Simona de Portu’s research while affiliated with Medtronic and other places

Intensive therapy with exogenous insulin is the treatment of choice for individuals living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and some with type 2 diabetes, alongside regular glucose monitoring. The development of systems allowing (semi-)automated insulin delivery (AID), by connecting glucose sensors with insulin pumps and algorithms, has revolutionized insulin therapy. Indeed, AID systems have demonstrated a proven impact on overall glucose control, as indicated by effects on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), risk of severe hypoglycemia, and quality of life measures. An alternative endpoint for glucose control that has arisen from the use of sensor-based continuous glucose monitoring is the time in range (TIR) measure, which offers an indication of overall glucose control, while adding information on the quality of control with regard to blood glucose level stability. A review of literature on the health-economic value of AID systems was conducted, with a focus placed on the growing place of TIR as an endpoint in studies involving AID systems. Results showed that the majority of economic evaluations of AID systems focused on individuals with T1D and found AID systems to be cost-effective. Most studies incorporated HbA1c, rather than TIR, as a clinical endpoint to determine treatment effects on glucose control and subsequent quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains. Likely reasons for the choice of HbA1c as the chosen endpoint is the use of this metric in most validated and established economic models, as well as the limited publicly available evidence on appropriate methodologies for TIR data incorporation within conventional economic evaluations. Future studies could include the novel TIR metric in health-economic evaluations as an additional measure of treatment effects and subsequent QALY gains, to facilitate a holistic representation of the impact of AID systems on glycemic control. This would provide decision makers with robust evidence to inform future recommendations for health care interventions.

Background Advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) automated insulin delivery systems are the most effective therapy in terms of assisting people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to achieve glycemic targets; however, the cost can represent a barrier to uptake. Here, a cost-utility analysis of the MiniMedTM 780G AHCL system (MM780G) versus intermittently-scanned continuous glucose monitoring (is-CGM) plus multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) in people with T1D not achieving glycemic goals was performed across six European countries. Methods Clinical input data were sourced from the ADAPT trial. Assuming a baseline HbA1c of 9.04%, HbA1c reductions of 1.54% for AHCL and 0.2% for is-CGM+MDI were assumed. The analyses were performed from a payer perspective over a time horizon of 40 years and an annual discount rate of 3% was applied. Results Across all countries, the use of AHCL was projected to result in an incremental gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy of >2 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus is-CGM+MDI. Lifetime direct costs were higher with AHCL resulting in incremental cost-utility ratios for AHCL versus is-CGM+MDI ranging from EUR 11,765 per QALY gained in Austria to EUR 43,963 per QALY gained in Italy. Conclusions For people with T1D managed with is-CGM+MDI not achieving glycemic targets, initiation of the MM780G system was projected to improve long-term clinical outcomes; however, due to differences in healthcare costs between countries, the health economic outcomes differ. In the countries included here, AHCL is likely to be cost-effective relative to is-CGM+MDI for people not achieving glycemic goals with is-CGM+MDI.

Aims: To reassess the 6-month efficacy and to assess the 12-month sustained efficacy of the MiniMed™ 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop automated insulin delivery (AID) system compared to multiple daily injections plus intermittently scanned glucose monitoring (MDI+isCGM) in people with type 1 diabetes not meeting glucose targets. Methods: The ADAPT study was a prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomized control trial in people with type 1 diabetes, with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration of at least 8.0% (64 mmol/mol), on MDI+isCGM therapy. After a 6-month study phase, participants randomized at baseline to MDI+isCGM switched to AID (SWITCH) while the others continued AID therapy (SUSTAIN) for an additional 6 months. The primary endpoint of this continuation phase was the within-group change in mean HbA1c between 6 and 12 months, with superiority in the SWITCH group and noninferiority in the SUSTAIN group (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04235504). Results: A total of 39 SWITCH and 36 SUSTAIN participants entered the continuation phase. In the SWITCH group, HbA1c was significantly decreased by -1.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.7% to -1.1%; P < 0.001) from a mean ± SD of 8.9% ± 0.8% (73.9 ± 8.6 mmol/mol) at 6 months to 7.5% ± 0.6% (58.5 ± 6.9 mmol/mol) at 12 months. Mean HbA1c increased by 0.1% (95% CI -0.05% to +0.25%), from 7.3% ± 0.6% (56.5 ± 6.7 mmol/mol) to 7.4% ± 0.8% (57.7 ± 9.1 mmol/mol) in the SUSTAIN group, meeting noninferiority criteria. Three severe hypoglycaemia events occurred in two SWITCH participants during the continuation phase. Conclusion: ADAPT study phase glycaemic improvements were reproduced and sustained in the continuation phase, supporting the early adoption of AID therapy in people with type 1 diabetes not meeting glucose targets on MDI therapy.

Background: This analysis reports the findings from a predefined exploratory cohort (cohort B) from the ADAPT (ADvanced Hybrid Closed Loop Study in Adult Population with Type 1 Diabetes) study. Adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) with suboptimal glucose control were randomly allocated to an advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system or multiple daily injections of insulin (MDI) plus real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM). Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, exploratory, open-label, randomized controlled trial, 13 participants using MDI + RT-CGM and with HbA1c ≥8.0% were randomized to switch to AHCL (n = 8) or continue with MDI + RT-CGM (n = 5) for six months. Prespecified endpoints included the between-group difference in mean change from baseline in HbA1c, CGM-derived measures of glycemic control, and safety. Results: The mean HbA1c level decreased by 1.70 percentage points in the AHCL group versus a 0.60 percentage point decrease in the MDI + RT-CGM group, with a model-based treatment effect of -1.08 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.17 to 0.00 percentage points; P = .0508) in favor of AHCL. The percentage of time spent with sensor glucose levels between 70 and 180 mg/dL in the study phase was 73.6% in the AHCL group and 46.4% in the MDI + RT-CGM group; model-based between-group difference of 28.8 percentage points (95% CI = 12.3 to 45.3 percentage points; P = .0035). No diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred in either group. Conclusions: In people with T1D with HbA1c ≥8.0%, the use of AHCL resulted in improved glycemic control relative to MDI + RT-CGM. The scale of improvement suggests that AHCL should be considered as an option for people not achieving good glycemic control on MDI + RT-CGM.

Background Adults with type 1 diabetes who are treated with multiple daily injections of insulin plus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) can have suboptimal glucose control. We aimed to assess the efficacy of an advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system compared with such therapy in this population. Methods The Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop Study in Adult Population with Type 1 Diabetes (ADAPT) trial is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial that involved 14 centres in three European countries (France, Germany, and the UK). We enrolled patients who were at least 18 years of age, had a type 1 diabetes duration of at least 2 years, HbA1c of at least 8% (64 mmol/mol), and were using multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM (cohort A) or real time continuous glucose monitoring (cohort B) for at least 3 months. Here, only results for cohort A are reported. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to AHCL therapy or continuation of multiple daily injections of insulin plus continuous glucose monitoring for 6 months with an investigator-blinded block randomisation procedure. Participants and treating clinicians could not be masked to the arm assignment. The primary endpoint was the between-group difference in mean HbA1c change from baseline to 6 months in the intention-to-treat population using AHCL therapy and those using multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM. The primary endpoint was analysed using a repeated measures random-effects model with the study arm and period as factors. Safety endpoints included the number of device deficiencies, severe hypoglycaemic events, diabetic ketoacidosis, and serious adverse events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04235504. Findings Between July 13, 2020, and March 12, 2021, 105 people were screened and 82 randomly assigned to treatment (41 in each arm). At 6 months, mean HbA1c had decreased by 1·54% (SD 0·73), from 9·00% to 7·32% in the AHCL group and 0·20% (0·80) in the multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM from 9·07% to 8·91% (model-based difference −1·42%, 95% CI −1·74 to −1·10; p<0·0001). No diabetic ketoacidosis, severe hypoglycaemia, or serious adverse events related to study devices occurred in either group; two severe hypoglycaemic events occurred in the run-in phase. 15 device-related non-serious adverse events occurred in the AHCL group, compared with three in the multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM group. Two serious adverse events occurred (one in each group), these were breast cancer (in one patient in the AHCL group) and intravitreous haemorrhage (in one patient in the multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM group). Interpretation In people with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM and with HbA1c of at least 8%, the use of AHCL confers benefits in terms of glycaemic control beyond those that can be achieved with multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM. These data support wider access to AHCL in people with type 1 diabetes not at target glucose levels. Funding Medtronic International Trading Sàrl.

Objective: To assess the effect of the MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop (AHCL) system compared to MDI with isCGM (MDI+isCGM) therapy on treatment satisfaction (TS) and fear of hypoglycemia (FoH) , in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) with above-target baseline glycemic control participating in the ADAPT study. Methods: Participants with T1D who were on MDI+isCGM and who had suboptimal glycemic control (HbA1c≥8%) were randomly assigned to AHCL or to continue MDI+isCGM. Treatment satisfaction was measured with the Diabetes-Treatment-Satisfaction-Questionnaire, status (DTSQs) and change (DTSQc) and FoH with the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS) . Results: Overall, the decrease in HbA1c was 1.4% greater in the AHCL group vs. MDI+isCGM group (P<0.001) with no difference in hypoglycemia. Mean DTSQs score increased significantly in the AHCL arm after 6 months compared to the MDI+isCGM arm (29.7 vs. 21.9, P=0.0003) , with significant improvement in perceived frequency of hyperglycemia (P<0.001) . There was no difference in the perceived frequency of hypoglycemia. Results were consistent in both DTSQs and DTSQc. Fear of hypoglycemia decreased in both groups, but the decrease was significantly greater in the AHCL group. At 6 months, HFS scores decreased by 10.2 points and 2.7 points from baseline in the AHCL and MDI+isCGM groups, respectively (P=0.04) . Conclusion: AHCL therapy improves patient-reported outcomes with greater treatment satisfaction and reduced FoH compared to MDI+isCGM in sub-optimally controlled participants with T1D. Disclosure S.De portu: Employee; Medtronic. J.Castañeda: Employee; Medtronic. O.Cohen: Employee; Medtronic. Adapt study group: n/a. P.Choudhary: Advisory Panel; Abbott Diabetes, Lilly Diabetes, Medtronic, Research Support; Novo Nordisk, Speaker's Bureau; Dexcom, Inc., Glooko, Inc., Insulet Corporation, Sanofi. J.Kroeger: Advisory Panel; Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Inc., Other Relationship; AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie AG, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Lilly Diabetes, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Research Support; Medtronic. C.Thivolet: Board Member; Insulet Corporation, Medtronic, Research Support; Abbott Diabetes, Lilly Diabetes, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. M.Evans: Advisory Panel; Pila Pharma, Zucara Therapeutics, Other Relationship; Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Inc., Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Research Support; AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Speaker's Bureau; Lilly Diabetes. R.Ré: Employee; Medtronic. L.Vorrink de groot: Employee; Medtronic. J.Shin: Employee; Medtronic. A.Habteab ghebretinsae: None. Funding Medtronic