Sustained 3-Year Improvement of Glucose Control With Hybrid Closed Loop in Children With Type 1 Diabetes While Going Through Puberty.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of prolonged hybrid closed loop (HCL) use in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) on glucose control and BMI throughout pubertal progression. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used a prospective multicenter extension study following the Free-Life Kid AP (FLKAP) HCL trial. The 9-month previously reported FLKAP trial included 119 prepubertal children (aged 6-12 years). During the extension study, participants could continue to use HCL for 30 months (M9 to M39). HbA1c values were collected every 3 months up to M39, while continuous glucose monitoring metrics, BMI Z scores, and Tanner stages were collected up to M24. Noninferiority tests were performed to assess parameter sustainability over time. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen children completed the extension study, with mean age 10.1 years (min-max 6.8-14.0) at the beginning. Improvement of HbA1c obtained in the FLKAP trial was significantly sustained during extension (median [interquartile range], M9: 7.0% [6.8-7.4], and M39: 7.0% [6.6-7.4], P < 0.0001 for noninferiority test) and did not differ between children who entered puberty at M24 (Tanner ≥ stage 2; 54% of the patients) and patients who remained prepubertal. BMI Z score also remained stable (M9: 0.41 [-0.29 to 1.13] and M24: 0.48 [-0.11 to 1.13], P < 0.0001, for noninferiority test). No severe hypoglycemia and one ketoacidosis episode not related to the HCL system occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged use of HCL can safely and effectively mitigate impairment of glucose control usually associated with pubertal progression without impact on BMI in children with T1D.

Use of diabetes technology in children.

Children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers face numerous challenges navigating the unpredictability of this complex disease. Although the burden of managing diabetes remains significant, new technology has eased some of the load and allowed children with type 1 diabetes to achieve tighter glycaemic management without fear of excess hypoglycaemia. Continuous glucose monitor use alone improves outcomes and is considered standard of care for paediatric type 1 diabetes management. Similarly, automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have proven to be safe and effective for children as young as 2 years of age. AID use improves not only blood glucose levels but also quality of life for children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers and should be strongly considered for all youth with type 1 diabetes if available and affordable. Here, we review key data on the use of diabetes technology in the paediatric population and discuss management issues unique to children and adolescents.

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) and user experiences of young children with type 1 diabetes using t:slim X2 insulin pump with control-IQ technology.

OBJECTIVE: Examine patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after the use of t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology (CIQ) in young children with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Children with type 1 diabetes, ages 2 to < 6 years (n = 102), were randomly assigned 2:1 to either CIQ or standard care (SC) with pump or multiple daily injections (MDI) plus continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for 13 weeks. Both groups were offered to use CIQ for an additional 13 weeks after the randomized control trial's (RCT) completion. Guardians completed PRO questionnaires at baseline, 13-, and 26-weeks examining hypoglycemia concerns, quality of life, parenting stress, and sleep. At 26 weeks, 28 families participated in user-experience interviews. Repeated measures analyses compared PRO scores between systems used. RESULT: Comparing CIQ vs SC, responses on all 5 PRO surveys favored the CIQ group, showing that CIQ was superior to SC at 26 weeks (p values < 0.05). User-experience interviews indicated significant benefits in optimized glycemic control overall and nighttime control (28 of 28 families endorsed). All but 2/28 families noted substantial reduction in management burden resulting in less mental burden and all but 4 stated that they wanted their children to continue using CIQ. CONCLUSIONS: Families utilizing CIQ experienced glycemic benefits coupled with substantial benefits in PROs, documented in surveys and interviews. Families utilizing CIQ had reduced hypoglycemia concerns and parenting stress, and improved quality of life and sleep. These findings demonstrate the benefit of CIQ in young children with type 1 diabetes that goes beyond documented glycemic benefit.

Integration of a Safety Module to Prevent Rebound Hypoglycemia in Closed-Loop Artificial Pancreas Systems.

BACKGROUND: With automated insulin delivery (AID) systems becoming widely adopted in the management of type 1 diabetes, we have seen an increase in occurrences of rebound hypoglycemia or generated hypoglycemia induced by the controller's response to rapid glucose rises following rescue carbohydrates. Furthermore, as AID systems aim to enable complete automation of prandial control, algorithms are designed to react even more strongly to glycemic rises. This work introduces a rebound hypoglycemia prevention layer (HypoSafe) that can be easily integrated into any AID system. METHODS: HypoSafe constrains the maximum permissible insulin delivery dose based on the minimum glucose reading from the previous hour and the current glucose level. To demonstrate its efficacy, we integrated HypoSafe into the latest University of Virginia (UVA) AID system and simulated two scenarios using the 100-adult cohort of the UVA/Padova T1D simulator: a nominal case including three unannounced meals, and another case where hypoglycemia was purposely induced by an overestimated manual bolus. RESULTS: In both simulation scenarios, rebound hypoglycemia events were reduced with HypoSafe (nominal: from 39 to 0, hypo-induced: from 55 to 7) by attenuating the commanded basal (nominal: 0.27U vs. 0.04U, hypo-induced: 0.27U vs. 0.03U) and bolus (nominal: 1.02U vs. 0.05U, hypo-induced: 0.43U vs. 0.02U) within the 30-minute interval after treating a hypoglycemia event. No clinically significant changes resulted for time in the range of 70 to 180 mg/dL or above 180 mg/dL. CONCLUSION: HypoSafe was shown to be effective in reducing rebound hypoglycemia events without affecting achieved time in range when combined with an advanced AID system.

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Improving Glycemic Control in Diabetes: Best Practices, Pitfalls, and Opportunities.

OBJECTIVE: Artificial intelligence and machine learning are transforming many fields including medicine. In diabetes, robust biosensing technologies and automated insulin delivery therapies have created a substantial opportunity to improve health. While the number of manuscripts addressing the topic of applying machine learning to diabetes has grown in recent years, there has been a lack of consistency in the methods, metrics, and data used to train and evaluate these algorithms. This manuscript provides consensus guidelines for machine learning practitioners in the field of diabetes, including best practice recommended approaches and warnings about pitfalls to avoid. METHODS: Algorithmic approaches are reviewed and benefits of different algorithms are discussed including importance of clinical accuracy, explainability, interpretability, and personalization. We review the most common features used in machine learning applications in diabetes glucose control and provide an open-source library of functions for calculating features, as well as a framework for specifying data sets using data sheets. A review of current data sets available for training algorithms is provided as well as an online repository of data sources. SIGNIFICANCE: These consensus guidelines are designed to improve performance and translatability of new machine learning algorithms developed in the field of diabetes for engineers and data scientists.

Performance Effect of Adjusting Insulin Sensitivity for Model-Based Automated Insulin Delivery Systems.

BACKGROUND: Model predictive control (MPC) has become one of the most popular control strategies for automated insulin delivery (AID) in type 1 diabetes (T1D). These algorithms rely on a prediction model to determine the best insulin dosing every sampling time. Although these algorithms have been shown to be safe and effective for glucose management through clinical trials, managing the ever-fluctuating relationship between insulin delivery and resulting glucose uptake (aka insulin sensitivity, IS) remains a challenge. We aim to evaluate the effect of informing an AID system with IS on the performance of the system. METHOD: The University of Virginia (UVA) MPC control-based hybrid closed-loop (HCL) and fully closed-loop (FCL) system was used. One-day simulations at varying levels of IS were run with the UVA/Padova T1D Simulator. The AID system was informed with an estimated value of IS obtained through a mixed meal glucose tolerance test. Relevant controller parameters are updated to inform insulin dosing of IS. Performance of the HCL/FCL system with and without information of the changing IS was assessed using a novel performance metric penalizing the time outside the target glucose range. RESULTS: Feedback in AID systems provides a certain degree tolerance to changes in IS. However, IS-informed bolus and basal dosing improve glycemic outcomes, providing increased protection against hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia according to the individual's physiological state. CONCLUSIONS: The proof-of-concept analysis presented here shows the potentially beneficial effects on system performance of informing the AID system with accurate estimates of IS. In particular, when considering reduced IS, the informed controller provides increased protection against hyperglycemia compared with the naïve controller. Similarly, reduced hypoglycemia is obtained for situations with increased IS. Further tailoring of the adaptation schemes proposed in this work is needed to overcome the increased hypoglycemia observed in the more resistant cases and to optimize the performance of the adaptation method.

Safety and Efficacy of Sustained Automated Insulin Delivery Compared With Sensor and Pump Therapy in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes at High Risk for Hypoglycemia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the safety and efficacy of automated insulin delivery (AID) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) at high risk for hypoglycemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants were 72 adults with T1D who used an insulin pump with Clarke Hypoglycemia Perception Awareness scale score >3 and/or had severe hypoglycemia during the previous 6 months confirmed by time below range (TBR; defined as sensor glucose [SG] reading <70 mg/dL) of at least 5% during 2 weeks of blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Parallel-arm, randomized trial (2:1) of AID (Tandem t:slim ×2 with Control-IQ technology) versus CGM and pump therapy for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was TBR change from baseline. Secondary outcomes included time in target range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL), time above range (TAR), mean SG reading, and time with glucose level <54 mg/dL. An optional 12-week extension with AID was offered to all participants. RESULTS: Compared with the sensor and pump (S&P), AID resulted in significant reduction of TBR by -3.7% (95% CI -4.8, -2.6), P < 0.001; an 8.6% increase in TIR (95% CI 5.2, 12.1), P < 0.001; and a -5.3% decrease in TAR (95% CI -87.7, -1.8), P = 0.004. Mean SG reading remained similar in the AID and S&P groups. During the 12-week extension, the effects of AID were sustained in the AID group and reproduced in the S&P group. Two severe hypoglycemic episodes occurred using AID. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with T1D at high risk for hypoglycemia, AID reduced the risk for hypoglycemia more than twofold, as quantified by TBR, while improving TIR and reducing hyperglycemia. Hence, AID is strongly recommended for this specific population.

Therapy Settings Associated with Optimal Outcomes for t:slim X2 with Control-IQ Technology in Real-World Clinical Care.

Objective: To determine insulin dosing parameters that are associated with and predict optimal outcomes for people using t:slim X2 with Control-IQ technology (CIQ). Methods: Retrospective deidentified data from CIQ users were analyzed to determine the effect of Correction Factor, Carbohydrate-to-Insulin (C:I) Ratio, and basal rate settings (standardized by total daily insulin [TDI]) on glycemic control. We performed an associative analysis followed by linear regressions to determine the relative importance of the settings and confounding variables (e.g., age or number of user-initiated boluses) in predicting consensus glycemic outcomes. Results: Data from 20,764 individuals were analyzed (median age 39 years [interquartile range 19, 59], 55% female, TDI 46.4 U [33-65.2]). More aggressive Correction Factor settings, C:I ratio settings, and basal programs were all strongly associated with higher time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) and to a lesser degree to higher time <70 mg/dL. In linear regression, more aggressive Correction Factor predicted higher TIR, lower coefficient of variation, and importantly had only negligible impact on time below range. Higher basal rate settings and lower C:I ratio predicted increased TIR as well as increased hypoglycemia. The most important predictor in all glycemic outcomes was the average number of user-given boluses per day. Conclusion: Basal rates, C:I ratios, and Correction Factor settings all impact glycemic outcomes in CIQ users in usual clinical care. The correction Factor setting may be the most impactful "lever to pull" for clinicians and CIQ users to optimize TIR while not increasing hypoglycemia.

Assessment of Meal Anticipation for Improving Fully Automated Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Meals are a consistent challenge to glycemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Our objective was to assess the glycemic impact of meal anticipation within a fully automated insulin delivery (AID) system among adults with T1D. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We report the results of a randomized crossover clinical trial comparing three modalities of AID systems: hybrid closed loop (HCL), full closed loop (FCL), and full closed loop with meal anticipation (FCL+). Modalities were tested during three supervised 24-h admissions, where breakfast, lunch, and dinner were consumed per participant's home schedule, at a fixed time, and with a 1.5-h delay, respectively. Primary outcome was the percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) during the breakfast postprandial period for FCL+ versus FCL. RESULTS: Thirty-five adults with T1D (age 44.5 ± 15.4 years; HbA1c 6.7 ± 0.9%; n = 23 women and n = 12 men) were randomly assigned. TIR for the 5-h period after breakfast was 75 ± 23%, 58 ± 21%, and 63 ± 19% for HCL, FCL, and FCL+, respectively, with no significant difference between FCL+ and FCL. For the 2 h before dinner, time below range (TBR) was similar for FCL and FCL+. For the 5-h period after dinner, TIR was similar for FCL+ and FCL (71 ± 34% vs. 72 ± 29%; P = 1.0), whereas TBR was reduced in FCL+ (median 0% [0-0%] vs. 0% [0-0.8%]; P = 0.03). Overall, 24-h control for HCL, FCL, and FCL+ was 86 ± 10%, 77 ± 11%, and 77 ± 12%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although postprandial control remained optimal with hybrid AID, both fully AID solutions offered overall TIR >70% with similar or lower exposure to hypoglycemia. Anticipation did not significantly improve postprandial control in AID systems but also did not increase hypoglycemic risk when meals were delayed.

Predicting Immunological Risk for Stage 1 and Stage 2 Diabetes Using a 1-Week CGM Home Test, Nocturnal Glucose Increments, and Standardized Liquid Mixed Meal Breakfasts, with Classification Enhanced by Machine Learning.

Background: Predicting the risk for type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a significant challenge. We use a 1-week continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) home test to characterize differences in glycemia in at-risk healthy individuals based on autoantibody presence and develop a machine-learning technology for CGM-based islet autoantibody classification. Methods: Sixty healthy relatives of people with T1D with mean ± standard deviation age of 23.7 ± 10.7 years, HbA1c of 5.3% ± 0.3%, and body mass index of 23.8 ± 5.6 kg/m2 with zero (n = 21), one (n = 18), and ≥2 (n = 21) autoantibodies were enrolled in an National Institutes of Health TrialNet ancillary study. Participants wore a CGM for a week and consumed three standardized liquid mixed meals (SLMM) instead of three breakfasts. Glycemic outcomes were computed from weekly, overnight (12:00-06:00), and post-SLMM CGM traces, compared across groups, and used in four supervised machine-learning autoantibody status classifiers. Classifiers were evaluated through 10-fold cross-validation using the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC-ROC) to select the best classification model. Results: Among all computed glycemia metrics, only three were different across the autoantibodies groups: percent time >180 mg/dL (T180) weekly (P = 0.04), overnight CGM incremental AUC (P = 0.005), and T180 for 75 min post-SLMM CGM traces (P = 0.004). Once overnight and post-SLMM features are incorporated in machine-learning classifiers, a linear support vector machine model achieved the best performance of classifying autoantibody positive versus autoantibody negative participants with AUC-ROC ≥0.81. Conclusion: A new technology combining machine learning with a potentially self-administered 1-week CGM home test can help improve T1D risk detection without the need to visit a hospital or use a medical laboratory. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT02663661.

A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trial Outcomes for the t:slim X2 Insulin Pump with Control-IQ Technology in Youth and Adults from Age 2 to 72.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of hybrid-closed loop Control-IQ technology (Control-IQ) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in subgroups based on baseline characteristics such as race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), prestudy insulin delivery modality (pump or multiple daily injections), and baseline glycemic control. Methods: Data were pooled and analyzed from 3 RCTs comparing Control-IQ to a Control group using continuous glucose monitoring in 369 participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D) from age 2 to 72 years old. Results: Time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) in the Control-IQ group (n = 256) increased from 57% ± 17% at baseline to 70% ± 11% during follow-up, and in the Control group (n = 113) was 56% ± 15% and 57% ± 14%, respectively (adjusted treatment group difference = 11.5%, 95% confidence interval +9.7% to +13.2%, P < 0.001), an increase of 2.8 h/day on average. Significant reductions in mean glucose, hyperglycemia metrics, hypoglycemic metrics, and HbA1c were also observed. A statistically similar beneficial treatment effect on time in range 70-180 mg/dL was observed across the full age range irrespective of race-ethnicity, household income, prestudy continuous glucose monitor use, or prestudy insulin delivery method. Participants with the highest baseline HbA1c levels showed the greatest improvements in TIR and HbA1c. Conclusion: This pooled analysis of Control-IQ RCTs demonstrates the beneficial effect of Control-IQ in T1D across a broad spectrum of participant characteristics, including racial-ethnic minority, lower SES, lack of prestudy insulin pump experience, and high HbA1c levels. The greatest benefit was observed in participants with the worst baseline glycemic control in whom the auto-bolus feature of the Control-IQ algorithm appears to have substantial impact. Since no subgroups were identified that did not benefit from Control-IQ, hybrid-closed loop technology should be strongly considered for all youth and adults with T1D. Clinical Trials Registry: clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03563313, NCT03844789, and NCT04796779.

Hybrid Closed Loop Overcomes the Impact of Missed or Suboptimal Meal Boluses on Glucose Control in Children with Type 1 Diabetes Compared to Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy.

Background: It is unclear whether hybrid closed-loop (HCL) therapy attenuates the metabolic impact of missed or suboptimal meal insulin bolus compared with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy in children with type 1 diabetes in free-living conditions. Methods: This is an ancillary study from a multicenter randomized controlled trial that compared 24/7 HCL with evening and night (E/N) HCL for 36 weeks in children between 6 and 12 years old. In the present study, the 60 children from the E/N arm underwent a SAP phase, an E/N HCL for 18 weeks, then a 24/7 phase for 18 weeks, extended for 36 more weeks. The last 28-30 days of each of the four phases were analyzed according to meal bolus management (cumulated 6817 days). The primary endpoint was the percentage of time that the sensor glucose was in the target range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) according to the number of missed boluses per day. Findings: TIR was 54% ± 10% with SAP, 63% ± 7% with E/N HCL, and steadily 67% ± 7% with 24/7 HCL. From the SAP phase to 72 weeks of HCL, the percentage of days with at least one missed meal bolus increased from 12% to 22%. Estimated marginal (EM) mean TIR when no bolus was missed was 54% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 53-56) in SAP and it was 13% higher (95% CI 11-15) in the 24/7 HCL phase. EM mean TIR with 1 and ≥2 missed boluses/day was 49.5% (95% CI 46-52) and 45% (95% CI 39-51) in SAP, and it was 15% (95% CI 14-16) and 17% higher (95% CI 6-28), respectively, in the 24/7 HCL phase (P < 0.05 for all comparisons vs. SAP). Interpretation: HCL persistently improves glycemic control compared with SAP, even in case of meal bolus omission. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03739099).

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.).

Maximizing Glycemic Benefits of Using Faster Insulin Formulations in Type 1 Diabetes: In Silico Analysis Under Open- and Closed-Loop Conditions.

Background: Ultrarapid-acting insulin analogs that could improve or even prevent postprandial hyperglycemia are now available for both research and clinical care. However, clear glycemic benefits remain elusive, especially when combined with automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. In this work, we study two insulin formulations in silico and highlight adjustments of both open-loop and closed-loop insulin delivery therapies as a critical step to achieve clinically meaningful improvements. Methods: Subcutaneous insulin transport models for two faster analogs, Fiasp (Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark) and AT247 (Arecor, Saffron Walden, United Kingdom), were identified using data collected from prior clamp experiments, and integrated into the UVA/Padova type 1 diabetes simulator (adult cohort, N = 100). Pump therapy parameters and the aggressiveness of our full closed-loop algorithm were adapted to the new insulin pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles through a sequence of in silico studies. Finally, we assessed these analogs' glycemic impact with and without modified therapy parameters in simulated conditions designed to match clinical trial data. Results: Simply switching to faster insulin analogs shows limited improvements in glycemic outcomes. However, when insulin acceleration is accompanied by therapy adaptation, clinical significance is found comparing time-in-range (70-180 mg/dL) with Aspart versus AT247 in open-loop (+5.1%); and Aspart versus Fiasp (+5.4%) or AT247 (+10.6%) in full closed-loop with no clinically significant differences in the exposure to hypoglycemia. Conclusion: In silico results suggest that properly adjusting intensive insulin therapy profiles, or AID tuning, to faster insulin analogs is necessary to obtain clinically significant improvements in glucose control.

A Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) of Hypoglycemia and Hyperglycemia for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Validated by Clinician Ratings.

BACKGROUND: A composite metric for the quality of glycemia from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) tracings could be useful for assisting with basic clinical interpretation of CGM data. METHODS: We assembled a data set of 14-day CGM tracings from 225 insulin-treated adults with diabetes. Using a balanced incomplete block design, 330 clinicians who were highly experienced with CGM analysis and interpretation ranked the CGM tracings from best to worst quality of glycemia. We used principal component analysis and multiple regressions to develop a model to predict the clinician ranking based on seven standard metrics in an Ambulatory Glucose Profile: very low-glucose and low-glucose hypoglycemia; very high-glucose and high-glucose hyperglycemia; time in range; mean glucose; and coefficient of variation. RESULTS: The analysis showed that clinician rankings depend on two components, one related to hypoglycemia that gives more weight to very low-glucose than to low-glucose and the other related to hyperglycemia that likewise gives greater weight to very high-glucose than to high-glucose. These two components should be calculated and displayed separately, but they can also be combined into a single Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia (r = 0.95). The GRI can be displayed graphically on a GRI Grid with the hypoglycemia component on the horizontal axis and the hyperglycemia component on the vertical axis. Diagonal lines divide the graph into five zones (quintiles) corresponding to the best (0th to 20th percentile) to worst (81st to 100th percentile) overall quality of glycemia. The GRI Grid enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals. CONCLUSION: The GRI is a single-number summary of the quality of glycemia. Its hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia components provide actionable scores and a graphical display (the GRI Grid) that can be used by clinicians and researchers to determine the glycemic effects of prescribed and investigational treatments.

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.

Adjusting Therapy Profiles When Switching to Ultra-Rapid Lispro in an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System: An in Silico Study.

BACKGROUND: It has been shown that insulin acceleration by itself might not be sufficient to see clear improvements in glycemic metrics, and insulin therapy may need to be adjusted to fully leverage the extra safety margin provided by faster pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles. The objective of this work is to explore how to perform such adjustments on a commercially available automated insulin delivery (AID) system. METHODS: Ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) is modeled within the UVA/Padova simulation platform using data from previously published clamp studies. The Control-IQ AID algorithm is selected as it leverages carbohydrate-to-insulin ratio (CR in g/U), correction factor (CF in mg/dL/U), and basal rate (BR in U/h) daily profiles that are fully customizable. An experiment roadmap is proposed to understand how to safely modify these profiles when switching from lispro to URLi. RESULTS: Simulations show that a 7% decrease in CR (approximately an 8% increase in prandial insulin) and a 7.5% increase in BR lead to cumulative improvements in glucose control with URLi. Comparing with baseline metrics using lispro, a clinically significant increase in time in the range of 70 to 180 mg/dL (overall: 70.2%-75.2%, P < .001; 6 am-12 am: 62.4%-68.5%, P < .001) and a reduction in time below 70 mg/dL (overall: 1.8%-1.2%, P < .001; 6 am-12 am: 1.8%-1.3%, P < .001) were observed. CONCLUSION: Properly adjusting therapy parameters allows to fully leverage glucose control benefits provided by faster insulin analogues, opening opportunities to take another step forward into a next generation of more effective AID solutions.

Insulin Replacement Across the Menstrual Cycle in Women with Type 1 Diabetes: An In Silico Assessment of the Need for Ad Hoc Technology.

Background: Women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) of fertile age may experience fluctuations in insulin needs across the menstrual cycle. When present, these fluctuations complicate glucose management and oftentimes worsen glycemic control. In this work, an in silico analysis was conducted to assess whether current technology is sufficient to handle changes in insulin needs due to the menstrual cycle in women with T1D. Methods: Euglycemic clamp studies were performed in 16 women with T1D in the follicular phase (FP) and luteal phase (LP) of the menstrual cycle. Interphase insulin sensitivity (IS) variability observed in the data was modeled and introduced in the University of Virginia/Padova T1D Simulator. Open-loop and closed-loop insulin delivery was tested in two in silico studies, without (nominal study) and with (informed study) a priori knowledge on cycle-related IS variability informing insulin therapy. Glycemic metrics were computed on the obtained glucose traces. Results: In the pool of studied women, the glucose infusion rate area under the curve significantly decreased from FP to LP (P = 0.0107), indicating an average decrease of IS in LP. When introduced in the simulator, this pattern led to increased time spent >180 and >250 mg/dL during LP versus FP in the nominal studies, irrespective of the insulin delivery strategy. In the informed studies, glycemic metrics stabilized across the cycle. Conclusion: This work suggests that current insulin delivery technology may benefit from informing the dosing algorithm with knowledge on menstrual cycle related IS changes. Clinical validation of these results is warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02693938.