The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024.

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 < 0.0001) (18.1 mmol/mol [95% CI 16.6, 19.6]; P < 0.0001). Time in range (70–180 mg/dL) increased from 34.2 to 61.9% (P < 0.001). Individuals with HbA1c of ≤58 mmol/mol rose from 0 to 39.4% (P < 0.0001), and those achieving ≥70% glucose time in range and <4% time below range increased from 0.8 to 28.2% (P < 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.

Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes and Above-Target HbA1c: A Real-world Observational Study

Abstract Background Glycaemic control of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) remains a challenge due to hypoglycaemic episodes and the burden of insulin self-management. Advancements have been made with the development of automated insulin delivery (AID) devices, yet, previous reviews have only assessed the use of AID over days or weeks, and potential benefits with longer time of AID use in this population remain unclear. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing AID (hybrid and fully closed-loop systems) to usual care (sensor augmented pumps, multiple daily insulin injections, continuous glucose monitoring and predictive low-glucose suspend) for adults and children with T1DM with a minimum duration of 3 months. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Clinicaltrials.gov for studies published up until April 4, 2023. Main outcomes included time in range 70–180 mg/dL as the primary outcome, and change in HbA1c (%, mmol/mol), glucose variability, and psychosocial impact (diabetes distress, treatment satisfaction and fear of hypoglycaemia) as secondary outcomes. Adverse events included diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and severe hypoglycaemia. Statistical analyses were conducted using mean differences and odds ratios. Sensitivity analyses were performed according to age, study duration and type of AID device. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42022366710. Results We identified 25 comparisons from 22 studies (six crossover and 16 parallel designs) including a total of 2376 participants (721 in adult studies, 621 in paediatric studies, and 1034 in combined studies) which were eligible for analysis. Use of AID devices ranged from 12 to 96 weeks. Patients using AID had 10.87% higher time in range [95% CI 9.38 to 12.37; p &lt; 0.0001, I 2 = 87%) and 0.37% (4.77 mmol/mol) lower HbA1c (95% CI − 0.49% (− 6.39 mmol/mol) to – 0.26 (− 3.14 mmol/mol); p &lt; 0·0001, I 2 = 77%]. AID systems decreased night hypoglycaemia, time in hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia and improved patient distress, with no increase in the risk of DKA or severe hypoglycaemia. No difference was found regarding treatment satisfaction or fear of hypoglycaemia. Among children, there was no difference in glucose variability or time spent in hypoglycaemia between the use of AID systems or usual care. In sensitivity analyses, results remained consistent with the overall analysis favouring AID. Conclusion The use of AID systems over 12 weeks, regardless of technical or clinical differences, improved glycaemic outcomes and diabetes distress without increasing the risk of adverse events in adults and children with T1DM. 

Glucose control and psychosocial outcomes with use of automated insulin delivery for 12 to 96 weeks in type 1 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the use of faster-acting and standard insulin aspart with hybrid automated insulin delivery (AID) in active youth with type 1 diabetes.


RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
In this double-blind, multinational, randomized, crossover trial, 30 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (16 females; aged 15.0±1.7 years; baseline HbA1c 7.5±0.9%[58±9.8mmol/mol]) underwent two unrestricted four-week periods using hybrid AID with either faster-acting insulin aspart or standard insulin aspart in random order. During both interventions, participants were using the hybrid AID (investigational version of MiniMedTM 780G, Medtronic). Participants were encouraged to exercise as frequently as possible, capturing physical activity with an activity monitor. The primary outcome was the percentage of sensor glucose time above range (180 mg/dL[10.0mmol/L]) measured by continuous glucose monitoring.


RESULTS
In an intention-to-treat analysis, mean time above range was 31%±15% at baseline, 19%±6% during faster-acting and 20%±6% during standard insulin aspart use with no difference between treatments: mean difference= -0.9%; 95%CI: -2.4% to 0.6%; P = 0.23. Similarly, there was no difference in mean time in range (78% and 77%) or median time below range (2.5% and 2.8%). Glycemic outcomes during exercise or postprandial periods were comparable for the two treatment arms. No severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis events occurred.


CONCLUSIONS
Faster-acting insulin aspart was not superior to standard aspart with hybrid AID system use in physically active children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Nonetheless, both insulin formulations enabled high overall time in range and low time above and below range, even during and after documented exercise.

A Comparison of Faster Insulin Aspart to Standard Insulin Aspart using Hybrid Automated Insulin Delivery System in Active Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized, Double-Blind Crossover Trial.

BACKGROUND
Currently available semiautomated insulin-delivery systems require individualized insulin regimens for the initialization of therapy and meal doses based on carbohydrate counting for routine operation. In contrast, the bionic pancreas is initialized only on the basis of body weight, makes all dose decisions and delivers insulin autonomously, and uses meal announcements without carbohydrate counting.


METHODS
In this 13-week, multicenter, randomized trial, we randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio persons at least 6 years of age with type 1 diabetes either to receive bionic pancreas treatment with insulin aspart or insulin lispro or to receive standard care (defined as any insulin-delivery method with unblinded, real-time continuous glucose monitoring). The primary outcome was the glycated hemoglobin level at 13 weeks. The key secondary outcome was the percentage of time that the glucose level as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring was below 54 mg per deciliter; the prespecified noninferiority limit for this outcome was 1 percentage point. Safety was also assessed.


RESULTS
A total of 219 participants 6 to 79 years of age were assigned to the bionic-pancreas group, and 107 to the standard-care group. The glycated hemoglobin level decreased from 7.9% to 7.3% in the bionic-pancreas group and did not change (was at 7.7% at both time points) in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference at 13 weeks, -0.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to -0.3; P<0.001). The percentage of time that the glucose level as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring was below 54 mg per deciliter did not differ significantly between the two groups (13-week adjusted difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The rate of severe hypoglycemia was 17.7 events per 100 participant-years in the bionic-pancreas group and 10.8 events per 100 participant-years in the standard-care group (P = 0.39). No episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in either group.


CONCLUSIONS
In this 13-week, randomized trial involving adults and children with type 1 diabetes, use of a bionic pancreas was associated with a greater reduction than standard care in the glycated hemoglobin level. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04200313.).

Multicenter, Randomized Trial of a Bionic Pancreas in Type 1 Diabetes.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

F. Sutton

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Multicenter, Randomized Trial of a Bionic Pancreas in Type 1 Diabetes.