A Real-World Prospective Study of the Effectiveness and Safety of Automated Insulin Delivery Compared With Other Modalities of Type 1 Diabetes Treatment During Ramadan Intermittent Fasting.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the fasting experience and glycemic control during Ramadan among people with type 1 diabetes (PWT1D) who use automated insulin delivery (AID) versus other modalities of treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 294 PWT1D who attempted fasting during Ramadan in 2022 were categorized on the basis of treatment modality into one of five groups: 1) AID (n = 62); 2) conventional pump + continuous glucose monitoring (CGM; n = 37); 3) pump + self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG; n = 8); 4) multiple daily injections (MDI) + CGM (n = 155); and 5) MDI + SMBG (n = 32). Predictors of fasting most days of Ramadan (i.e., breaking fast ≤2 days because of diabetes) were analyzed using uni- and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The median numbers of days when fasting was broken because of diabetes were 2, 5, 3, 3.5, and 2.5 for AID, conventional pump + CGM, MDI + CGM, pump + SMBG, and MDI + SMBG users, respectively (P = 0.047). Users of AID had a significantly greater time in range (TIR) and lower glycemia risk index, time below range, and time above range compared with users of conventional pumps and MDI (both P < 0.05). Likewise, 53% of AID users attained the double target of 1) breaking fast ≤2 days because of diabetes and 2) maintaining TIR ≥70% during Ramadan compared with only 3% of the conventional pump users and 44% of the MDI + CGM users (both P < 0.05). Compared with MDI + CGM users, AID users were twice as likely to complete fasting most days of Ramadan. CONCLUSIONS: Use of AID is associated with the highest rates of fasting and best glycemic control during Ramadan fasting.

"Pre-Ramadan" telemedicine: Effect on fasting experience and glycemic control during ramadan in people with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: People with type 1 diabetes (T1D) are advised to have a "pre-Ramadan" visit to receive the assessment and education needed to safely fast during the holy month of Ramadan. The COVID-19 lockdown has interrupted this standard of care in Muslim-majority countries where telemedicine is not well-established. Here, we examined the impact of virtual"pre-Ramadan" visits, as an alternative option to the traditional (in-person) visits, on fasting experience and glycemic control during Ramadan in people with T1D. METHOD: 151 individuals with T1D were categorized into 3 groups according to the type of"pre-Ramadan" visit that they attended in 2020: virtual (n = 50), in-person (n = 56), and no visit (n = 45). Number of days fast was broken and CGM metrics were retrospectively compared across the groups. RESULT: Patients who had a virtual"pre-Ramadan" visit were more likely to use continuous glucose monitors (CGM) than those who had no visit (61.7% and 38.6%, respectively, p < 0.05). Attending a virtual"pre-Ramadan" visit was associated with the least number of days fast was broken compared to those who had no visit (p < 0.01) or in-person visit (p = 0.02). CGM time in range (TIR) during Ramadan was the highest in those who had virtual "Pre-Ramadan" visits compared to those who had no visit or in-person visits (59%, 44%, and 47%,respectively). After adjusting for age, gender, pre-Ramadan A1c, and CGM use, the odds of fasting most days of Ramadan were highest in the virtual group [OR (CI): 9.13 (1.43, 58.22)] followed by the in-person group [3.02 (0.54,16.68)] compared to the no visit group. CONCLUSION: Virtual"pre-Ramadan" visits are effective alternative to in-person visits when managing people with T1D who plan to fast during Ramadan.

Predictors of use and improvement in glycemic indices after initiating continuous glucose monitoring in real world: Data from Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To identify predictors of use and benefit from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: Predictors of CGM use and changes in glycemic indices and other clinical parameters after initiating intermittently-scanned CGMs were examined in 116 individuals with T1D living in Saudi Arabia. Participants were categorized based on frequency of CGM sensor scanning at month 6 into: Frequent users (≥10 scans/day) and infrequent users (<10 scans/day). RESULTS: Frequent CGM users had an improvement in time in range (TIR) and time above range (TAR) at months 6 and 12; whereas infrequent users had comparable improvements but only at month 12. Individuals with baseline TIR <50% had a significant improvement in TIR and TAR; whereas those with baseline TIR ≥50% had a significant improvement only in time below range (TBR). Baseline TIR <50% and higher frequency of scans were predictive of improvement in TIR at month 6 (OR: 4.84, p <0.01, 1.05, p= 0.04; respectively); whereas baseline TBR was the only predictor of improvement in TBR (OR:1.24,p < 0.01). Being a woman, higher number of scans/day during the first 2 weeks of CGM use, and having a lower A1C at baseline predict being a frequent scanner at month 6 (OR: 2.81, p=0.04; 1.12, p <0.01; and 0.73, p <0.01; respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in glycemic control with CGM use can be predicted by: number of scans per day and baseline TIR and TBR in people with T1D.

The impact of a prolonged lockdown and use of telemedicine on glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes during the COVID-19 outbreak in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: To minimize the spread of Coronavirus Disease-2019, Saudi Arabia imposed a nationwide lockdown for over 6 weeks. We examined the impact of lockdown on glycemic control in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM); and assessed whether changes in glycemic control differ between those who attended a telemedicine visit during lockdown versus those who did not. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Flash CGM data from 101 individuals with T1D were retrospectively evaluated. Participants were categorized into two groups: Attended a telemedicine visit during lockdown (n = 61) or did not attend (n = 40). Changes in CGM metrics from the last 2 weeks pre-lockdown period (Feb 25 - March 9, 2020) to the last 2 weeks of complete lockdown period (April 7-20, 2020) were examined in the two groups. RESULTS: Those who attended a telemedicine visit during the lockdown period had a significant improvement in the following CGM metrics by the end of lockdown: Average glucose (from 180 to 159 mg/dl, p < 0.01), glycemic management indicator (from 7.7 to 7.2%, p = 0.03), time in range (from 46 to 55%, p < 0.01), and time above range (from 48 to 35%, p < 0.01) without significant changes in time below range, number of daily scans or hypoglycemic events, and other indices. In contrast, there were no significant changes in any of the CGM metrics during lockdown in those who did not attend telemedicine. CONCLUSIONS: A six-week lockdown did not worsen, nor improve, glycemic control in individuals with T1D who did not attend a telemedicine visit. Whereas those who attended a telemedicine visit had a significant improvement in glycemic metrics; supporting the clinical effectiveness of telemedicine in diabetes care.

Rapid Implementation of a Diabetes Telemedicine Clinic During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreak: Our Protocol, Experience, and Satisfaction Reports in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: The importance of telemedicine in diabetes care became more evident during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as many people with diabetes, especially those in areas without well-established telemedicine, lost access to their health care providers (HCPs) during this pandemic. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We describe a simplified protocol of a Diabetes Telemedicine Clinic that utilizes technological tools readily available to most people with diabetes and clinics around the world. We report the satisfaction of 145 patients and 14 HCPs who participated in the virtual clinic and 210 patients who attended the virtual educational sessions about "Diabetes and Ramadan." RESULTS: The majority of patients agreed or strongly agreed that the use of telemedicine was essential in maintaining a good glucose control during the pandemic (97%) and they would use the clinic again in the future (86%). A similar high satisfaction was reported by patients who attended the "Diabetes and Ramadan" virtual educational session and 88% of them recommended continuing this activity as a virtual session every year. Majority of the HCPs (93%) thought the clinic protocol was simple and did not require a dedicated orientation session prior to implementing. CONCLUSIONS: The simplicity of our Diabetes Telemedicine Clinic protocol and the high satisfaction reported by patients and HCPs make it a suitable model to be adopted by clinics, especially during pandemics or disasters in resource-limited settings. This clinic model can be quickly implemented and does not require technological tools other than those widely available to most people with diabetes, nowadays. We were able to successfully reduce the number of patients, HCPs, and staff physically present in the clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic without negatively impacting the patients' nor the HCPs' satisfaction with the visits.