ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Commercialised automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have demonstrated improved outcomes in type 1 diabetes (T1D), however, they have limited capacity for algorithm individualisation, and can be prohibitively expensive if an individual is without access to health insurance or health funding subsidy. Freely available open-source algorithms, which have the ability to individualise algorithm parameters paired with commercial insulin pumps, and continuous glucose monitoring make up the so-called "do it yourself" (DIY) approach to AID. Limited data on the open-source approach have shown promising results, but data from a large randomised control trial are lacking. METHODS: The CREATE (Community deRivEd AutomaTEd insulin delivery) trial is an open-labelled, randomised, parallel 24-week, multi-site trial comparing sensor augmented pump therapy (SAPT) to our AnyDANA-loop. The three components of AnyDANA-loop are: 1) OpenAPS algorithm implemented in a smartphone (a version of AndroidAPS), 2) DANA-i™ insulin pump and, 3) Dexcom G6R continuous glucose monitor (CGM). The primary outcome measure is the percentage of time in target sensor glucose range (3.9 -10mmol/L). Secondary outcomes include psycho-social factors and platform performance. Analysis of online collective learning, characteristic of the open-source approach, is planned. 100 participants with T1D aged 7 - 70 years (age stratified into children/adolescents 7-15 years and adults 16-70 years), will be recruited from four sites in New Zealand. A 24-week continuation phase follows, to assess long-term safety.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: To explore parental perspectives after flash glucose monitoring commencement in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes who were not meeting glycaemic targets. METHODS: Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted among parents of adolescents and young adults between the ages of 14 and 20 years (inclusive) with type 1 diabetes and not meeting glycaemic targets [HbA1c 81-130 mmol/mol (9.6-14.0%)] participating in a randomized controlled trial. Interviews were transcribed, then thematic analysis was performed to identify themes regarding parental experiences. RESULTS: Four key themes were found: flash glucose monitoring improved parental emotional well-being; flash glucose monitoring reduced diabetes-specific conflict within families; flash glucose monitoring facilitated the parental role in diabetes management; and sensor-related challenges, particularly sensors falling off, interfered with using flash glucose monitoring for diabetes management. The cost of self-funded sensors was the only barrier to continuing flash glucose monitoring that parents reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new insights into the potential benefits and challenges of flash glucose monitoring use, drawn from the perspective of parents of adolescents and young adults not meeting glycaemic targets. As parents are often key partners in obtaining or purchasing this technology, these findings can be used to further inform parental expectations of this technology.
