Towards the standardisation of adult person-reported outcome domains in diabetes research: A Consensus Statement development panel.

Diabetes is unique among chronic diseases because clinical outcomes are intimately tied to how the person living with diabetes reacts to and implements treatment recommendations. It is further characterised by widespread social stigma, judgement and paternalism. This physical, social and psychological burden collectively influences self-management behaviours. It is widely recognised that the individual's perspective about the impact of trying to manage the disease and the burden that self-management confers must be addressed to achieve optimal health outcomes. Standardised, rigorous assessment of mental and behavioural health status, in interaction with physical health outcomes is crucial to aid understanding of person-reported outcomes (PROs). Whilst tempting to conceptualise PROs as an issue of perceived quality of life (QoL), in fact health-related QoL is multi-dimensional and covers indicators of physical or functional health status, psychological and social well-being. This complexity is illuminated by the large number of person reported outcome measures (PROMs) that have been developed across multiple psychosocial domains. Often measures are used inappropriately or because they have been used in the scientific literature rather than based on methodological or outcome assessment rigour. Given the broad nature of psychosocial functioning/mental health, it is important to broadly define PROs that are evaluated in the context of therapeutic interventions, real-life and observational studies. This report summarises the central themes and lessons derived in the assessment and use of PROMs amongst adults with diabetes. Effective assessment of PROMs routinely in clinical research is crucial to understanding the true impact of any intervention. Selecting appropriate measures, relevant to the specific factors of PROs important in the research study will provide valuable data alongside physical health data.

Identifying the deficiencies of currently available CGM to improve uptake and benefit.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The use of diabetes technologies is increasing worldwide, with health systems facilitating improved access to devices. Continuous glucose monitoring is a complex intervention that provides information on glucose concentration, rate and direction of change, historical data and alerts and alarms for extremes of glucose. These data do not themselves change glycaemia and require translation to a meaningful action for impact. It is, therefore, crucial that such systems advance to better meet the needs of individuals using them. METHODS: Narrative review of the use of, engagement with, limitations and unmet needs of continuous glucose monitoring systems. RESULTS: CGM devices have made a significant contribution to the self-management of diabetes; however, challenges with access and user experience persist, with multiple limitations to uptake and benefit. These limitations include physical size and implementation, with associated stigma, alarm fatigue, sleep disturbance and the challenge of addressing large volumes of real-time data. Greater personalisation throughout the continuous glucose monitoring journey, with a focus on usability, may improve the benefits derived from the device and reduce the burden of self-management. Healthcare professionals may have unconscious biases that affect the provision of continuous glucose monitors due to deprivation, education, age, ethnicity and other characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous glucose monitoring exerts a dose-dependent response; the more it is used, the more effective it is. For optimal use, continuous glucose monitors must not just reduce the burden of management in one dimension but facilitate net improvement in all domains of self-management for all users.

CVOT Summit Report 2023: new cardiovascular, kidney, and metabolic outcomes.

The 9th Cardiovascular Outcome Trial (CVOT) Summit: Congress on Cardiovascular, Kidney, and Metabolic Outcomes was held virtually on November 30-December 1, 2023. This reference congress served as a platform for in-depth discussions and exchange on recently completed outcomes trials including dapagliflozin (DAPA-MI), semaglutide (SELECT and STEP-HFpEF) and bempedoic acid (CLEAR Outcomes), and the advances they represent in reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), improving metabolic outcomes, and treating obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). A broad audience of endocrinologists, diabetologists, cardiologists, nephrologists and primary care physicians participated in online discussions on guideline updates for the management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in diabetes, heart failure (HF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD); advances in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and its comorbidities; advances in the management of CKD with SGLT2 inhibitors and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (nsMRAs); and advances in the treatment of obesity with GLP-1 and dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists. The association of diabetes and obesity with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH; metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis, MASH) and cancer and possible treatments for these complications were also explored. It is generally assumed that treatment of chronic diseases is equally effective for all patients. However, as discussed at the Summit, this assumption may not be true. Therefore, it is important to enroll patients from diverse racial and ethnic groups in clinical trials and to analyze patient-reported outcomes to assess treatment efficacy, and to develop innovative approaches to tailor medications to those who benefit most with minimal side effects. Other keys to a successful management of diabetes and comorbidities, including dementia, entail the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology and the implementation of appropriate patient-physician communication strategies. The 10th Cardiovascular Outcome Trial Summit will be held virtually on December 5-6, 2024 ( http://www.cvot.org ).

Practical strategies to manage obesity in type 2 diabetes.

The rising phenomenon of obesity, a major risk factor for the development and progression of type 2 diabetes, is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires a comprehensive and coordinated approach to be prevented and managed. Although novel pharmacological measures to combat obesity have achieved unprecedented efficacy, a healthy lifestyle remains essential for the long-term success of any therapeutic intervention. However, this requires a high level of intrinsic motivation and continued behavioural changes in the face of multiple metabolic, psychological and environmental factors promoting weight gain, particularly in the context of type 2 diabetes. This review is intended to provide practical recommendations in the context of a holistic, person-centred approach to weight management, including evidence-based and expert recommendations addressing supportive communication, shared decision-making, as well as nutritional and pharmacological therapeutic approaches to achieve sustained weight loss.

A Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes in People With Type 1 Diabetes Using Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion or Multiple Daily Injections.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in people with type 1 diabetes using either continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with two different insulin patch pumps or multiple daily injections (MDIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized three-arm study, people with type 1 diabetes on MDI therapy were included and used either MDI, the Accu-Chek Solo micropump system (Solo) or Omnipod for 26 weeks. From weeks 26 to 39, all participants used CSII with Solo. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the diabetes technology questionnaire (DTQ); in addition, HbA1c values were measured. RESULTS: Overall, 181 participants were randomized (61 MDI arm, 62 Solo arm, 58 Omnipod arm) and 142 completed the study. After 26 weeks in the study, the DTQ "change" score in the Solo group (105.9 [100.6-111.2]; baseline-adjusted mean [95% confidence interval]) was significantly higher than in the MDI group (94.8 [89.6-100.0]) (P = .001). The comparison between the Solo group (105.1 [99.1-111.1]) and the Omnipod group (108.7 [103.1-114.4]) showed no significant differences (P = .382). HbA1c increased by 0.2% ± 0.7% in the MDI group and decreased in both pump groups (Solo group -0.2% ± 0.8% and Omnipod group -0.1% ± 0.8%). Differences in HbA1c between the Solo group and the MDI group were significant (P = .009), but not between the Solo group and the Omnipod group (P = .896). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that switching from MDI to CSII improves both psychosocial well-being and physiological outcomes. Furthermore, there were no substantial differences between the established and the recently released patch pump. Trial registration at www.clinicaltrials.gov is NCT03478969.

The psychosocial burdens of living with diabetes.

AIM: To better understand the prevalence of self-reported psychosocial burdens and the unmet needs identified by people with diabetes in relation to routine diabetes visits. METHODS: An English language, online survey was distributed via social media, key stakeholder networks, charity and advocacy groups to adults with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes. Survey items were designed by members of the FDA RESCUE Collaborative Community Governing Committee prior to pilot testing with potential participants. Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted, as well as thematic analyses on free-text responses using NVivo v14. RESULTS: Four hundred and seventy-eight participants completed the survey: 373 (78%) had type 1 diabetes, 346 (73%) identified as a woman and 433 (91%) were white. Most participants had experienced self-reported (rather than diagnosed) anxiety and depression (n = 323 and n = 313, respectively), as well as fear of low blood sugars (n = 294), low mood (n = 290) and diabetes-related distress (n = 257). Sixty-eight percent reported that diabetes had negatively affected self-esteem, 62% reported the feelings of loneliness, but 93% reported that friends/family/work colleagues were supportive when needed. Two hundred and seventy-two percent (57%) reported that their diabetes team had never raised the topic of mental health. The overwhelming majority stated that the best thing their diabetes team could do to help was to simply ask about mental well-being, listen with empathy and without judgement, and practice skills to understand psychosocial issues in diabetes. CONCLUSION: Integrating psychosocial discussions and support within routine healthcare visits is crucial to improve outcomes for people with diabetes. Such a biopsychosocial model of healthcare has long been advocated by regulatory bodies.

Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes: A subgroup analysis from the FLASH-UK study.

AIMS: The FLASH-UK trial showed lower HbA1c with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM), as compared with self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), in adults with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c ≥58 mmol/mol (≥7.5%). Here, we present results from the pre-specified subgroup analysis for the 24-week HbA1c (primary outcome) and selected sensor-based secondary outcomes. METHODS: This was a multi-centre, parallel-design, randomised controlled trial. The difference in treatment effect between subgroups (baseline HbA1c [≤75 vs. >75 mmol/mol] [≤9.0 vs >9.0%], treatment modality [pump vs injections], prior participation in structured education, age, educational level, impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia, deprivation index quintile sex, ethnic group and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] detected depression category) were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-six participants (females 44%, mean [SD] baseline HbA1c 71 [9] mmol/mol 8.6 [0.8%], age 44 [15]) were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio to isCGM (n = 78) or SMBG (n = 78). The mean (SD) baseline HbA1c (%) was 8.7 (0.9) in the isCGM group and 8.5 (0.8) in the SMBG group, lowering to 7.9 (0.8) versus 8.3 (0.9), respectively, at 24 weeks (adjusted mean difference -0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.7 to -0.3; p < 0.001]. For HbA1c, there was no impact of treatment modality, prior participation in structured education, deprivation index quintile, sex or baseline depression category. The between-group difference in HbA1c was larger for younger people (a reduction of 2.7 [95% CI 0.3-5.0; p = 0.028] mmol/mol for every additional 15 years of age). Those with HbA1c 76-97 mmol/mol (>9.0%-11.0%) had a marginally non-significant higher reduction in HbA1c of 8.4 mmol/mol (3.3-13.5) compared to 3.1 (0.3-6.0) in those with HbA1c 58-75 mmol/mol (p = 0.08). For 'Time in range' (% 3.9-10 mmol/L), the difference was larger for those with at least a bachelor's degree. For 'Time below range' (% <3.9 mmol/L), the difference was larger for those using injections, older people and those with less than bachelor's degree. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring is generally effective across a range of baseline characteristics.

Listening to Women: Experiences of Using Closed-Loop in Type 1 Diabetes Pregnancy.

Introduction: Recent high-profile calls have emphasized that women's experiences should be considered in maternity care provisioning. We explored women's experiences of using closed-loop during type 1 diabetes (T1D) pregnancy to inform decision-making about antenatal rollout and guidance and support given to future users. Methods: We interviewed 23 closed-loop participants in the Automated insulin Delivery Among Pregnant women with T1D (AiDAPT) trial after randomization to closed-loop and ∼20 weeks later. Data were analyzed thematically. Results: Women described how closed-loop lessened the physical and mental demands of diabetes management, enabling them to feel more normal and sleep better. By virtue of spending increased time-in-range, women also worried less about risks to their baby and being judged negatively by health care professionals. Most noted that intensive input and support during early pregnancy had been crucial to adjusting to, and developing confidence in, the technology. Women emphasized that attaining pregnancy glucose targets still required ongoing effort from themselves and the health care team. Women described needing education to help them determine when, and how, to intervene and when to allow the closed-loop to operate without interference. All women reported more enjoyable pregnancy experiences as a result of using closed-loop; some also noted being able to remain longer in paid employment. Conclusions: Study findings endorse closed-loop use in T1D pregnancy by highlighting how the technology can facilitate positive pregnancy experiences. To realize fully the benefits of closed-loop, pregnant women would benefit from initial intensive oversight and support together with closed-loop specific education and training. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04938557.

Automated Insulin Delivery in Women with Pregnancy Complicated by Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid closed-loop insulin therapy has shown promise for management of type 1 diabetes during pregnancy; however, its efficacy is unclear. METHODS: In this multicenter, controlled trial, we randomly assigned pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and a glycated hemoglobin level of at least 6.5% at nine sites in the United Kingdom to receive standard insulin therapy or hybrid closed-loop therapy, with both groups using continuous glucose monitoring. The primary outcome was the percentage of time in the pregnancy-specific target glucose range (63 to 140 mg per deciliter [3.5 to 7.8 mmol per liter]) as measured by continuous glucose monitoring from 16 weeks' gestation until delivery. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary outcomes were the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state (glucose level >140 mg per deciliter), overnight time in the target range, the glycated hemoglobin level, and safety events. RESULTS: A total of 124 participants with a mean (±SD) age of 31.1±5.3 years and a mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level of 7.7±1.2% underwent randomization. The mean percentage of time that the maternal glucose level was in the target range was 68.2±10.5% in the closed-loop group and 55.6±12.5% in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference, 10.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.0 to 14.0; P<0.001). Results for the secondary outcomes were consistent with those of the primary outcome; participants in the closed-loop group spent less time in a hyperglycemic state than those in the standard-care group (difference, -10.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -13.8 to -6.6); had more overnight time in the target range (difference, 12.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 8.3 to 16.2), and had lower glycated hemoglobin levels (difference, -0.31 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.50 to -0.12). Little time was spent in a hypoglycemic state. No unanticipated safety problems associated with the use of closed-loop therapy during pregnancy occurred (6 instances of severe hypoglycemia, vs. 5 in the standard-care group; 1 instance of diabetic ketoacidosis in each group; and 12 device-related adverse events in the closed-loop group, 7 related to closed-loop therapy). CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid closed-loop therapy significantly improved maternal glycemic control during pregnancy complicated by type 1 diabetes. (Funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Program; AiDAPT ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN56898625.).

Delivering Biopsychosocial Health Care Within Routine Care: Spotlight-AQ Pivotal Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Results.

BACKGROUND: Annual national diabetes audit data consistently shows most people with diabetes do not consistently achieve blood glucose targets for optimal health, despite the large range of treatment options available. AIM: To explore the efficacy of a novel clinical intervention to address physical and mental health needs within routine diabetes consultations across health care settings. METHODS: A multicenter, parallel group, individually randomized trial comparing consultation duration in adults diagnosed with T1D or T2D for ≥6 months using the Spotlight-AQ platform versus usual care. Secondary outcomes were HbA1c, depression, diabetes distress, anxiety, functional health status, and healthcare professional burnout. Machine learning models were utilized to analyze the data collected from the Spotlight-AQ platform to validate the reliability of question-concern association; as well as to identify key features that distinguish people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, as well as important features that distinguish different levels of HbA1c. RESULTS: n = 98 adults with T1D or T2D; any HbA1c and receiving any diabetes treatment participated (n = 49 intervention). Consultation duration for intervention participants was reduced in intervention consultations by 0.5 to 4.1 minutes (3%-14%) versus no change in the control group (-0.9 to +1.28 minutes). HbA1c improved in the intervention group by 6 mmol/mol (range 0-30) versus control group 3 mmol/mol (range 0-8). Moderate improvements in psychosocial outcomes were seen in the intervention group for functional health status; reduced anxiety, depression, and diabetes distress and improved well-being. None were statistically significant. HCPs reported improved communication and greater focus on patient priorities in consultations. Artificial Intelligence examination highlighted therapy and psychological burden were most important in predicting HbA1c levels. The Natural Language Processing semantic analysis confirmed the mapping relationship between questions and their corresponding concerns. Machine learning model revealed type 1 and type 2 patients have different concerns regarding psychological burden and knowledge. Moreover, the machine learning model emphasized that individuals with varying levels of HbA1c exhibit diverse levels of psychological burden and therapy-related concerns. CONCLUSION: Spotlight-AQ was associated with shorter, more useful consultations; with improved HbA1c and moderate benefits on psychosocial outcomes. Results reflect the importance of a biopsychosocial approach to routine care visits. Spotlight-AQ is viable across health care settings for improved outcomes.

Health Care Professional Experiences and Opinions on Depression and Suicide in People With Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: People with diabetes have an increased risk of depression, intentional self-injury and self-harm (ISI), and suicide compared with the general population. This study aimed to explore experiences and awareness of health care professionals (HCPs) regarding depression, ISI, and suicide, and understand resource use and needs among HCPs who care for persons with diabetes (PWD). METHODS: Health care professionals who see children and/or adults with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes anonymously completed an online survey about their experiences, opinions, barriers, and needs surrounding identification and care of PWD with depression, ISI, and suicide. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine HCPs participated. The majority were medical doctors (MDs) or advanced practice providers (APPs). Only a quarter of MDs and APPs felt very comfortable asking about ISI or suicidal ideation (SI), whereas 20% felt they had received appropriate training to support those with ISI or SI. The primary needs reported include more training on how to ask, respond, and support those expressing ISI and SI. Health care professionals reported wanting better access to resources for PWD. DISCUSSION: The HCPs tend to underestimate SI in the diabetes population and rates of training were low. Areas to address include providing education and training to HCPs to improve identification and management of ISI and suicide risk. These data can inform the development of mechanisms to improve discussions of depression and suicide and of resources to help HCPs support PWD.

Rollout of Closed-Loop Technology to Pregnant Women with Type 1 Diabetes: Healthcare Professionals' Views About Potential Challenges and Solutions.

Aims: To explore healthcare professionals' views about the training and support needed to rollout closed-loop technology to pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. Methods: We interviewed (n = 19) healthcare professionals who supported pregnant women using CamAPS FX closed-loop during the Automated insulin Delivery Amongst Pregnant women with Type 1 diabetes (AiDAPT) trial. Data were analyzed descriptively. An online workshop involving (n = 15) trial team members was used to inform recommendations. Ethics approvals were obtained in conjunction with those for the wider trial. Results: Interviewees expressed enthusiasm for a national rollout of closed-loop, but anticipated various challenges, some specific to use during pregnancy. These included variations in insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring expertise and difficulties embedding and retaining key skills, due to the relatively small numbers of pregnant women using closed-loop. Inexperienced staff also highlighted difficulties interpreting data downloads. To support rollout, interviewees recommended providing expert initial advice training, delivered by device manufacturers together with online training resources and specific checklists for different systems. They also highlighted a need for 24 h technical support, especially when supporting technology naive women after first transitioning onto closed-loop in early pregnancy. They further recommended providing case-based meetings and mentorship for inexperienced colleagues, including support interpreting data downloads. Interviewees were optimistic that if healthcare professionals received training and support, their long-term workloads could be reduced because closed-loop lessened women's need for glycemic management input, especially in later pregnancy. Conclusions: Interviewees identified challenges and opportunities to rolling-out closed-loop and provided practical suggestions to upskill inexperienced staff supporting pregnant women using closed-loop. A key priority will be to determine how best to develop mentorship services to support inexperienced staff delivering closed-loop. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04938557.

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

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

Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery Technologies in Clinical Practice.

The significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers, and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past 6 years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage.

Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: In persons with type 1 diabetes and high glycated hemoglobin levels, the benefits of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring with optional alarms for high and low blood glucose levels are uncertain. METHODS: In a parallel-group, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving participants with type 1 diabetes and glycated hemoglobin levels between 7.5% and 11.0%, we investigated the efficacy of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring as compared with participant monitoring of blood glucose levels with fingerstick testing. The primary outcome was the glycated hemoglobin level at 24 weeks, analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary outcomes included sensor data, participant-reported outcome measures, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 156 participants were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (the intervention group, 78 participants) or to monitor their own blood glucose levels with fingerstick testing (the usual-care group, 78 participants). At baseline, the mean (±SD) age of the participants was 44±15 years, and the mean duration of diabetes was 21±13 years; 44% of the participants were women. The mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 8.7±0.9% in the intervention group and 8.5±0.8% in the usual-care group; these levels decreased to 7.9±0.8% and 8.3±0.9%, respectively, at 24 weeks (adjusted mean between-group difference, -0.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.7 to -0.3; P<0.001). The time per day that the glucose level was in the target range was 9.0 percentage points (95% CI, 4.7 to 13.3) higher or 130 minutes (95% CI, 68 to 192) longer in the intervention group than in the usual-care group, and the time spent in a hypoglycemic state (blood glucose level, <70 mg per deciliter [<3.9 mmol per liter]) was 3.0 percentage points (95% CI, 1.4 to 4.5) lower or 43 minutes (95% CI, 20 to 65) shorter in the intervention group. Two participants in the usual-care group had an episode of severe hypoglycemia, and 1 participant in the intervention group had a skin reaction to the sensor. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with type 1 diabetes and high glycated hemoglobin levels, the use of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring with optional alarms for high and low blood glucose levels resulted in significantly lower glycated hemoglobin levels than levels monitored by fingerstick testing. (Funded by Diabetes UK and others; FLASH-UK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03815006.).

Protocol paper: multi-Centre randomised controlled trial evaluating a pre-clinic diabetes assessment and mapped care planning intervention amongst adults with type 1, type 2 or pre-diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Existing therapeutic interventions to treat diabetes are well known, yet the majority of people with diabetes do not consistently achieve blood glucose targets (even individual therapy targets) for optimal health, despite the large range of treatment options available. Such outcomes have remained stubbornly poor for decades with <25% adults with diabetes achieving glycaemic targets. Patient behaviour, individually supported in routine clinical care, is an important missing component to improved outcomes, in a medical healthcare model not ideally suited to supporting successful diabetes management. METHODS: A multi-centre, parallel group, individually randomised trial comparing consultation duration in adults with type 1, type 2 or pre-diabetes using the Spotlight Consultations pre-clinic assessment compared to usual care in the Spotlight-AQ study. Two hundred adults with type 1, type 2 or pre-diabetes attending routine care outpatient appointments across up to ten participating sites will be invited to participate. INTERVENTION: An outpatient pre-clinic intervention delivered within 1 week prior to scheduled routine outpatient appointment. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Duration of routine outpatient consultation. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Functional health status Diabetes distress Depression Treatment satisfaction Impact on self-care behaviours HCP burnout HCP treatment satisfaction and burden Hypoglycaemia (time less than 70mg/dL) Hyperglycaemia (time above 180 mg/dL) Change in weight Change in HbA1c Cost effectiveness of intervention DISCUSSION: Results from the study will provide valuable insights into patient-professional communication practices within routine care and recommendations will be made, as necessary, for improvements to that. If the intervention is shown to be clinically and cost-effective, the feedback from participants and healthcare professionals will be used to make any improvements prior to its deployment to support improved communication and associated health outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by the Wales REC7 Research Ethics Committee (21/WA/0020). Results will be disseminated through national and international conferences, scientific journals, newsletters, magazines and social media. Target audiences include consultants and other clinicians in diabetes, and medical professionals or scientists overall. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15511689 . Registered on 10 November 2021.

AiDAPT: automated insulin delivery amongst pregnant women with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre randomized controlled trial - study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes strive for tight glucose targets (3.5-7.8 mmol/L) to minimise the risks of obstetric and neonatal complications. Despite using diabetes technologies including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), insulin pumps and contemporary insulin analogues, most women struggle to achieve and maintain the recommended pregnancy glucose targets. This study aims to evaluate whether the use of automated closed-loop insulin delivery improves antenatal glucose levels in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicentre, open label, randomized, controlled trial of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and a HbA1c of ≥48 mmol/mol (6.5%) at pregnancy confirmation and ≤ 86 mmol/mol (10%) at randomization. Participants who provide written informed consent before 13 weeks 6 days gestation will be entered into a run-in phase to collect 96 h (24 h overnight) of CGM glucose values. Eligible participants will be randomized on a 1:1 basis to CGM (Dexcom G6) with usual insulin delivery (control) or closed-loop (intervention). The closed-loop system includes a model predictive control algorithm (CamAPS FX application), hosted on an android smartphone that communicates wirelessly with the insulin pump (Dana Diabecare RS) and CGM transmitter. Research visits and device training will be provided virtually or face-to-face in conjunction with 4-weekly antenatal clinic visits where possible. Randomization will stratify for clinic site. One hundred twenty-four participants will be recruited. This takes into account 10% attrition and 10% who experience miscarriage or pregnancy loss. Analyses will be performed according to intention to treat. The primary analysis will evaluate the change in the time spent in the target glucose range (3.5-7.8 mmol/l) between the intervention and control group from 16 weeks gestation until delivery. Secondary outcomes include overnight time in target, time above target (> 7.8 mmol/l), standard CGM metrics, HbA1c and psychosocial functioning and health economic measures. Safety outcomes include the number and severity of ketoacidosis, severe hypoglycaemia and adverse device events. DISCUSSION: This will be the largest randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of closed-loop insulin delivery during type 1 diabetes pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 56898625 Registration Date: 10 April, 2018.