OBJECTIVETo evaluate the effect of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on the frequency of severe hypoglycemia (SH) in patients with established hypoglycemia unawareness.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe conducted a retrospective audit of 35 patients with type 1 diabetes and problematic hypoglycemia unawareness, despite optimized medical therapy (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion/multiple daily insulin injections), who used CGM for >1 year.RESULTSOver a 1-year follow-up period, the median rates of SH were reduced from 4.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.75–7.25) episodes/patient-year to 0.0 (0.0–1.25) episodes/patient-year (P < 0.001), and the mean (±SD) rates were reduced from 8.1 ± 13 to 0.6 ± 1.2 episodes/year (P = 0.005). HbA1c was reduced from 8.1 ± 1.2% to 7.6 ± 1.0% over the year (P = 0.005). The mean Gold score, measured in 19 patients, did not change: 5.1 ± 1.5 vs. 5.2 ± 1.9 (P = 0.67).CONCLUSIONSIn a specialist experienced insulin pump center, in carefully selected patients, CGM reduced SH while improving HbA1c but failed to restore hypoglycemia awareness.

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 six 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.

We report a real-world evaluation of the first commercially approved automated insulin delivery (AID) system, MiniMed 670G (670G), and open source-automated insulin delivery (OS-AID) systems. This was undertaken as a retrospective observational study in adults with type 1 diabetes using AID systems for 6 months or longer in a publicly funded health service using clinically validated data. Sixty-eight adults (38 670G, 30 OS-AID systems) were included. OS-AID system users were younger, had a shorter diabetes duration and a higher education status. OS-AID systems displayed a significantly better change in HbA1c (median À0.9% [À0.4%, À1.1%] vs. À0.1% [IQR À0.7%, 0.2%], P = .004) and time in range 3.9-10 mmol/L (mean 78.5%, SD ± 12.0% vs. 68.2% ± 14.7%, P = .024) compared with 670G. Both systems showed minimal hypoglycaemia, with OS-AID systems revealing significantly improved secondary outcomes of mean glucose and percentage of time more than 10 mmol/L, with a higher percentage of time of less than 3 mmol/L. OS-AID system users displayed improved glycaemic outcomes with no clinical safety concerns compared with 670G, although higher weight-adjusted insulin dose and weight gain were noted. The study highlights key differences in OS-AID system user characteristics that are important for interpreting real-world findings from recent OS-AID system studies.

OBJECTIVE We explored longitudinal changes associated with switching to hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems in adults with type 1 diabetes and elevated HbA1c levels despite the use of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) and insulin pump therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We undertook a pragmatic, preplanned observational study of participants included in the National Health Service England closed loop pilot. Adults using isCGM and insulin pump across 31 diabetes centers in England with an HbA1c ≥8.5% who were willing to commence HCL therapy were included. Outcomes included change in HbA1c, sensor glucometrics, diabetes distress score, Gold score (hypoglycemia awareness), acute event rates, and user opinion of HCL. RESULTS In total, 570 HCL users were included (median age 40 [IQR 29–50] years, 67% female, and 85% White). Mean baseline HbA1c was 9.4 ± 0.9% (78.9 ± 9.1 mmol/mol) with a median follow-up of 5.1 (IQR 3.9–6.6) months. Of 520 users continuing HCL at follow-up, mean adjusted HbA1c reduced by 1.7% (95% CI 1.5, 1.8; P &lt; 0.0001) (18.1 mmol/mol [95% CI 16.6, 19.6]; P &lt; 0.0001). Time in range (70–180 mg/dL) increased from 34.2 to 61.9% (P &lt; 0.001). Individuals with HbA1c of ≤58 mmol/mol rose from 0 to 39.4% (P &lt; 0.0001), and those achieving ≥70% glucose time in range and &lt;4% time below range increased from 0.8 to 28.2% (P &lt; 0.0001). Almost all participants rated HCL therapy as having a positive impact on quality of life (94.7% [540 of 570]). CONCLUSIONS Use of HCL is associated with improvements in HbA1c, time in range, hypoglycemia, and diabetes-related distress and quality of life in people with type 1 diabetes in the real world.