Aims/hypothesisThe aim of this multicentre, randomised, controlled crossover study was to determine the efficacy of adding continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to insulin pump therapy (CSII) in type 1 diabetes.MethodsChildren and adults (n = 153) on CSII with HbA1c 7.5–9.5% (58.5–80.3 mmol/mol) were randomised to (CGM) a Sensor On or Sensor Off arm for 6 months. After 4 months’ washout, participants crossed over to the other arm for 6 months. Paediatric and adult participants were separately electronically randomised through the case report form according to a predefined randomisation sequence in eight secondary and tertiary centres. The primary outcome was the difference in HbA1c levels between arms after 6 months.ResultsSeventy-seven participants were randomised to the On/Off sequence and 76 to the Off/On sequence; all were included in the primary analysis. The mean difference in HbA1c was –0.43% (–4.74 mmol/mol) in favour of the Sensor On arm (8.04% [64.34 mmol/mol] vs 8.47% [69.08 mmol/mol]; 95% CI −0.32%, −0.55% [−3.50, −6.01 mmol/mol]; p < 0.001). Following cessation of glucose sensing, HbA1c reverted to baseline levels. Less time was spent with sensor glucose <3.9 mmol/l during the Sensor On arm than in the Sensor Off arm (19 vs 31 min/day; p = 0.009). The mean number of daily boluses increased in the Sensor On arm (6.8 ± 2.5 vs 5.8 ± 1.9, p < 0.0001), together with the frequency of use of the temporary basal rate (0.75 ± 1.11 vs 0.26 ± 0.47, p < 0.0001) and manual insulin suspend (0.91 ± 1.25 vs 0.70 ± 0.75, p < 0.018) functions. Four vs two events of severe hypoglycaemia occurred in the Sensor On and Sensor Off arm, respectively (p = 0.40).Conclusions/interpretationContinuous glucose monitoring was associated with decreased HbA1c levels and time spent in hypoglycaemia in individuals with type 1 diabetes using CSII. More frequent self-adjustments of insulin therapy may have contributed to these effects.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT00598663.FundingThe study was funded by Medtronic International Trading Sarl Switzerland.

Among young patients with type 1 diabetes, insulin pump therapy, compared with insulin injection therapy, was associated with lower risks of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis and with better glycemic control during the most recent year of therapy. These findings provide evidence for improved clinical outcomes associated with insulin pump therapy compared with injection therapy in children, adolescents, and young adults with type 1 diabetes.

Aims/hypothesis The aim of this work was to evaluate geographical variability and trends in the prevalence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), between 2006 and 2016, at the diagnosis of childhood-onset type 1 diabetes in 13 countries over three continents. Methods An international retrospective study on DKA at diagnosis of diabetes was conducted. Data on age, sex, date of diabetes diagnosis, ethnic minority status and presence of DKA at diabetes onset were obtained from Australia,

To investigate the impact of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on health-related quality of life (HRQOL), treatment satisfaction (TS) medical resource use, and indirect costs in the SWITCH study. SWITCH was a multicentre, randomized, crossover study. Patients with type 1 diabetes (n = 153) using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) were randomized to a 12 month sensor-On/Off or sensor-Off/On sequence (6 months each treatment), with a 4-month washout between periods. HRQOL in children and TS in adults were measured using validated questionnaires. Medical resource utilization data were collected. In adults, TS was significantly higher in the sensor-On arm, and there were significant improvements in ratings for treatment convenience and flexibility. There were no clinically significant differences in children’s HRQOL or parents’ proxy ratings. The incidence of severe hypoglycaemia, unscheduled visits, or diabetes-related hospitalizations did not differ significantly between the two arms. Adult patients made fewer telephone consultations during the sensor-On arm; children’s caregivers made similar numbers of telephone consultations during both arms, and calls were on average only 3 min longer during the sensor-On arm. Regarding indirect costs, children with >70 % sensor usage missed fewer school days, compared with the sensor-Off arm (P = 0.0046) but there was no significant difference in the adults days of work off. The addition of CGM to CSII resulted in better metabolic control without imposing an additional burden on the patient or increased medical resource use, and offered the potential for cost offsets.

We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in children with type 1 diabetes aged 1-7 years as well as evaluate the role of diluted insulin on glucose control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In an open-label, multicenter, multinational, randomized crossover study, 24 children with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy (median age 5 years [interquartile range 3-6] and mean 6 SD HbA 1c 7.4 6 0.7% [57 6 8 mmol/mol] and total insulin 13.2 6 4.8 units/day) underwent two 21-day periods of unrestricted living and we compared hybrid closed-loop with diluted insulin (U20) and hybrid closedloop with standard strength insulin (U100) in random order. During both interventions, the Cambridge model predictive control algorithm was used. RESULTS The proportion of time that sensor glucose was in the target range between 3.9 and 10 mmol/L (primary end point) was not different between interventions (mean 6 SD 72 6 8% vs. 70 6 7% for closed-loop with diluted insulin vs. closed-loop with standard insulin, respectively; P = 0.16). There was no difference in mean glucose levels (8.0 6 0.8 vs. 8.2 6 0.6 mmol/L; P = 0.14), glucose variability (SD of sensor glucose 3.1 6 0.5 vs. 3.2 6 0.4 mmol/L; P = 0.16), or the proportion of time spent with sensor glucose <3.9 mmol/L (4.5 6 1.7% vs. 4.7 6 1.4%; P = 0.47) or <2.8 mmol/L (0.6 6 0.5% vs. 0.6 6 0.4%; P > 0.99). Total daily insulin delivery did not differ (17.3 6 5.6 vs. 18.9 6 6.9 units/day; P = 0.07). No closed-loop-related severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred. CONCLUSIONS Unrestricted home use of day-and-night closed-loop in very young children with type 1 diabetes is feasible and safe. The use of diluted insulin during closed-loop does not provide additional benefits compared with standard strength insulin. Despite advances in the management of type 1 diabetes and supporting technologies, the majority of children with type 1 diabetes are unable to achieve recommended treatment targets (1,2). Closed-loop systems (3) delivering insulin in glucose-responsive fashion may provide benefits compared with existing treatment modalities including

Objective To evaluate the experiences of families with very young children aged 1 to 7 years (inclusive) with type 1 diabetes using day‐and‐night hybrid closed‐loop insulin delivery. Methods Parents/caregivers of 20 children aged 1 to 7 years with type 1 diabetes completed a closed‐loop experience survey following two 3‐week periods of unrestricted day‐and‐night hybrid closed‐loop insulin therapy using Cambridge FlorenceM system at home. Benefits, limitations, and improvements of closed‐loop technology were explored. Results Responders reported reduced burden of diabetes management, less time spent managing diabetes, and improved quality of sleep with closed‐loop. Ninety percent of the responders felt less worried about their child's glucose control using closed‐loop. Size of study devices, battery performance and connectivity issues were identified as areas for improvement. Parents/caregivers wished for more options to input information to the system such as temporary glucose targets. Conclusions Parents/caregivers of very young children reported important quality of life benefits associated with using closed‐loop, supporting adoption of this technology in this population.

BACKGROUNDThe possible advantage of hybrid closed-loop therapy (i.e., artificial pancreas) over sensor-augmented pump therapy in very young children with type 1 diabetes is unclear. METHODSIn this multicenter, randomized, crossover trial, we recruited children 1 to 7 years of age with type 1 diabetes who were receiving insulin-pump therapy at seven centers across Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom. Participants received treatment in two 16-week periods, in random order, in which the closedloop system was compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy (control). The primary end point was the between-treatment difference in the percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was in the target range (70 to 180 mg per deciliter) during each 16-week period. The analysis was conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary end points included the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state (glucose level, >180 mg per deciliter), the glycated hemoglobin level, the mean sensor glucose level, and the percentage of time spent in a hypoglycemic state (glucose level, <70 mg per deciliter). Safety was assessed.

To quantify age-related variability of insulin needs during day and night closed-loop insulin delivery. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We retrospectively analyzed data from hybrid closed-loop studies involving young children (1-6 years old, n 5 20), children (7-12 years, n 5 21), adolescents (13-17 years, n 5 15), and adults (>18 years, n 5 58) with type 1 diabetes. The coefficient of variation quantified variability of insulin needs during 3 weeks of unrestrictedliving hybrid closed-loop use. RESULTS Data from 2,365 nights and 2,367 days in 114 participants were analyzed. The coefficient of variation of insulin delivery was higher in young children compared with adults (mean difference at nighttime 10.7 percentage points [95% CI 2.9-18.4], P 5 0.003; daytime 6.4 percentage points [95% CI 2.0-10.9], P 5 0.002) and compared with adolescents (mean difference at nighttime 10.2 percentage points [95% CI 0.0-20.4], P 5 0.049; daytime 7.0 percentage points [95% CI 1.1-12.8], P 5 0.014). CONCLUSIONS Diabetes management in young children is complicated by higher variability in insulin requirements, supporting fast-track clinical practice adoption of closed-loop in this vulnerable population. With increasing application of insulin pump therapy and continuous glucose monitors, hybrid closed-loop has become a feasible treatment modality for people with type 1 diabetes (1,2). Apart from manual mealtime boluses, insulin delivery is autonomously modulated by a control algorithm based on real-time sensor glucose values. Insulin delivery may vary considerably from day to day and night to night due to varying activity levels, insulin set-changes, meal timings and composition, and other factors (3,4). To date, the association between age and insulin variability has not been assessed. In the present analysis, we investigate whether insulin requirements may be more variable in younger age.