Diabetes technology & therapeutics最新文献

Objective: To evaluate postprandial glucose control when applying (1) faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) compared to insulin aspart and (2) ultra-rapid insulin lispro (Lyumjev) compared to insulin lispro using the CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop algorithm. Research Design and Methods: We undertook a secondary analysis of postprandial glucose excursions from two double-blind, randomized, crossover hybrid closed-loop studies contrasting Fiasp to standard insulin aspart, and Lyumjev to standard insulin lispro. Endpoints included incremental area under curve (iAUC)-2h, iAUC-4h, 4 h postprandial time in target range, time above range, and time below range. It was approved by independent research ethics committees. Results: Two trials with 8 weeks of data from 51 adults with type 1 diabetes were analyzed and 7137 eligible meals were included. During Lyumjev compared with insulin lispro, iAUC-2h and iAUC-4h were significantly decreased following breakfast (mean difference 92 mmol/L per 2 h (95% confidence interval [CI]: 56 to 127); P < 0.001 and 151 mmol/L per 4 h (95% CI: 74 to 229); P < 0.001, respectively) and the evening meal (P < 0.001 and P = 0.011, respectively). Mean time in target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) for 4 h postprandially significantly increased during Lyumjev with a mean difference of 6.7 percentage points (95% CI: 3.3 to 10) and 5.7 percentage points (95% CI: 1.4 to 9.9) for breakfast and evening meal, respectively. In contrast, there were no significant differences in iAUC-2h, iAUC-4h, and the other measures of postprandial glucose control between insulin aspart and Fiasp during breakfast, lunch, and evening meal (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The use of Lyumjev with CamAPS FX closed-loop system improved postprandial glucose excursions compared with insulin lispro, while the use of Fiasp did not provide any advantage compared with insulin aspart. Clinical Trial Registration numbers: NCT04055480, NCT05257460.

Aim: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a prediction model based on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data to identify a week-to-week risk profile of excessive hypoglycemia. Methods: We analyzed, trained, and internally tested two prediction models using CGM data from 205 type 1 diabetes patients with long-term CGM monitoring. A binary classification approach (XGBoost) combined with feature engineering deployed on the CGM signals was utilized to predict excessive hypoglycemia risk defined by two targets (time below range [TBR] >4% and the upper TBR 90th percentile limit) of TBR the following week. The models were validated in two independent cohorts with a total of 253 additional patients. Results: A total of 61,470 weeks of CGM data were included in the analysis. The XGBoost models had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) of 0.83-0.87 (95% confidence interval; 0.83-0.88) in the test dataset. The external validation showed ROC-AUCs of 0.81-0.90. The most discriminative features included the low blood glucose index, the glycemic risk assessment diabetes equation (GRADE), hypoglycemia, the TBR, waveform length, the coefficient of variation and mean glucose during the previous week. This highlights that the pattern of hypoglycemia combined with glucose variability during the past week contains information on the risk of future hypoglycemia. Conclusion: Prediction models based on real-world CGM data can be used to predict the risk of hypoglycemia in the forthcoming week. The models showed good performance in both the internal and external validation cohorts.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of missed or late meal boluses (MLBs) on glycemic outcomes in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. Research Design and Methods: AID-treated (Tandem Control-IQ or Medtronic MiniMed 780G) children and adolescents (aged 6-21 years) from Stanford Medical Center and Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen with ≥10 days of data were included in this two-center, binational, population-based, retrospective, 1-month cohort study. The primary outcome was the association between the number of algorithm-detected MLBs and time in target glucose range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL). Results: The study included 189 children and adolescents (48% females with a mean ± standard deviation age of 13 ± 4 years). Overall, the mean number of MLBs per day in the cohort was 2.2 ± 0.9. For each additional MLB per day, TIR decreased by 9.7% points (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.3; 8.1), and compared with the quartile with fewest MLBs (Q₁), the quartile with most (Q₄) had 22.9% less TIR (95% CI: 27.2; 18.6). The age-, sex-, and treatment modality-adjusted probability of achieving a TIR of >70% in Q₄ was 1.4% compared with 74.8% in Q₁ (P < 0.001). Conclusions: MLBs significantly impacted glycemic outcomes in AID-treated children and adolescents. The results emphasize the importance of maintaining a focus on bolus behavior to achieve a higher TIR and support the need for further research in technological or behavioral support tools to handle MLBs.

Aims: The objective of this real-world, observational study was to evaluate change in continuing glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics for 1 year after CGM initiation in adults with noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: Data were analyzed from Dexcom G6 and G7 users who self-reported: T2D, ≥18 years, gender, no insulin use, and had a baseline percent time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL of ≤70%. Outcomes were change in CGM metrics from baseline to 6 and 12 months overall and for younger (<65 years) and older (≥65 years) cohorts. Additional analyses explored the relationship between use of the high alert feature and change in TIR and time in tight range (TITR) 70-140 mg/dL. Results: CGM users (n = 3,840) were mean (SD) 52.5 (11.2) years, 47.9% female, mean TIR was 41.7% (21.4%), and 12.4% of participants were ≥65 years. Significant improvement in all CGM metrics not meeting target values at baseline was observed at 6 months, with continued improvement at 12 months. Mean baseline TIR increased by 17.3% (32.1%) from 41.7% (21.4%) to 59.0% (28.9%), and mean glucose management indicator decreased by 0.5% (1.2%) from 8.1% (0.9%) to 7.6% (1.1%) (both P < 0.001). Participants who maintained or customized the high alert default setting of 250 mg/dL had a greater increase in TIR and TITR compared with participants who disabled the alert. Days of CGM use over 12 months were high in 84.7% (15.9%). Conclusion: In this large, real-world study of adults with suboptimally controlled T2D not using insulin, Dexcom CGM use was associated with meaningful improvements in glycemic control over 12 months. Use of the high alert system feature was positively associated with glycemic outcomes. High use of CGM over 12 months suggests benefits related to consistent CGM use in this population.

Aim: To evaluate the evolution of glycemic outcomes in patients living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) after 1 year of use of the MiniMed 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system. Methods: We conducted an observational, retrospective, multicentric study in 20 centers in France. The primary objective was to evaluate the improvement in glycemic control after 1-year use of AHCL. The primary endpoint was the variation of time in range (TIR) between pre-AHCL and after 1-year use of AHCL. Secondary objectives were to analyze the glycemic outcomes after 3, 6, and 12 months of AHCL use, the safety, and the long-term observance of AHCL. Results: Two hundred twenty patients were included, and 200 were analyzed for the primary endpoint. 92.7% of patients continued to use AHCL. After 1 year of use of AHCL, TIR was 72.5% ± 10.6% (+9.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] [7.6-10.5] compared to pre-AHCL initiation, P < 0.001), HbA1c 7.1% ± 0.7% (-0.5%; 95% CI [-0.6 to -0.4]; P < 0.001), time below range 2.0% [1.0; 3.0] (0.0% [-2.0; 0.0], P < 0.001), and time above range 24.8% ± 10.9% (-7.3%; 95% CI [-8.8 to -5.7]; P < 0.001). More patients achieved the glycemic treatment goals of HbA1c <7.0% (45.1% vs. 18.1%, P < 0.001) and TIR >70% (59.0% vs. 29.5% P < 0.001) when compared with pre-AHCL. Five patients experienced severe hypoglycemia events and two patients experienced ketoacidosis. Conclusion: After 1 year of use of AHCL, people living with T1D safely improved their glucose control and a higher proportion of them achieved optimal glycemic control.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) is now integral to the clinical practice of type 1 diabetes (T1D). The objective of this pilot-feasibility study was to introduce a new regulatory and clinical paradigm-a Neural-Net Artificial Pancreas (NAP)-an encoding of an AID algorithm into a neural network that approximates its action and assess NAP versus the original AID algorithm. Methods: The University of Virginia Model-Predictive Control (UMPC) algorithm was encoded into a neural network, creating its NAP approximation. Seventeen AID users with T1D were recruited and 15 participated in two consecutive 20-h hotel sessions, receiving in random order either NAP or UMPC. Their demographic characteristics were ages 22-68 years old, duration of diabetes 7-58 years, gender 10/5 female/male, White Non-Hispanic/Black 13/2, and baseline glycated hemoglobin 5.4%-8.1%. Results: The time-in-range (TIR) difference between NAP and UMPC, adjusted for entry glucose level, was 1 percentage point, with absolute TIR values of 86% (NAP) and 87% (UMPC). The two algorithms achieved similar times <70 mg/dL of 2.0% versus 1.8% and coefficients of variation of 29.3% (NAP) versus 29.1 (UMPC)%. Under identical inputs, the average absolute insulin-recommendation difference was 0.031 U/h. There were no serious adverse events on either controller. NAP had sixfold lower computational demands than UMPC. Conclusion: In a randomized crossover study, a neural-network encoding of a complex model-predictive control algorithm demonstrated similar performance, at a fraction of the computational demands. Regulatory and clinical doors are therefore open for contemporary machine-learning methods to enter the AID field. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT05876273.

Introduction and Objective: Most patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the United States are overweight (OW) or obese (OB), contributing to insulin resistance and suboptimal glucose control. The primary Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for T1D is insulin, which may adversely affect weight. Tirzepatide is approved for managing type 2 diabetes, improves glucose control, facilitates weight loss, and improves cardiovascular disease outcomes. We assessed the use of tirzepatide in OW/OB subjects with T1D. Methods: This was a retrospective single-center real-world study in 62 OW/OB adult patients with T1D who were prescribed tirzepatide (treated group) and followed for 1 year. At least 3 months of use of tirzepatide was one of the inclusion criteria. Based on the inclusion criteria, this study represents 62 patients out of 184 prescribed tirzepatide. The control group included 37 OW/OB patients with T1D (computer frequency matched by age, duration of diabetes, gender, body mass index (BMI), and glucose control) who were not using any other weight-loss medications during the same period. The mean (±standard deviation [SD]) dose of weekly tirzepatide at 3 months was 5.6 ± 1.9 mg that increased to 9.7 ± 3.3 mg at 1 year. Results: The gender, mean baseline age, duration of diabetes, and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were similar in the two groups, whereas BMI and weight were higher in the treated group. There were significantly larger declines in BMI and weight in the treated group than in controls across all time points among those in whom data were available. HbA1c decreased in the treated group as early as 3 months and was sustained through a 1-year follow-up (-0.67% at 1 year). As expected, insulin dose decreased at 3 months and throughout the study period. There were no reported hospitalizations from severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis. The mean glucose, time-in-range, time-above-range, SD, and coefficient of variation (continuous glucose monitoring metrics) significantly improved in the treated group. Conclusions: In this pilot (off label) study, we conclude that tirzepatide facilitated an average 18.5% weight loss (>46 pounds) and improved glucose control in OW/OB patients with T1D at 1 year. For safe use of tirzepatide in patients with T1D, we strongly recommend a large prospective randomized control trial in OW/OB patients with T1D.

Background: We used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data to investigate glycemic outcomes in a real-world population with type 1 diabetes (T1D) from South Korea, where the widespread use of CGM and the nationwide education program began almost simultaneously. Methods: Data from Dexcom G6 users with T1D in South Korea were collected between January 2019 and January 2023. Users were included if they provided at least 90 days of glucose data and used CGM at least 70% of the days in the investigational period. The relationship between CGM utilization and glycemic metrics, including the percentage of time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR), and time above range (TAR), was assessed. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Samsung Medical Center (SMC 2023-05-030). Results: A total of 2288 users were included. Mean age was 41.5 years (57% female), with average uploads of 428 days. Mean TIR was 62.4% ± 18.5%, mean TBR <70 mg/dL was 2.6% ± 2.8%, mean TAR >180 mg/dL was 35.0% ± 19.3%, mean glucose was 168.1 ± 35.8 mg/dL, mean glucose management indicator was 7.2% ± 0.9%, and mean coefficient of variation was 36.7% ± 6.0%. Users with higher CGM utilization had higher TIR (67.8% vs. 52.7%), and lower TBR <70 mg/dL (2.3% vs. 4.7%) and TAR >180 mg/dL (30.0% vs. 42.6%) than those with low CGM utilization (P < 0.001 for all). Users whose data were shared with others had higher TIR than those who did not (63.3% vs. 60.8%, P = 0.001). Conclusions: In this South Korean population, higher CGM utilization was associated with a favorably higher mean TIR, which was close to the internationally recommended target. Using its remote data-sharing feature showed beneficial impact on TIR.

Objective: Insulin bolus doses derive from glucose levels and planned carbohydrate intake, although fat and protein impact glycemic excursions. We examined the impact of macronutrients and number of daily meals/snacks on glycemic outcomes in youth with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Youth (N = 136, ages 8-17) with type 1 diabetes completed 3-day food records, wore 3-day masked continuous glucose monitoring, and had A1c measurements every 3 months for 1 year. Diet data were analyzed using Nutrition Data System for Research. Longitudinal mixed models assessed effects of macronutrient intake and number of meals/snacks on glycemic outcomes. Results: At baseline, youth (48% male) had mean age of 12.8 ± 2.5 years and diabetes duration of 5.9 ± 3.1 years; 73% used insulin pumps. Baseline A1c was 8.1% ± 1.0%, percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL (%TIR) was 49% ± 17%, % time below range <70 mg/dL (%TBR) was 6% ± 8%, % time above range >180 mg/dL (%TAR) was 44% ± 20%, and glycemic variability as coefficient of variation (CV) was 41% ± 8%; macronutrient intake included 48% ± 5% carbohydrate, 36% ± 5% fat, and 16% ± 2% protein. Most youth (56%) reported 3-4 meals/snacks daily (range 1-9). Over 1 year, greater carbohydrate intake was associated with lower A1c (P = 0.0003), more %TBR (P = 0.0006), less %TAR (P = 0.002), and higher CV (P = 0.03). Greater fat intake was associated with higher A1c (P = 0.006), less %TBR (P = 0.002), and more %TAR (P = 0.005). Greater protein intake was associated with higher A1c (P = 0.01). More daily meals/snacks were associated with lower A1c (P = 0.001), higher %TIR (P = 0.0006), and less %TAR (P = 0.0001). Conclusions: Both fat and protein impact glycemic outcomes. Future automated insulin delivery systems should consider all macronutrients for timely insulin provision. The present research study derived from secondary analysis of the study registered under NCT00999375.

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of Dexcom G6 (DG6) and FreeStyle Libre-2 (FSL2) during aerobic training and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in individuals with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Twenty-six males (mean age 29.3 ± 6.3 years and mean duration of diabetes 14.9 ± 6.1 years) participated in this study. Interstitial glucose levels were measured using DG6 and FSL2, while plasma glucose levels were measured every 10 min using YSI 2500 as the reference for glucose measurements in this study. The measurements began 20 min before the start of exercise and continued for 20 min after exercise. Seven measurements were taken for each subject and exercise. Results: Both DG6 and FSL2 devices showed significant differences compared to YSI glucose data for both aerobic and HIIT exercises. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices exhibited superior performance during HIIT than aerobic training, with DG6 showing a mean absolute relative difference of 14.03% versus 31.98%, respectively. In the comparison between the two devices, FSL2 demonstrated significantly higher effectiveness in aerobic training, yet its performance was inferior to DG6 during HIIT. According to the 40/40 criteria, both sensors performed similarly, with marks over 93% for all ranges and both exercises, and above 99% for HIIT and in the >180 mg/dL range, which is in accordance with FDA guidelines. Conclusions: The findings suggest that the accuracy of DG6 and FSL2 deteriorates during and immediately after exercise but remains acceptable for both devices during HIIT. However, accuracy is compromised with DG6 during aerobic exercise. This study is the first to compare the accuracy of two CGMs, DG6, and FSL2, during two exercise modalities, using plasma glucose YSI measurements as the gold standard for comparisons. It was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06080542).