Update on recent advances in technology in type 1 diabetes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15277/bjd.2024.440Abstract
Those living with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) require daily adjustments of exogenous insulin doses and frequent glucose monitoring to optimally manage their condition. Consequently, it is one of the most challenging long-term conditions to live with. Recent years have seen major progress in the management of T1DM, with minimally invasive glucose monitoring technology and glucose-responsive insulin delivery systems, also called hybrid closed-loop systems. This narrative review focuses on three key areas: continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems, and connected pen devices, sometimes known as smart pens. We describe features of commonly used devices in the UK NHS and summarise their key evidence base. Randomised controlled trials and real-world studies of CGM devices have shown improved haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, improved sensor-based metrics such as higher time spent in the target glucose range, and reduced rates of hypoglycemia. HCL studies have similarly shown improved HbA1c and other sensor- based glucose outcomes. Further recent innovations for insulin users include connected insulin pens, which allow the display and recording of insulin delivery information. In addition to glycaemic benefits, novel diabetes technology has been shown to improve quality of life and to give higher treatment satisfaction. Some disadvantages of technology include alarm burden, connectivity problems and premature device failure. To get the best from novel diabetes technology, appropriate training and education are required, specifically in identifying and dealing with critical system failures such as cannula failure and the risk of ketoacidosis. Recent recommendations from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) regarding HCL further underscore the growing significance of these advances in diabetes care.
References
Roep BO, Thomaidou S, van Tienhoven R, Zaldumbide A. Type 1 diabetes mellitus as a disease of the β-cell (do not blame the immune system?). Nat Rev Endocrinol 2021;17(3):150–61. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-020-00443-4
McCarthy MM, Grey M. Type 1 Diabetes self-management from emerging adulthood through older adulthood. Diabetes Care 2018; 41(8):1608–14. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-2597
Moström P, Ahlén E, Imberg H, Hansson PO, Lind M. Adherence of self-monitoring of blood glucose in persons with type 1 diabetes in Sweden. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 2017;5(1):e000342. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2016-000342
Vincze G, Barner JC, Lopez D. Factors associated with adherence to self-monitoring of blood glucose among persons with diabetes. Diabetes Educ 2004;30(1):112–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 014572170403000119
Hirsch I. Introduction: history of glucose monitoring. ADA Clinical Compendia 2018 Aug;1–1. https://doi.org/10.2337/db20181-1
Leelarathna L, Wilmot EG. Flash forward: a review of flash glucose monitoring. Diabetic Medicine 2018;35(4):472–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13584
Thabit H, Bally L, Hovorka R. Available at a flash: a new way to check glucose. Lancet 2016;388(10057):2213–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31582-3
freestyle libre 2 can now work as a real-time continuous glucose monitor. accessed on 2300 . 2023. https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about_us/news/freestyle-libre-2-can-now-work-real-time-continuous-glucose-monitor#:~:text=On%203%20August%2C%20Abbott%20announced,FreeStyle%20Libre%202%20sensor%20users.
Reiterer F, Polterauer P, Schoemaker M, et al. Significance and reliability of MARD for the accuracy of CGM systems. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2017;11(1):59–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296816662047
Kovatchev BP, Patek SD, Ortiz EA, Breton MD. Assessing sensor accuracy for non-adjunct use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther 2015;17(3):177-86. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2014.0272
Obermaier K, Schmelzeisen-Redeker G, Schoemaker M, et al. Performance evaluations of continuous glucose monitoring systems: precision absolute relative deviation is part of the assessment. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2013;7(4):824–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/193229681300700404
Diabetes Nurse Forum CGM comparison Chart Version 5, 2023. https://www.diabetesspecialistnurseforumuk.co.uk/whats-new
The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008;359(14):1464–76. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0805017
Lind M, Polonsky W, Hirsch IB, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring vs conventional therapy for glycaemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections. JAMA 2017; 317(4):379. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.201619976
Beck RW, Riddlesworth T, Ruedy K, et al. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycaemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections. JAMA 2017;317(4):371-8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.19975
Pratley RE, Kanapka LG, Rickels MR, et al. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on hypoglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes. JAMA 2020;323(23):2397-2406. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.6928
Laffel LM, Kanapka LG, Beck RW, et al. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycaemic control in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. JAMA 2020;323(23):2388-96. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.6940
Thabit H, Prabhu JN, Mubita W, et al. Use of factory-calibrated real- time continuous glucose monitoring improves time in target and HbA1c in a multiethnic cohort of adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes: the MILLENNIALS study. Diabetes Care 2020; 43(10):2537–43. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-0736
Phillip M, Nimri R, Bergenstal RM, et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of automated insulin delivery technologies in clinical practice. Endocr Rev 2023;44(2):254–80. https://doi.org/10.1210/endrev/bnac022
Oskarsson P, Antuna R, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P, Krӧger J, Weitgasser R, Bolinder J. Impact of flash glucose monitoring on hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes managed with multiple daily injection therapy: a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the IMPACT randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia 2018;61(3):539–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-017-4527-5
Elliott RA, Rogers G, Evans ML, et al. Estimating the cost‐effectiveness of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes in England. Diabetic Medicine 2024;41(3):e15232. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.15232
Leelarathna L, Evans ML, Neupane S, et al. Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring for type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2022;387(16):1477–87. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2205650
Visser MM, Charleer S, Fieuws S, et al. Effect of switching from intermittently scanned to real-time continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes: 24-month results from the randomised ALERTT1 trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2023; 11(2):96–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00352-7
Shah N, Deshmukh H, Wilmot EG, et al. The long‐term impact of glucose monitoring with the FreeStyle Libre on glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia awareness in people with type 1 diabetes: insights from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists national audit. Diabetic Medicine 2023;40(6):e15070. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.15070
Charleer S, Mathieu C, Nobels F, et al. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycaemic control, acute admissions, and quality of life: a real-world study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2018;103(3):1224–32. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2017-02498
Leelarathna L, Choudhary P, Wilmot EG, et al. Hybrid closed‐loop therapy: where are we in 2021? Diabetes Obes Metab 2021; 23(3):655–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.14273
Diabetes Specialist Nurse Forum UK. Version 5.0. Diabetes Specialist Nurse Forum comparison chart of Hybrid Closed Loop systems. https://www.diabetesspecialistnurseforumuk.co.uk/whats-new
Braune K, Lal RA, Petruželková L, et al. Open-source automated insulin delivery: international consensus statement and practical guidance for health-care professionals. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2022;10(1):58–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00267-9
Burnside MJ, Lewis DM, Crocket HR, et al. Open-source automated insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2022;387(10):869–81. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2203913
Ware J, Boughton CK, Allen JM, et al. Cambridge hybrid closed-loop algorithm in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre 6-month randomised controlled trial. Lancet Digit Health 2022;4(4):e245–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(22)00020-6
Stewart ZA, Wilinska ME, Hartnell S, et al. Closed-loop insulin delivery during pregnancy in women with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2016;375(7):644–54. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1602494
Lee TTM, Collett C, Bergford S, et al. Automated insulin delivery in women with pregnancy complicated by type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2023;389(17):1566–78. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2303911
Tauschmann M, Thabit H, Bally L, et al. Closed-loop insulin delivery in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, 12-week randomised trial. Lancet 2018;392(10155):1321–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01406736(18)31947-0
Bergenstal RM, Nimri R, Beck RW, et al. A comparison of two hybrid closed-loop systems in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes (FLAIR): a multicentre, randomised, crossover trial. Lancet 2021; 397(10270):208–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32514-9
Choudhary P, Kolassa R, Keuthage W, et al. Advanced hybrid closed loop therapy versus conventional treatment in adults with type 1 diabetes (ADAPT): a randomised controlled study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2022;10(10):720–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00212-1
Brown SA, Kovatchev BP, Raghinaru D, et al. Six-month randomized, multicenter trial of closed-loop control in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2019;381(18):1707–17. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1907863
Breton MD, Kovatchev BP. One year real-world use of the Control- IQ advanced hybrid closed-loop technology. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021;23(9):601–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.20210097
Brown SA, Forlenza GP, Bode BW, et al. Multicenter trial of a tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery system with customizable glycaemic targets in pediatric and adult participants with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2021;44(7):1630–40. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-0172
Crabtree TSJ, Griffin TP, Yap YW, et al. Hybrid closed-loop therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes and above-target HbA1c: a real-world observational study. Diabetes Care 2023;46(10):1831–8. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc23-0635
NHS runs world-first test into ‘sci-fi like’ artificial pancreases, 2022.
Sy SL, Munshi MM, Toschi E. Can smart pens help improve diabetes management? J Diabetes Sci Technol 2020;16(3):628–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296820965600
Munshi MN, Slyne C, Greenberg JM, et al. Nonadherence to insulin therapy detected by Bluetooth-enabled pen cap Is associated with poor glycaemic control. Diabetes Care 2019;42(6):1129–31. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc18-1631
Gomez-Peralta F, Abreu C, Fernández-Rubio E, et al. Efficacy of a connected insulin pen cap in people with noncontrolled type 1 diabetes: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care 2023;46(1):206–08. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-0525
Speight J, Choudhary P, Wilmot EG, et al. Impact of glycaemic technologies on quality of life and related outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes: a narrative review. Diabetic Medicine 2023; 40(1):e14944. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.14944
https://www.diabeteseducator.org/danatech/glucose-monitoring/continuous-glucose-monitors-(cgm)/cgm-101/pros-cons-of-cgm#:~:text=Potential%20DISADVANTAGES. accessed on 10/11/2023 at 1400. WEIGHING CGM PROS AND CONS.
Andrew E, Crabtree TSJ, Richardson P, et al. Poster abstracts: Retinopathy outcomes associated with hybrid-closed loop therapy in the NHS England pilot at the University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Trust (UHDB): single centre report from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) audit. Diabetic Medicine 2023;40(S1):P256. https://doi.org/1111/dme.15048
Type 1 diabetes in adults: diagnosis and management NICE guideline [NG17]. Published 26 August 2015. Last updated: 17 August 2022. Continuous glucose monitoring. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng17/chapter/Recommendations#blood-glucose-management.
NICE Guidelines. Technology appraisal guidance [TA943]. Last seen at 17/01/2024 @ 1720. 2023. Hybrid closed loop systems for managing blood glucose levels in type 1 diabetes. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc19-2267
Wilson LM, Jacobs PG, Ram Esey KL, et al. Dual-hormone closed- loop system using a liquid stable glucagon formulation versus insulin-only closed-loop system compared with a predictive low glucose suspend system: an open-label, outpatient, single-center, crossover, randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2020; 43(11):2721–9. https://doi.org/10.237/dc19-2267
Castellanos LE, Balliro CA, Sherwood JS, et al. Performance of the insulin-only iLet bionic pancreas and the bihormonal iLet using dasiglucagon in adults with type 1 diabetes in a home-use setting. Diabetes Care 2021;44(6):e118–20. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-1086
Xiao Z, Tan X, Chen X, et al. An implantable RFID sensor tag toward continuous glucose monitoring. IEEE J Biomed Health Informatics 2015;19:910–19. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2015.2415836
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 British Journal of Diabetes
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Publish & Transfer of Copyright Agreement
For the mutual benefit and protection of the Author and the Journal Owner/Publisher it is necessary that the Author provides formal written Consent to Publish and Transfer of Copyright before publication of the Work.
