Users of the mobile platform tested their BG more often and demonstrated greater improvement in blood glucose compared to users who did not use the mobile platform. This supports previous studies indicating that digital technologies can enhance diabetes care in a real-world setting.

Of approximately 29 million people with diabetes mellitus in the United States, 10% administer insulin to manage their blood glucose levels. 1 Insulin can be delivered subcutaneously by multiple injections per day using a syringe/pen device or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) via an insulin pump. Research has shown that those who use CSII can attain a decrease in hypoglycemic events, better nocturnal blood glucose control, improved metabolic control, and enhancement in quality of life as compared to those who use multiple injection therapy. 2 The actual number of people using insulin pumps in the United States is not known, however estimated ranges are 350 000 to 515 000. 3 There are 7 manufacturers of insulin pumps with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance to market their devices. The warranty period for this prescription device is 4 years, which offers people an opportunity to change their insulin pump after that period and, if eligible, receive insurance reimbursement. Although insulin pumps have become smaller and more user-friendly overtime, an intensive 2-part training-(1) diabetes self-management using insulin pump therapy and (2) technical training of the insulin pump-is still required to initiate insulin pump therapy. 3,4 The first part of the training focuses on self-management of advanced insulin therapy, including carbohydrate counting, infusion site management, hypoglycemia prevention and management, and prevention of diabetic ketoacidosis. 4 This initial training takes place over several sessions. Once a person is determined to be an insulin pump candidate and has acquired 606917D STXXX10.

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine if there were usability and training differences between the Medtronic MiniMed Paradigm Revel™ Insulin Pump and the Tandem Diabetes Care t:slim® Insulin Pump during use by representative users, performing representative tasks, in a simulated use environment. Methods:This study utilized a between-subjects experimental design with a total of 72 participants from 5 sites across the United States. Study participants were randomized to either the Revel pump group or the t:slim Pump group. Participants were 18 years of age or older and managed their diabetes using multiple daily insulin injections. Dependent variables included training time, training satisfaction, time on task, task failures, System Usability Scale (SUS) ratings, perceived task difficulty, and a pump survey that measured different aspects of the pumps and training sessions.Results: There was a statistically significant difference in training times and error rates between the t:slim and Revel groups. The training time difference represented a 27% reduction in time to train on the t:slim versus the Revel pump. There was a 65% reduction in participants' use error rates between the t:slim and the Revel group. Conclusions:The t:slim Pump had statistically significant training and usability advantages over the Revel pump. The reduction in training time may have been a result of an optimized information architecture, an intuitive navigational layout, and an easy-to-read screen. The reduction in use errors with the t:slim may have been a result of dynamic error handling and active confirmation screens, which may have prevented programming errors.

Diabetes Technology Society hosted its annual Diabetes Technology Meeting on November 4 to November 6, 2021. This meeting brought together speakers to discuss various developments within the field of diabetes technology. Meeting topics included blood glucose monitoring, continuous glucose monitoring, novel sensors, direct-to-consumer telehealth, metrics for glycemia, software for diabetes, regulation of diabetes technology, diabetes data science, artificial pancreas, novel insulins, insulin delivery, skin trauma, metabesity, precision diabetes, diversity in diabetes technology, use of diabetes technology in pregnancy, and green diabetes. A live demonstration on a mobile app to monitor diabetic foot wounds was presented.

Background: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) offers multiple data features that can be leveraged to assess glucose management. However, how diabetes healthcare professionals (HCPs) actually assess CGM data and the extent to which they agree in assessing glycemic management are not well understood. Methods: We asked HCPs to assess ten de-identified CGM datasets (each spanning seven days) and rank order each day by relative glycemic management (from “best” to “worst”). We also asked HCPs to endorse features of CGM data that were important in making such assessments. Results: In the study, 57 HCPs (29 endocrinologists; 28 diabetes educators) participated. Hypoglycemia and glycemic variance were endorsed by nearly all HCPs to be important (91% and 88%, respectively). Time in range and daily lows and highs were endorsed more frequently by educators (all Ps < .05). On average, HCPs endorsed 3.7 of eight data features. Overall, HCPs demonstrated agreement in ranking days by relative glycemic control (Kendall’s W = .52, P < .001). Rankings were similar between endocrinologists and educators ( R2 = .90, Cohen’s kappa = .95, mean absolute error = .4 [all Ps < .05]; Mann-Whitney U = 41, P = .53). Conclusions: Consensus in the endorsement of certain data features and agreement in assessing glycemic management were observed. While some practice-specific differences in feature endorsement were found, no differences between educators and endocrinologists were observed in assessing glycemic management. Overall, HCPs tended to consider CGM data holistically, in alignment with published recommendations, and made converging assessments regardless of practice.