Improving equity in diabetes technology use: Voices of youth and their parents.

AIMS: There are marked inequities in clinical outcomes and rates of diabetes technology use among youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). The quantitative data from our mixed methods cohort study identified significant improvements in glycaemia and quality of life in participants. We aimed to use qualitative methods to provide further insight into our quantitative findings in the setting of underlying health disparities. METHODS: Fifteen publicly insured, insulin pump-naïve non-Hispanic Black youth aged 6-21 years with T1D and baseline haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥86 mmol/mol (10%) and their parents participated in a mixed methods cohort study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted separately with parents and youth after completion of 6 months of HCL use. Three topic areas were explored: (1) Experience using HCL, (2) barriers to HCL and (3) facilitators to accessing HCL. Semantic content analysis and consensus coding involving two team members were used to generate themes. Thematic saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Youth (Medianage 14.9 years, 67% female) and parents (92% female) were interviewed. Youth and their parents reported that access to HCL provides a new outlook on living with T1D, although managing T1D is still hard. They felt that diabetes technology is most helpful for those struggling with management. Participants experienced barriers to access including misconceptions of HCL systems, clinician bias and systemic racism. They suggested these barriers can be overcome by offering diabetes technology education for all people with T1D, increasing awareness of HCL in the community and providing resources to overcome barriers created by social determinants of health. CONCLUSIONS: The voices of historically minoritised youth with suboptimal T1D control and their parents provide important, previously unreported experiences and perspectives on barriers and facilitators to using HCL that will shape interventions to improve equity in access to diabetes technology.

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

Background: Youth starting Omnipod 5 (OP5) can onboard with a diabetes educator or self-start with support from online, industry-provided educational modules. We compared glycemic control and pump interaction by training type among youth initiating OP5. Methods: This retrospective review included 297 youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) aged <22 years initiating OP5. We analyzed baseline continuous glucose monitor (CGM) data and pump and CGM data from the first 90 days of OP5 use. Multilevel mixed-effects regression assessed for changes in time in range (TIR) from baseline to 90 days by training type. Results: Of youth initiating OP5, 42.4% trained with a diabetes educator and 57.6% self-started. At baseline, self-starters had a longer T1D duration (5.0 (2.6,7.9) vs. 2.5 (1.3, 5.5) years, P = 0.001), more time <54 mg/dL (0.3% (0.1,1) vs. 0.15% (0,1), P = 0.01), and a higher coefficient of variation (40.2% (37, 44.4) vs. 38.7% (34.4, 42.4), P = 0.004). After 90 days of OP5 use, groups did not differ in time in automated mode or boluses per day. In a longitudinal model, after adjusting for baseline TIR and T1D duration, 90-day TIR was 10.5%-points higher (CI: 9.2-11.8, P < 0.0001), positively associated with baseline TIR (ß = 0.82, CI: 0.78-0.85, P < 0.0001), and 1.1%-points greater among self-starters (CI: 0.06-2.2; P = 0.04). Conclusions: After 90 days of OP5 use, glycemic control and pump interactions were minimally different between youth who self-started and those who trained with a diabetes educator. For youth at a tertiary care center previously using an Omnipod system, online educational modules offered by industry provide sufficient training for use.

Hybrid Closed Loop Systems Improve Glycemic Control and Quality of Life in Historically Minoritized Youth with Diabetes.

Background: We assessed changes in glycemic control and person-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology use among historically minoritized youth who are least likely to access hybrid closed loop (HCL) technology. Methods: This single-arm, prospective pilot study enrolled 15 publicly insured, insulin pump-naïve, non-Hispanic Black youth ages 6 to <21 years with type 1 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥10% in a 6-month study of HCL use. The primary outcome was absolute change in time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes included other continuous glucose monitor metrics, PROMs, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) incidence. Results: For 13 youth (median 14.8 years, 53.3% female, HbA1c 11.7%) who completed the study, baseline TIR of 12.3% (6.3-27.1%) increased 23.7%-points (16.9, 30.5%; P < 0.001) or 5.7 h per day. Percent time >250 mg/dL decreased 33.9%-points (-44.8, -23.1%; P < 0.001) or 8.1 h per day from a baseline of 69.4% (51.6, 84.0%). Median time in HCL was 78.3% (59.7, 87.3%). Youth received 10.1 (9.2, 11.9) boluses per day, 71.7% (63.8, 79.3%) of which were HCL-initiated autoboluses. Diabetes-specific quality of life increased among parents (P < 0.001) and youth (P = 0.004), and diabetes distress decreased in both groups (P < 0.001, P = 0.005). Improvements in glycemia did not correlate with any baseline youth or parent PROMs. DKA was high at baseline (67 episodes/100-person years) and did not increase during the intervention (72 episodes/100-person years, P = 0.78). Conclusion: Improvements in glycemic control and quality of life exceeding pivotal trial findings without increased safety risks among historically minoritized youth emphasize the need for equitable access to HCL systems. ClinicalTrials.gov: clinicaltrials.gov ID (NCT04807374).

Real-World Glycemic Outcomes with Early Omnipod 5 Use in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes.

Background: Pivotal trials of diabetes technologies have demonstrated glycemic improvements; however, these trials include patients of limited diversity and ranges of glycemic control. We assessed changes in glycemic control during the first 90 days of Omnipod 5 use in a real-world cohort of youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Youth 2-21 years with T1D initiating Omnipod 5 at two pediatric academic centers were included. Fourteen days of baseline (BL) continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data were compared against data from the first 90 days of Omnipod 5 use. Outcome measures included changes in time in range (TIR), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and CGM and insulin pump metrics based on the duration of Omnipod 5 use. Results: Among 195 youth (78.9% non-Hispanic White, 15.4% publicly insured, age 11.7 years, T1D duration 3.3 years) TIR increased 11%-points, from 49% to 61% (P < 0.001), and HbA1c decreased 0.5%-points, from 7.5% to 6.9% (P < 0.001). TIR improved within the first 9 days of Omnipod 5 use (p < 0.001) and did not change significantly thereafter (P = 0.1) despite decreases in user-initiated boluses (5.1 vs. 5.0, P = 0.01) and carbohydrate entries (4.2 vs. 4.1, P = 0.005) from days 1-9 to days 1-90. TIR improved 15%-points among youth with BL TIR <60% compared to a 5%-point increase for youth with BL TIR ≥60% (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Glycemic control improved within 9 days of Omnipod 5 initiation in this real-world cohort, and improvements were sustained over the first 90 days of use despite concomitant decreases in user-initiated boluses. These improvements were comparable to those observed in the pivotal trial.

Differences in positive expectancy of hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems do not explain racial differences in HCL use.

Aims: Hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems improve glycemia and quality of life among youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D), however there are inequities in use. We aimed to evaluate whether differences in positive expectancy of HCL systems may explain differences in use. Methods: Fifteen publicly-insured, non-Hispanic Black (NHB) youth with hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) ≥ 10% enrolled in a study exploring changes in glycemia and person reported outcomes (PRO) during 6 months of Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology. At baseline youth and parents completed PROs, including Insulin Delivery Systems: Perceptions, Ideas, Reflections and Expectations (INSPIRE) survey assessing positive expectancy of HCL use, and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) survey assessing diabetes-related distress. Differences between this cohort and the Tandem Control-IQ pediatric pivotal trial (DCLP5) cohort were assessed. Results: As compared to the DCLP5 cohort (0% NHB, 10% publicly-insured), baseline glycemic indicators were suboptimal (MHbA1c 11.9 ± 1.4% vs 7.6 ± 0.9%, p < 0.0001; continuous glucose monitor (CGM) time-above-range > 180 mg/dL 82 ± 15% vs 45 ± 18%, p < 0.0001). INSPIRE scores in both cohorts were equally high among youth (80 ± 10 vs 77 ± 13, p = 0.41) and parents (88 ± 14 vs 85 ± 11, p = 0.37). PAID scores were higher among parents (68 ± 19 vs 43 ± 16, p < 0.0001), but not youth (43 ± 16 vs 35 ± 16, p = 0.09) in the historically marginalized cohort as compared to the DCLP5 cohort. Conclusions: Despite differences in glycemic control and diabetes related burden, positive expectancy of HCL systems is comparable among historically marginalized youth with T1D and the predominantly non-Hispanic White, privately insured DCLP5 cohort. These findings suggest that differences in perceptions of HCL technology may not explain inequities in use.