Multiple Daily Injections Users Research Articles

Clinical perspective on innovative insulin delivery technologies in diabetes management.

The primary objective of this study is to report the results of an online questionnaire and the in-person discussion sessions of physicians specializing in diabetes care in which their opinions about current diabetes management was obtained. The Diabetes Innovation Summit 2023 drew attendance from a diverse group of specialized physicians from multiple countries. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to examine the technologies and medical needs associated with diabetes management. Using the results of the review, a questionnaire was developed by three experts from the steering committee to solicit feedback from specialized physicians. The online survey was made accessible between 10th December 2022 and 10th January 2023. Following the online survey, six structured in-person discussion sessions were conducted with specialized physicians from the Middle East, Central-Eastern Europe, and North Africa regions. The study revealed that about 59% of survey requests were answered, with many participants being pediatric endocrinologists from North Africa. Around 60% of diabetes patients followed Multiple Daily Injections (MDI) according to specialized physicians. Among MDI users, 62% employed Blood Glucose Monitors (BGM), 31% used intermittent-scanning Continuous Glucose Monitors (isCGM), and 23% used CGM. In North Africa, nearly 90% of patients used MDI due to financial constraints. While physicians focused on both Time in Range (TIR) and HbA1c for MDI-treated patients, satisfaction with TIR achieved was expressed by 31%, while 74·1% believed Real-Time CGM (rtCGM) was effective. Concerns arose about potentially misleading HbA1c results and the relatively low patient achievement of target TIR despite CGM usage. The Smart MDI System was seen favorably compared to other applications. The system's affordability was a significant barrier, particularly in the Middle East and Africa. The present study highlights that physicians are generally supportive of utilizing new technology. The questionnaires and the open discussion revealed the expectation that the Smart MDI technology provides better control, primarily by identifying missed boluses, while expressing concerns on the use of the technology by teenagers and children, who might forget the device and be reluctant to use in public, and by the older population, who might be challenged by the technology.

Frequency of Rebound Hyperglycemia in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Treated with Different Insulin Delivery Modalities.

Background: For people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), ensuring fast and effective recovery from hypoglycemia while avoiding posthypoglycemic hyperglycemia (rebound hyperglycemia, RH) can be challenging. The objective of this study was to investigate the frequency of RH across different treatment modalities and its impact on glycemic control. Methods: This cross-sectional real-world study included adults with T1D using continuous glucose monitoring and attending the outpatient clinic at Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen. RH was defined as ≥1 sensor glucose value (SG) >10.0 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) starting within 2 h of an antecedent SG <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL). The severity of the RH events was calculated as area under the curve (AUC) and separately for users of multiple daily injections (MDIs), unintegrated insulin pumps, sensor augmented pumps (SAPs), and automated insulin delivery (AID), respectively. Results: Across the four groups, SAP and AID users had the highest incidence of RH (2.06 ± 1.65 and 2.08 ± 1.49 events per week, respectively) and a similar percentage of hypoglycemic events leading to RH events (41.3 ± 22.8% and 39.6 ± 20.1%, respectively). The AID users with RH events were significantly shorter compared with MDI users (122 ± 72 vs. 185 ± 135 min; P < 0.0001). Overall, severity of RH was inversely associated with more advanced technology (P < 0.001) and inversely associated (P < 0.001) with time in target range (TIR). Conclusions: Groups with insulin suspension features experienced the highest frequency of RH; however, AID users tended to experience shorter and less severe RH events. The association between the severity of RH events and TIR suggests that RH should be assessed and used in the guidance of hypoglycemia management.

Association of continuous subcutaneous insulin therapy and diabetic retinopathy in type 1 diabetes: A national cohort study

AimThis study aimed to investigate the short-and long-term effect on diabetic retinopathy (DR) in individuals with type 1 diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin injections (CSII) compared to those using multiple daily injections (MDI). MethodsWe conducted a register-based matched cohort study utilizing data from the Danish Registry of Diabetic Retinopathy as well as several other national Danish health registers. Our cohort consisted of all individuals with type 1 diabetes who attended the Danish screening program for DR from 2013 to 2022. We included individuals registered with CSII treatment, and compared them to individuals using MDI, matched by age, sex, and DR level. Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate the outcomes. ResultsThe study included 674 individuals treated with CSII and 2006 matched MDI users. In our cohort 53.4 % were female and median age was 36 (IQR 27–47). Average follow-up risk-time was 4.8 years. There was no difference in the risk of DR worsening between the CSII group and MDI group (HR 1.05 [95%CI 0.91; 1.22], p = 0.49). However, an increased risk of focal photocoagulation was observed in the CSII group (HR 2.40 [95%CI 1.11; 5.19], p = 0.03). ConclusionsOur findings indicate that CSII treatment does not confer a significant difference in the overall short- and long-term risk of DR worsening or ocular intervention compared to MDI treatment. These results provide insights into the DR outcomes of CSII treatment in individuals with type 1 diabetes.

Associations between use of diabetes technology and diabetes distress: a Danish cross-sectional survey of adults with type 1 diabetes

IntroductionThe study aimed to investigate independent and combined associations between insulin delivery method (insulin pump therapy (IPT) vs multiple daily injections (MDI)), glucose monitoring method (intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring...

“You can hide it if you want to, you can let it be seen if you want to”: A qualitative study of the lived experiences of Australian adults with type 1 diabetes using the Omnipod DASH® system

AimsUnderstanding the lived experience of using a tubeless insulin pump and how this differs compared to usual care (tubed insulin pump therapy (IPT) vs multiple daily injections (MDI)). MethodsInterviews were conducted after 12-weeks of using the Omnipod DASH Insulin Management System (Insulet, Acton, MA) and analysed using thematic analysis. ResultsFifty-eight adults (35 female; mean age 42;SD 13 years; 35 previous MDI) were interviewed. Most (84 %) wanted to continue using the device. Experiences fit two themes: 1. Taking back control of my diabetes: many previous MDI users perceived improved glycaemic control, explained by more “nuanced” control, with some reporting positive effects during exercise and sleep. Many previous MDI and IPT users endorsed positive experiences in concealing or disclosing their diabetes to others. However, some previous MDI users reported negative psychosocial experiences due to feeling continuously “attached” to their diabetes. 2. Barriers and facilitators of device acceptability: both MDI and IPT users cited wearability, alarms and the financial cost impacted their choice to continue device use. IPT users reported positive wearability experiences. ConclusionsThe tubeless pump improved diabetes management perceptions for both MDI and tubed pump users. However, participants' prior glucose management affected perceptions of its advantages and disadvantages.

Psychosocial and Glycemic Benefits for Insulin-Using Adults With Type 2 Diabetes After Six Months of Pump Therapy: A Quasi-Experimental Approach.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) use in adults with type 1 diabetes offers psychosocial and clinical benefits, but little is known about its impact on such outcomes in the type 2 diabetes (T2D) population. To address this gap, we conducted a quasi-experimental prospective study to assess psychosocial, glycemic, and behavioral changes over six months in T2D adults on multiple daily injections (MDI) who were interested in starting Omnipod DASH, comparing those who did versus did not start on it. In total, 458 adults with T2D completed baseline questionnaires assessing psychosocial dimensions (eg, diabetes distress), clinical metrics (eg, HbA1c [glycosylated hemoglobin]), and behavioral measures (eg, missed mealtime boluses). Six months later, 220 (48.0%) completed the same questionnaire again. To examine differences in outcomes over time between those who began CSII (n = 176) versus those who remained on MDI (n = 44), a latent change score approach was used. The CSII users reported greater gains than MDI users on all major psychosocial metrics, including overall well-being (P < .001) diabetes distress (P < .001), perceived T2D impact on quality of life (P = .003), and hypoglycemic worries and concerns (P < .001). The CSII users similarly reported a larger decline in HbA1c than MDI users (P < .05) and greater declines in two critical self-care behaviors: number of missed mealtime boluses (P < .001) and number of days of perceived overeating (P = .001). The introduction of CSII (Omnipod DASH) in T2D adults can contribute to significant psychosocial, glycemic, and behavioral benefits, indicating that broader use of CSII in the T2D population may be of value.

273-OR: Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy vs. Other Modalities of Therapy during Ramadan Intermittent Fasting in Adults and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes

Introduction: Most people with type 1 diabetes (PwT1D) are considered high risk to fast during the month of Ramadan. Yet, many of them attempt to fast and abstain from eating and drinking from dawn to dusk. Here, we evaluate the association between the sociodemographic indicators, modality of T1D treatment, and number of days when fasting is broken due to diabetes among PwT1D. Methods: We surveyed 294 PwT1D who attempted to fast during Ramadan 2022, were seen at our Endocrine clinics during the month preceding Ramadan, and who agreed to share their health information and fasting experience. Participants were categorized into 5 groups based on their treatment modality: a) Pump + CGM [Hybrid closed loop (HCL)] (n=62); b) Pump + CGM [Conventional open loop] (n=37); c) Pump + Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) (n=8); d) Multiple daily injections (MDI) + CGM (n=155); e) MDI + SMBG (n=32). Predictors for fasting most days of Ramadan (i.e. breaking fast ≤ 2 days) were analyzed using uni- and multi-variable logistic regression. Results: Private health insurance rates were highest among pump users (82%, 63%, and 41% for HCL, Pump + SMBG, and conventional open loop, respectively); whereas, MDI users had the lowest insurance rates (25% and 21% for MDI + SMBG and MDI + CGM, respectively). The median numbers of days when fasting was broken due to diabetes were 2, 5, 3, 3.5, and 2.5 days among the HCL, conventional open loop, MDI + CGM, Pump + SMBG, and MDI + SMBG groups, respectively (p=.047). Users of HCL therapy were two times as likely to complete fasting most days of Ramadan (i.e. breaking fast ≤2 days) compared to MDI + CGM users [odds ratio (95% CI): 2.37 (1.14, 4.90)] after adjusting for age, sex, educational level, employment status, insurance status, and diabetes duration. Conclusion: Among the common treatment modalities of T1D, the use of HCL pump therapy is associated with the highest rates of fasting most days of Ramadan after adjusting for potential confounders. Disclosure M.Al-sofiani: Consultant; Eli Lilly and Company, Speaker's Bureau; Sanofi, Medtronic, Vitalair. S.Alharthi: None. S.Albunyan: Employee; ProMedEx, Medtronic. N.Alzaman: None. D.C.Klonoff: Consultant; EOFlow Co., Ltd., Fractyl Health, Inc., Integrity, Lifecare, Inc., Rockley Photonics, Thirdwayv Inc. A.M.Alguwaihes: Consultant; Eli Lilly and Company, Research Support; AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Speaker's Bureau; Novo Nordisk, Sanofi.

277-OR: AID-Driven TIR Improvements in Young MDI Children with T1D Are Indistinguishable from Their Pump-Using Peers—A PEDAP Subanalysis

Treatment of T1D in young children presents many challenges compared to other age groups. In a recent multicenter, randomized controlled trial, we showed significant glycemic improvements when using automated insulin delivery (AID, t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology) compared to standard care (SC) (+12.4% TIR, -0.42% HbA1c) over 13 weeks in N=102 young children (age 2-&amp;lt;6 yrs) with T1D. We focus here on the multiple daily injection (MDI) users at baseline. The cohort included 36 such participants, 10 in SC and 26 using AID. No difference between MDI participants and their pump-using peers was noted for age, gender, ethnicity, or household income; though they showed degraded glycemic control at baseline: TIR 49.7% vs 59.6%, p=0.004; TBR 2.4% vs 3.8%, p=0.016. MDI participants completed 94% of visits virtually and 19/26 were transitioned to AID virtually. Compared with SC, TIR improvement with AID was statistically similar for MDI (+11.6%) and pump (+12.3%) participants (see Figure). Comparable results were seen for other CGM outcomes. With increased TIR of approximately 3h/day, the studied AID system significantly improved glycemic control for prior MDI users, even with a transition almost exclusively performed online. Improvements were not associated with increased risk of hypoglycemia and indistinguishable from the effects observed for prior pump users. Disclosure M.D.Breton: Consultant; Dexcom, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Arecor, Research Support; Dexcom, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Novo Nordisk. Pedap trial study group: n/a. B.A.Buckingham: Advisory Panel; Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Consultant; Lilly, Research Support; Medtronic, Insulet Corporation, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. M.D.Deboer: Research Support; Dexcom, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. L.Ekhlaspour: Consultant; Ypsomed AG, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Other Relationship; NIH - National Institutes of Health, Research Support; MannKind Corporation, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., JDRF, Speaker's Bureau; Insulet Corporation. G.P.Forlenza: Advisory Panel; Medtronic, Consultant; Dexcom, Inc., Insulet Corporation, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Lilly Diabetes, Research Support; Medtronic, Abbott, Dexcom, Inc., Insulet Corporation, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. M.Schoelwer: Research Support; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Insulet Corporation. R.Wadwa: Consultant; Eli Lilly and Company, Other Relationship; Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Research Support; Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Beta Bionics, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. J.W.Lum: None. R.Beck: Consultant; Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Diasome, Insulet Corporation, Research Support; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Beta Bionics, Inc., Dexcom, Inc., Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc., Medtronic, Ascensia Diabetes Care, Roche Diabetes Care, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk. Funding National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (U01DK127551); Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.; Dexcom, Inc.

909-P: Predictors of Successful Fasting and Attaining Glycemic Targets during the Month of Ramadan among People with Type 1 Diabetes

Introduction: Muslims abstain from eating and drinking from dawn to dusk during Ramadan. We aim to evaluate the fasting experience of people with type 1 diabetes (PwT1D) and identify predictors of successful fasting and attaining glycemic targets during Ramadan. Methods: We included the 149 PwT1D who attempted to fast during Ramadan 2022, were seen in our Endocrine clinics during the month preceding Ramadan, and were using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). They were categorized, based on their treatment modality, into 3 groups: a) Hybrid closed loop (HCL) pump (n=39); b) Open loop pump (n=12); and c) Multiple daily injections (MDI) (n=98). CGM Reports for Ramadan and the month preceding Ramadan and self-administered surveys about fasting experience were evaluated. Predictors for attaining the “double target” of: a) breaking fast ≤2 days and b) maintaining glucose time in range (TIR) ≥70% during Ramadan were analyzed using uni- and multi-variable logistic regression. Results: The “double target” of a) breaking fast ≤2 days and b) maintaining TIR≥70% during Ramadan was attained by 21.5% of PwT1D. Users of the HCL therapy, compared to the open loop and MDI users, had a significantly lower glycemia risk index (GRI), glucose management indicator (GMI), time below range (TBR), time above range (TAR), and average glucose during Ramadan (all p&amp;lt;0.05). Those with health insurance and better “pre-Ramadan” glycemic control (i.e. lower GRI, TAR, and coefficient of variation and higher TIR) were more likely to attain the “double target” during Ramadan. Users of the HCL pumps were more likely to attain the “double target” compared to the users of MDI + CGM [OR (95% CI): 25.47 (4.72, 137.49)] after adjusting for age, sex, educational level, employment status, insurance status, and diabetes duration. Conclusion: Using HCL pump therapy and having better pre-Ramadan CGM metrics predict attainment of the double target of fasting most of days and having TIR ≥70% during Ramadan among PwT1D. Disclosure M.Al-sofiani: Consultant; Eli Lilly and Company, Speaker's Bureau; Sanofi, Medtronic, Vitalair. S.Alharthi: None. S.Albunyan: Employee; ProMedEx, Medtronic. N.Alzaman: None. D.C.Klonoff: Consultant; EOFlow Co., Ltd., Fractyl Health, Inc., Integrity, Lifecare, Inc., Rockley Photonics, Thirdwayv Inc. A.M.Alguwaihes: Consultant; Eli Lilly and Company, Research Support; AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Speaker's Bureau; Novo Nordisk, Sanofi.

154-LB: HEDIS Glycemic Goals Achieved by Control-IQ Technology Users across All Payer Types

Background: The t:slim X2 with Control-IQ technology (“Control-IQ”) is an advanced hybrid closed-looped system. This analysis evaluated glycemic outcomes in Control-IQ users by payer type using Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality thresholds. HEDIS is used by &amp;gt;90% of health plans to measure performance and includes a metric to identify A1c control (&amp;lt;8.0%) and poor control (&amp;gt;9.0%). Glucose management indicator (GMI) is a recognized surrogate for A1c when sufficient data are provided (≥14 days, 70% CGM use). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed glycemic data for individuals with type 1 diabetes from 1/1/20 to 3/4/23 who used Control-IQ for ≥1 year (with ≥70% of CGM use in final 3 months) and had a recorded baseline A1c prior to Control-IQ initiation. Results were stratified by payer type, prior therapy, and baseline A1c. GMI was calculated for last 3 months and compared to baseline A1c. Results: Analysis included 20,319 users, with 42% (n= 8,493) on multiple daily injections (MDI) and 58% (n=11,826) on pump therapy at baseline. Control-IQ use significantly improved glycemic outcomes and mean HEDIS thresholds were achieved for all payer types and strata (table). Conclusion: Control-IQ use improved HEDIS A1c (GMI) outcomes across all payer types, with the largest glycemic improvement seen in those with the highest A1c at baseline and for prior MDI users. Disclosure B. V. Patel: Employee; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. Stock/Shareholder; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. G. Alencar: Employee; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. S. M. Wang: Employee; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. Stock/Shareholder; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. S. Leas: Employee; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. L. H. Messer: Employee; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. Consultant; Dexcom, Inc. Advisory Panel; Lilly. Consultant; Capillary Biomedical, Inc. Research Support; Beta Bionics, Inc., Medtronic, Insulet Corporation. J. E. Pinsker: Employee; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.

Metabolic Outcomes in Pediatric Patients One-Year Post-Total Pancreatectomy with Islet Autotransplantation after Early Pump Initiation.

We previously published that insulin pump initiation immediately after IV insulin therapy was associated with improved post-surgical glycemic outcomes compared to multiple daily injections (MDI) in pediatric patients following a total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation (TPIAT). We investigated metabolic outcomes of this population at one-year post-TPIAT to assess if the improved outcomes in the early pump group were sustained over time. We retrospectively reviewed 40 patients post-TPIAT previously studied at 10-days post-surgery (15 used MDI and 25 used pump therapy immediately post-ICU, and all were discharged on pump therapy). Data analyzed included: demographics, islet equivalents per kilogram (IEQ/kg) transplanted, exogenous insulin use, and baseline vs. one-year (via mixed meal testing) HbA1c, fasting glucose, insulinogenic index, and the area under the curve (AUC) for insulin and c-peptide. More patients were off insulin at one year in the early pump group compared to the MDI group (45% vs. 13%, p = 0.07). Of all patients off insulin, 100% of the early pump users weaned off by six months post-TPIAT compared to 30% of the MDI users. Two known variables associated with favorable insulin outcomes, lower age and higher IEQ/kg, were not significantly different between groups. Fasting glucose was lower in the early pump group compared to the MDI group (median 97 vs. 122 mg/dL, p = 0.003), while AUC c-peptide was greater in early pump users at one-year post-TPIAT but did not reach significance (median 57.0 vs. 50.3 ng/mL × minutes, p = 0.14). Other metabolic outcomes did not differ between groups. Despite lower median age and higher IEQ/kg in the MDI group, the early pump group had a lower fasting glucose. Younger TPIAT age (p = 0.02) and early pump users (p = 0.04) were significantly associated with insulin independence at one year. This study was limited by sample size. Early pump use may have long-term benefits in post-TPIAT endogenous insulin secretion.

Type 1 diabetes mellitus – Population characterization and metabolic control outcomes in a Portuguese patient sample

AimsTo characterize a cohort of T1D patients and to compare diabetes control between patients using different regimen of insulin therapy and glucose monitoring. MethodsWere included all T1D patients followed at the Pediatric Endocrinology Unit, between April 1st and June 30th, 2021. Several clinical and demographic variables were analyzed. ResultsOur sample included 208 patients, 56.7 % males, mean age of 12.7 ± 4.6 years. The median HbA1c was 7.3 %. Most patients, 78.8% were treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and 81.3 % used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). CSII had a lower HbAc compared with multiple daily injections (MDI) users (7.1vs 8.1 %, p < 0.01). In the CSII group, those who used CGM had a lower HbAc (7.1 vs 7.5 %,p = 0.02). Analyzing the data of the ambulatory glucose report, the CSII users had a lower glucose management indicator, (7.2 % vs 7.6 %, p < 0.01), more time in range (58.0 % vs 52.4 %;p < 0.01) and less time above range > 250 mg/dL (12.4 % vs 20.5 %;p < 0.01) than MDI users. ConclusionsThe median HbA1c was 7.3% very close to the recommended target. In Portugal, pediatric patients can access a CSII provided by the national health service and a CGM system due to an elevated reimbursement of their cost. This healthy policy allows us to achieve better goals without the risk of hypoglycemia.

Use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections in emerging adults with type 1 diabetes is associated with better clinical engagement but not glycaemic control.

Limited studies have compared outcomes between emerging adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) attending a diabetes transition support programme using multiple daily injections (MDI) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). To assess glycaemic control and service utilisation in emerging adults with T1D on MDI or CSII attending a young adult diabetes clinic (YAC). A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted from January 2013 to December 2015. Data collected included clinic visits per year, after-hours mobile telephone use, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) admissions and all HbA1c levels. Independent t-test was used to compare continuous variables whilst Pearson's Chi-squared test was used for categorical variables. Linear mixed effects models explored mean changes in HbA1c levels over time. Over 3 years, 318 youth with T1D (176 MDI, 121 CSII, 21 switched from MDI to CSII) attended our YAC. Aggregated mean HbA1c levels remained similar between modalities (CSII 9.1% vs MDI 9.3%; P = 0.23); however, mean change in HbA1c at 3 years was significantly increased in CSII users at 0.55% (95% CI 0.15-0.95; P < 0.01) compared with no significant change in MDI users. Clinic visits per year were improved in CSII users (CSII 2.8 vs MDI 2.5; P = 0.02), while DKA admissions remained similar between MDI and CSII users (3.6 admissions per 100 patient-years). In our YAC cohort, glycaemic control in CSII and MDI users was similar but well below recommended international glycaemic targets (HbA1c level < 7.0%). Despite increased clinical engagement occurring in CSII users, glycaemic deterioration was observed over the 3 years.

289-OR: Automated Insulin Delivery Use among 12,065 T1D Exchange Registry Participants

Use of automated insulin delivery (AID) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) has increased in recent years. We analyzed data from the T1D Exchange Registry - an online longitudinal study following adults and children with T1D - to describe characteristics of AID use and its association with self-reported HbA1c, occurrence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) symptoms, and occurrence of severe hypoglycemia events (SHE) . Of 12,065 participants (69.5% female, 87.5% non-Hispanic White, mean age 37.9 yrs, mean T1D duration 19.9 yrs) , 26.4% reported using AID, 43.6% using insulin pump without AID, and 30.0% using multiple daily injections (MDI) . Private insurance was reported in 77.4% of AID users, 74.9% pump without AID, and 66.3% MDI. Among the 3,185 AID users, 50.6% used predictive low glucose suspend (PLGS) features, including Medtronic 640G and Tandem Basal-IQ; 49.4% used hybrid closed-loop (HCL) , including DIY looping, Medtronic Auto Mode, and Tandem Control-IQ. Average HbA1c was lower in AID users than those using MDI and pump without AID; Incidence of SHE was lower among HCL users compared with PLGS users and AID users compared with MDI users (Table 1) . These cross-sectional real-world data support findings of previous clinical studies showing significant improvements in HbA1c with AID use, with HCL use providing additional protection against SHE. Disclosure J.Liu: None. W.Wolf: None. K.Miller: Research Support; Dexcom, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. C.Kelly: None. K.S.M.Chapman: None. M.Peter: None. D.Finan: None. H.Nguyen: None. K.Laferriere: None. C.Leon: None.

112-OR: Metabolic Outcomes One Year after Total Pancreatectomy with Islet Autotransplantation after Early Pump Initiation

Background: We previously published that insulin pump initiation immediately after IV insulin therapy was associated with improved post-surgical glycemic outcomes compared to multiple daily injections (MDI) in pediatric patients following total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation (TPIAT) . We investigated metabolic outcomes of this population at 1 year post-TPIAT to assess if the improved outcomes in the early pump group were sustained over time. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 40 patients post-TPIAT previously studied at days post-surgery (14 used MDI and 26 used pump therapy immediately post-ICU, all discharged on pump therapy) . Data analyzed included: demographics, islet equivalents per kilogram (IEQ/kg) transplanted, exogenous insulin use, and baseline vs. 1 year (via mixed meal testing) HgA1C, fasting glucose, insulinogenic index and area under the curve (AUC) for insulin and c-peptide. Results: More patients were off insulin at 1 year in the early pump group compared to the MDI group (43% vs. 14%, p=0.08) . Of all patients off insulin, 100% of the early pump users weaned off by 6 months post-TPIAT compared to 30% of the MDI users. Two known variables associated with favorable insulin outcomes, lower age and higher IEQ/kg were not significantly different between groups. Fasting glucose was lower in the early pump group compared to the MDI group (median 97.5 vs. 122 mg/dL, p=0.01) while AUC c-peptide was greater in early pump users at 1 year post-TPIAT but did not reach significance (median 65.3 vs. 49.5 ng/mL x minutes, p=0.07) . Other metabolic outcomes did not differ between groups. Conclusion: Despite lower median age and higher IEQ/kg in the MDI group, the early pump group had a lower fasting glucose. Though not significant, the early pump group had a higher proportion off insulin and greater AUC c-peptide secretion. This study was limited by sample size. Early pump use may have long term benefits in post-TPIAT endogenous insulin secretion. Disclosure S.E.Tellez: None. L.Hornung: None. J.D.Courter: None. M.Abu-el-haija: None. J.D.Nathan: None. S.Lawson: None. D.A.Elder: None.

Continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump therapy in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

We examined the impact of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGM) during pregnancy in women with pre-gestational type 1 diabetes (T1DM) on glycemic control and subsequent adverse outcomes. In this observational, one-center study we analyzed records of consecutive 109 T1DM pregnancies (2016-2017). The final analyzed group consisted of 81 singleton pregnancies who met inclusion and exclusion criteria. We searched for the association between the use of CSII with or without CGM and pregnancy planning with glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) through pregnancy and after delivery as well as maternal and infant outcomes. Patients using CSII and CGM vs CSII without CGM and MDI (multiple daily injections) users had the lowest HbA1c levels during and after pregnancy (5.3%, 5.3%, 5.2% and 5,5% in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd trimester and postpartum visit, p = 0.003, p = 0.030, p = 0.039 and p = 0.002, respectively). Patients treated with insulin pumps with CGM and additional functions of automatic insulin delivery suspension on low glucose level (SLG) or predictive low glucose suspend (PLGS) during the third trimester and after pregnancy achieved a significantly lower HbA1c than the other CSII patients. We did not find any differences between the study groups in gestational age at delivery, preterm births, birth weight or macrosomia risk. Despite very good glycemic control, the risk of macrosomia remained high (19.7%). The use of pumps equipped with CGM, especially with automatic insulin delivery suspension, may improve glycemic control in pregnant T1DM women. The proportion of macrosomia remained high.

Does Current Diabetes Technology Improve Metabolic Control? A Cross-Sectional Study on the Use of Insulin Pumps and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices in a Nationwide Pediatric Population.

ObjectiveTo examine the use of multiple daily injections (MDI), insulin pumps, self-measured blood glucose (SMBG), and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, and their association with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and severe hypoglycemia.MethodsIn a pediatric population-based nationwide cross-sectional study, we analyzed data from 2623 participants up to 18 years of age with type 1 diabetes, using 2017 annual data from the Norwegian Childhood Diabetes Registry. HbA1c was adjusted for age, gender, and diabetes duration. Using a linear mixed-effects model, we assessed HbA1c and the incidence of DKA and severe hypoglycemia according to the use of MDI, insulin pumps, SMBG, and CGM.ResultsWe observed that 74.7% of participants were using an insulin pump and 52.6% were using a CGM system. Mean HbA1c was 7.8% (62 mmol/mol). The HbA1c of pump users was 0.14 percentage points (pp) higher than that of MDI users. Fewer pump users than MDI users achieved an HbA1c of < 7.5% (38.3 vs. 41.6%). CGM users had a 0.18 pp lower HbA1c than SMBG users, with 40.5 and 38.0%, respectively, achieving an HbA1c of < 7.5%. The incidence of severe hypoglycemia or hospitalization due to DKA was not different in pump and CGM users compared with nonusers. Compared with other insulin pumps, patch pump use was associated with a significantly lower odds ratio for DKA.ConclusionsDespite the broad use of diabetes technology, as many as 61% of our pediatric cohort did not reach the HbA1c target recommended by the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD). Lower HbA1c was associated with CGM use but not with insulin pump use. Acute complications were not less frequent in the groups using insulin pumps or CGM compared with those using MDI and SMBG. Further research is required to explore the lower incidence of DKA among patch pump users.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04201171.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13300-021-01127-6.

716-P: Transition from Multiple Daily Injections (MDI) to Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System Improves A1C in Type 1 Diabetes (T1D)

Many of those with T1D in the US use MDI as their insulin delivery method. Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems such as the Omnipod 5 System may improve glycemic outcomes and reduce treatment burden, however, these systems must be accessible to current MDI users. We performed a subgroup analysis of participants transitioning directly from MDI in the pivotal study of the Omnipod 5 System. Children (6-13.9 y) and adults (14-70 y) with T1D≥6 months and A1C<10% used the HCL system for 3 months at home, after a 14-d run-in phase of MDI as their standard therapy (ST). Primary efficacy endpoints were change in A1C and percent time with sensor glucose in target range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) during HCL compared with MDI. Thirteen children (mean±SD, age 11±2 y, T1D duration 4±2 y, A1C 7.7±1.0%, 77% CGM users) and 23 adults (age 38±13 y, T1D duration 16±12 y, A1C 7.4±0.9%, 91% CGM users) used MDI as ST. HCL use among children and adults improved TIR by 16.7±14.0% and 12.7±12.5%, and reduced A1C by 1.0±0.8% and 0.5±0.7%, respectively, compared with MDI (all p<0.05, Table). There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis in this subgroup. Direct transition from MDI to the Omnipod 5 System is feasible and effective in reducing A1C and improving TIR in T1D. Most participants (97%) chose to continue HCL use during an extension phase, suggesting high acceptability of the system among MDI users.View largeDownload slideView largeDownload slide DisclosureV. Shah: Advisory Panel; Self; Medscape, Sanofi, Research Support; Self; Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Insulet Corporation, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, vTv Therapeutics. L. M. Laffel: Consultant; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Dexcom, Inc., Dompe, Insulogic LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Laxmi Therapeutic Devices, LifeScan, Lilly Diabetes, Medtronic, Provention Bio, Inc. G. Aleppo: Consultant; Self; Dexcom, Inc., Insulet Corporation, Research Support; Self; Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Insulet Corporation, Novo Nordisk. B. A. Buckingham: Advisory Panel; Self; Medtronic, Tolerion, Inc., Research Support; Self; Beta Bionics, Inc., Insulet Corporation, Medtronic, Tandem Diabetes Care. D. Desalvo: Consultant; Self; Insulet Corporation, Research Support; Self; Insulet Corporation, Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Dexcom, Inc. I. B. Hirsch: Consultant; Self; Abbott Diabetes, Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc., Research Support; Self; Insulet Corporation, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, Medtronic. S. A. Macleish: Advisory Panel; Self; Insulet Corporation. J. E. Pinsker: Advisory Panel; Self; Medtronic, Consultant; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Tandem Diabetes Care, Research Support; Self; Dexcom, Inc., Insulet Corporation, Medtronic, Tandem Diabetes Care. T. T. Ly: Employee; Self; Insulet Corporation. A. B. Criego: Consultant; Self; Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc., Other Relationship; Self; Sanofi, Research Support; Self; Abbott Diabetes, Eli Lilly and Company, Insulet Corporation, Medtronic. A. L. Carlson: Board Member; Self; JDRF, Other Relationship; Self; Medtronic, Research Support; Self; Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Omnipod, Sanofi, UnitedHealth Group. A. Bhargava: Research Support; Self; Abbott, AbbVie Inc., Amgen Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Covance Inc., Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals, Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals, Insulet Corporation, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Medtronic, Merck & Co., Inc., Mylan N. V., Novo Nordisk, Quintiles, Sanofi, Senseonics, Senseonics, Tolerion, Inc., viking. B. W. Bode: Advisory Panel; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Consultant; Self; Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc., Companion Medical, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Medtronic, Novo Nordisk Inc., Zealand Pharma A/S, Research Support; Self; Abvance Therapeutics, Dexcom, Inc., Diasome Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dompe, Eli Lilly and Company, Eyenuk, Inc., Insulet Corporation, Jaeb Center for Health Research, Medtronic, Nova Biomedical, Novo Nordisk, Provention Bio, Inc., REMD Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Senseonics, Viacyte, Inc., vTv Therapeutics, Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Speaker’s Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, MannKind Corporation, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Stock/Shareholder; Self; AgaMatrix, Aseko, Inc., Glytec, LLC. S. A. Brown: Research Support; Self; Dexcom, Inc., Insulet Corporation, Roche Diabetes Care, Tandem Diabetes Care, Tolerion, Inc.FundingInsulet Corporation

Improved glycemic control in 3,592 adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating a tubeless insulin management system

AimsTo compare glycemic outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) before and 90 days after initiating Omnipod® or Omnipod DASH® Insulin Management Systems. MethodsIn this retrospective observational study (N = 3,592) change in HbA1c level, total daily dose (TDD) of insulin (n = 3,053), and frequency of self-reported hypoglycemic events (HE, <70 mg/dL, n = 2,922) were assessed overall and by prior treatment modality (multiple daily injections (MDI) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII)), age group, and baseline HbA1c category. ResultsChange (mean ± SD) in HbA1c was −1.3 ± 1.7% [−14 ± 19 mmol/mol] overall, −1.4 ± 1.7% [−15 ± 19 mmol/mol] for prior MDI users, and −0.9 ± 1.5% [−10 ± 16 mmol/mol] for prior CSII users (p<0.0001). The percentage of patients with HbA1c ≥9% [≥75 mmol/mol] decreased (49% to 19%), and with HbA1c <7% [<53 mmol/mol] increased (10% to 22%) (p<0.0001). Prior therapy, age, and baseline HbA1c category were factors affecting change in HbA1c (p<0.05). Reductions in TDD (overall, −33 ± 52U, p<0.0001) and HE per week (overall, −0.5 ± 2.0, p<0.0001), were seen regardless of prior treatment, age, or baseline HbA1c. ConclusionsOmnipod System use was associated with statistically and clinically meaningful reductions in HbA1c, TDD, and HE compared to prior treatments in T2DM.

Less Nocturnal Hypoglycemia but Equivalent Time in Range Among Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Using Insulin Pumps Versus Multiple Daily Injections.

Background: This prerandomization analysis from the Australian HCL-Adult trial (registration number: ACTRN12617000520336) compared masked continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics among adults using insulin pumps versus multiple daily injections (MDIs), who were all self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG). Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes, using an insulin pump or MDIs without real-time CGM (and entering a trial of closed-loop technology), were eligible. MDI users were given an insulin dosage calculator. All participants received diabetes and carbohydrate-counting education, then wore masked CGM sensors for 3 weeks. Ethics Approval: HREC-D 088/16 Results: Adults using MDIs (n = 61) versus pump (n = 59) did not differ by age, sex, diabetes duration, insulin total daily dose, or HbA1c at baseline. After education, median (interquartile range) CGM time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was 54% (47, 62) for those using MDIs and 56% (48, 66) for those using pump (P = 0.40). All CGM metrics were equivalent for 24 h/day for MDI and pump users. Overnight, those using MDIs (vs. pump) spent more time with glucose <54 mg/dL (<3.0 mmol/L): 1.4% (0.1, 5.1) versus 0.5% (0.0, 2.0), respectively (P = 0.012). They also had more CGM hypoglycemia episodes (121 vs. 54, respectively; incidence rate ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.48 [1.51, 4.06]; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Adults with type 1 diabetes using pumps versus MDIs in conjunction with SMBG experienced less nocturnal hypoglycemia, measured by masked CGM, after equivalent diabetes and dietary education in conjunction with insulin dosage calculator provision to all. However, both groups had equivalent TIR. This observation may reflect advantages afforded by flexibility in basal insulin delivery provided by pumps.