, 93.4% and n=9/43, 21% vs n=128/166, 77.1%, respectively; P<.001) compared to patients who completed the study. TIR significantly increased from the first (62%, SD 18%) to the second (65%, SD 16%) virtual visit (P=.02); this increase was more marked among patients using the traditional meter (n=11; baseline TIR=55%, SD 17% and follow-up TIR=66%, SD 13%; P=.01) than among those using CGM, and in those with a baseline GMI of ≥7.5% (n=46; baseline TIR=45%, SD 15% and follow-up TIR=53%, SD 18%; P<.001) than in those with a GMI of <7.5% (n=120; baseline TIR=68%, SD 15% and follow-up TIR=69%, SD 15%; P=.98). The only variable independently associated with TIR was the change of ongoing therapy. The unstandardized beta coefficient (B) and 95% CI were 5 (95% CI 0.7-8.0) (P=.02). The type of glucose monitoring device and insulin delivery systems did not influence glucometric parameters. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that the structured virtual visits help maintain and improve glycemic control in situations where in-person visits are not feasible.