The introduction of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems in clinical practice has allowed a more detailed picture of the intra- and interdaily glycemic fluctuations of individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, CGM-measured glucose control indicators may be occasionally inaccurate. This study aims to assess the discrepancy between the glucose management indicator (GMI) and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (ΔGMI-HbA1c) within a cohort of children and adolescents with T1D, exploring its correlation with other CGM metrics and blood count parameters. In this single-center, cross-sectional study, we gathered demographic and clinical data, including blood count parameters, HbA1c values, and CGM metrics, from 128 pediatric subjects with T1D (43% female; mean age, 13.4 ± 3.6 years). Our findings revealed higher levels of the coefficient of variation (CV) (p < 0.001) and time above range > 250 mg/dL (p = 0.033) among subjects with ΔGMI-HbA1c > 0.3%. No association was observed between blood count parameters and ΔGMI-HbA1c. In conclusion, despite the advancements and the widespread adoption of CGM systems, HbA1c remains an essential parameter for the assessment of glycemic control, especially in individuals with suboptimal metabolic control and extreme glycemic variability.

Introduction: The present report celebrates the benchmarking of 100,000 MiniMed™ 780G system users in Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) and summarizes the major insights into the usability and outcomes of this system. Methods: Carelink Personal data (August 2020-August 2023) of users living in EMEA were analyzed. Continuous glucose monitoring-based endpoints were aggregated for (1) the full cohort and (2) a 12-month longitudinal cohort. Subanalyses were done for users on optimal settings (those spending ≥95% of time with glucose target of 100 mg/dL, and ≥95% of time with active insulin time of 2 h), for self-reported age groups (≤15 and ≥56 years) and for various countries/regions. Results: Data from 101,629 users (34 countries) were analyzed. Mean time in range (TIR) was 72.3%, glucose management indicator (GMI) was 7%, time below 70 mg/dL (TBR70) was 2.0% and time below 54 mg/dL (TBR54) was 0.4%. In terms of international targets, 59.6% of users achieved a GMI <7%, 62.5% a TIR >70%, 88.4% a TBR70 < 4%, and 90.0% a TBR54 < 1%. Data improved impressively in optimal setting users (TIR = 78.8%, and users reaching TIR >70% = 86.3%) while safety remained (TBR70 = 2.2% and TBR54 = 0.4%). Data showed consistency across self-reported age groups and geographies. In the longitudinal cohort, TIR reached 75.5% in the first month and remained 73.3% or higher over the 12-month period. Conclusion: Over 100,000 users of the MiniMed™ 780G system have demonstrated consistency in achieving target control of glycemia.

BACKGROUND: Insulin pump use is increasing in frequency among pregnant individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies have not been studied extensively in pregnancy.
METHODS: We present a retrospective case series of eight individuals with T1D who used the Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump (Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., CA, USA) during pregnancy. Weekly continuous glucose monitor and insulin pump data were analyzed from electronic medical records and data-sharing portals. Safety, glycemic control, and pregnancy outcomes were examined with both the control IQ (CIQ) and basal IQ (BIQ) algorithms.
RESULTS: Six CIQ and two BIQ users were studied. The mean glycated hemoglobin (A1C) during pregnancy was 6.1%, and the average time in pregnancy-recommended glycemic range (TIR; 63-140mg/dL) was 67.9%. There were no instances of diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia. CIQ users had a higher mean sensor glucose (127.6 mg/dL) compared to BIQ participants (118.4 mg/dL). However, the average time below range (<63 mg/dL) was 6.1% in BIQ participants compared to 1.5% in CIQ participants. CIQ participants used several strategies to achieve glycemic targets, including daytime use of sleep activity. An increased basal-to-bolus insulin ratio was negatively correlated with TIR (r=-0.415).
CONCLUSIONS: Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pumps were safely used during pregnancy in eight individuals with T1D, with variable success in achieving recommended glycemic targets. Further research is needed to understand differences in CIQ and BIQ use in pregnancy. AID device manufacturers must additionally develop further methods to target lower glucose for pregnant users.

To compare parameters of glycemic control among three types of hybrid closed loop (HCL) systems in children with T1D (CwD) using population-wide data from the national pediatric diabetes registry ČENDA.
CwD aged <19 years treated with Medtronic MiniMed 780G (780G), Tandem t:slim X2 (Control-IQ) or do-it-yourself AndroidAPS (AAPS) systems for >12 months and monitored by CGM >70% of the time were included. HbA1c, times in glycemic ranges, and Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) were used for cross-sectional comparison between the HCL systems.
Data from 512 CwD were analyzed. 780G, Control-IQ and AAPS were used by 217 (42.4%), 211 (41.2%), and 84 (16.4%) CwD, respectively. The lowest HbA1c value was observed in the AAPS group (44 mmol/mol; IQR 8.0, p<0.0001 vs any other group), followed by Control-IQ and 780G groups (48 (IQR 11) and 52 (IQR 10) mmol/mol, respectively). All of the systems met the recommended criteria for time in range (78% in AAPS, 76% in 780G, and 75% in Control-IQ users). CwD using AAPS spent significantly more time in hypoglycemia (5% vs 2% in 780G and 3% in Control-IQ) and scored the highest GRI (32, IQR 17). The lowest GRI (27, IQR 15) was seen in 780G users.
Although all HCL systems proved effective in maintaining recommended long-term glycemic control, we observed differences that illustrate strengths and weaknesses of particular systems. Our findings could help in individualizing the choice of HCL systems.

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.

BACKGROUND: Several different forms of automated insulin delivery systems (AID systems) have recently been developed and are now licensed for type 1 diabetes (T1D). We undertook a systematic review of reported trials and real-world studies for commercial hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems.
METHODS: Pivotal, phase III and real-world studies using commercial HCL systems that are currently approved for use in type 1 diabetes were reviewed with a devised protocol using the Medline database.
RESULTS: Fifty-nine studies were included in the systematic review (19 for 670G; 8 for 780G; 11 for Control-IQ; 14 for CamAPS FX; 4 for Diabeloop; and 3 for Omnipod 5). Twenty were real-world studies, and 39 were trials or sub-analyses. Twenty-three studies, including 17 additional studies, related to psychosocial outcomes and were analysed separately.
CONCLUSIONS: These studies highlighted that HCL systems improve time In range (TIR) and arouse minimal concerns around severe hypoglycaemia. HCL systems are an effective and safe option for improving diabetes care. Real-world comparisons between systems and their effects on psychological outcomes require further study.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin pumps adjust insulin delivery based on input from a continuous glucose monitor. Several systems are FDA approved and associated with improved time in range, reduction in hemoglobin A1c, and decreased incidence of hypoglycemia. Major diabetes guidelines differ in their strength of recommendations regarding the use of HCL systems. Overall, limited information about the factors that influence HCL pump clinical decision-making is available, especially among endocrinology clinicians.
OBJECTIVE: The study objective is to describe the knowledge and attitudes, network support, and self-efficacy regarding HCL insulin delivery systems among endocrinology clinicians in one Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System in the Midwest.
METHODS: Following a descriptive approach, this qualitative study used semistructured interviews and inductive thematic analysis. All endocrinologists, endocrinology fellows, and nurses in the endocrinology and metabolism department at one VA Healthcare System in the Midwest were invited to participate in one-on-one phone interviews. Thematic analysis explored clinician perspectives on HCL insulin pump systems.
RESULTS: Participants (n=11) had experience within VA and university health care system endocrinology clinics. From their experiences, 4 themes were identified involving the evaluation and assessment of insulin pump candidates, prescribing challenges, clinical benefits of HCL pumps, and overall clinician confidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that clinicians believe HCL systems have significant glycemic benefits but are not appropriate for all patients, especially those with cognitive impairment. HCL pump initiation is a multi-step process requiring an interdisciplinary team of health care clinicians to ensure patient and pump success. Furthermore, HCL systems improve clinician confidence in overall diabetes management.

Objective: To evaluate safety and effectiveness of MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed loop (HCL) in comparison with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy for 6 months in persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Adults (aged 18-80 years), adolescents, and children (aged 2-17 years) with T1D who were using CSII therapy were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to 6 months of HCL intervention (n = 151, mean age of 39.9 ± 19.8 years) or CSII without continuous glucose monitoring (n = 151, 35.7 ± 18.4 years). Primary effectiveness endpoints included change in A1C for Group 1 (baseline A1C >8.0%), from baseline to the end of study, and difference in the end of study percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL (%TBR <70 mg/dL) for Group 2 (baseline A1C ≤8.0%), to show superiority of HCL intervention versus control. Secondary effectiveness endpoints were change in A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 2 and Group 1, respectively, to show noninferiority of HCL intervention versus control. Primary safety endpoints were rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Results: Change in A1C and difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for the overall group were significantly improved, in favor of HCL intervention. In addition, a significant mean (95% confidence interval) change in A1C was observed for both Group 1 (-0.8% [-1.1% to -0.4%], P < 0.0001) and Group 2 (-0.3% [-0.5% to -0.1%], P < 0.0001), in favor of HCL intervention. The same was observed for difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 1 (-2.2% [-3.6% to -0.9%]) and Group 2 (-4.9% [-6.3% to -3.6%]) (P < 0.0001 for both). There was one DKA event during run-in and six severe hypoglycemic events: two during run-in and four during study (HCL: n = 0 and CSII: n = 4 [6.08 per 100 patient-years]). Conclusions: This RCT demonstrates that the MiniMed 670G HCL safely and significantly improved A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL compared with CSII control in persons with T1D, irrespective of baseline A1C level.

The incidence of type 1 diabetes (T1D) is rising in all age groups. T1D is associated with chronic microvascular and macrovascular complications but improving glycemic trends can delay the onset and slow the progression of these complications. Utilization of technological devices for diabetes management, such as continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and insulin pumps, is increasing, and these devices are associated with improvements in glycemic trends. Thus, device use may be associated with long-term prevention of T1D complications, yet few studies have investigated the direct impacts of devices on chronic complications in T1D. This review will describe common diabetes devices and combination systems, as well as review relationships between device use and cardiovascular outcomes in T1D.
Findings from existing cohort and national registry studies suggest that pump use may aid in improving cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension and dyslipidemia. Furthermore, pump users have been shown to have lower arterial stiffness and better measures of myocardial function. In registry and case-control longitudinal data, pump use has been associated with fewer cardiovascular events and reduction of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality. CVD is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in T1D. Consistent use of diabetes devices may protect against the development and progression of macrovascular complications such as CVD through improvement in glycemic trends. Existing literature is limited, but findings suggest that pump use may reduce acute cardiovascular risk factors as well as chronic cardiovascular complications and overall mortality in T1D.

In an article in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, Arunachalum et al retrospectively analyzed glycemic outcomes, regarding the use of hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems in individuals with type-1 diabetes (T1D) in the United States in a real-world evidence (RWE) setting. In clinical trials, diabetes technology has shown to improve time in range (TIR) as well as other glucose metrics. In the light of increasing the use of diabetes technology in the T1D population, why do we not see improvement in clinical outcomes? Is it cost-effective to increase the use diabetes technology? Does access to diabetes technology vary in the United States? There is a need for additional clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of diabetes technology in T1D including health economic aspects.