Swimming With the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System: Connectivity in the Water.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hughes MS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10369126 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Swimming With the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System: Connectivity in the Water.
Hughes Michael S MS Kingman Ryan S RS Hsu Liana L Lal Rayhan A RA Buckingham Bruce A BA Zaharieva Dessi P DP
Diabetes care 20230801 8
Similar Datasets
Project description:Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, which connect an insulin pump, continuous glucose monitoring system, and software algorithm to automate insulin delivery based on real-time glycemic data, hold promise for improving outcomes and reducing therapeutic burden for people with diabetes. This article reviews the features of the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System and how it compares to other AID systems available on or currently under review for the U.S. market. It also provides practical guidance for clinicians on how to effectively train and onboard people with diabetes on the Omnipod 5 System, including how to personalize therapy and optimize glycemia. Many people with diabetes receive their diabetes care in primary care settings rather than in a diabetes specialty clinic. Therefore, it is important that primary care providers have access to resources to support the adoption of AID technologies such as the Omnipod 5 System.
| S-EPMC9160549 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe aim was to evaluate the effect of extended use of the Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System in adults with type 2 diabetes and suboptimal glycaemic control.Materials and methodsFollowing an 8-week single-arm, multicentre, outpatient trial of AID in adults with type 2 diabetes and baseline HbA1c ≥ 8% (≥ 64 mmol/mol), participants were given the opportunity to continue use of the AID system in a 26-week (~6 month) extension phase. The primary safety endpoints were percentage of time with sensor glucose ≥ 250 mg/dL and < 54 mg/dL. Additional glycaemic measures, including percentage of time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) and HbA1c, were evaluated. The use of non-insulin anti-hyperglycaemic medications was permitted throughout the entire study.ResultsDuring the initial 8-week study, participants (N = 22) achieved a decrease in percentage of time ≥ 250 mg/dL from 27.4% ± 21.0% to 10.5% ± 8.8% (p < 0.0001), which further decreased to 9.7% ± 9.2% during the extension phase (p = 0.0002 vs. standard therapy). Percentage of time < 54 mg/dL remained low from standard therapy through extension (median [interquartile range] 0.00% [0.00%, 0.06%] vs. 0.02% [0.00%, 0.05%], p > 0.05). HbA1c decreased by 1.6% ± 1.2% (15.5 ± 13.1 mmol/mol, p < 0.0001) and TIR increased by 22.4% ± 19.2% (p < 0.0001) from standard therapy through extension with no significant change in body mass index and without an observed increase in total daily insulin requirements.ConclusionsThese longer-term findings of Omnipod 5 AID System use demonstrate the potential value of AID in helping people with type 2 diabetes reach glycaemic targets.
| S-EPMC11618232 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAutomated insulin delivery (AID) has rarely been studied in adults with type 2 diabetes. We tested the feasibility of using AID for type 2 diabetes with the Omnipod 5 System in a multicenter outpatient trial.Research design and methodsParticipants previously were using either basal-only or basal-bolus insulin injections, with or without the use of a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and had a baseline HbA1c ≥8% (≥64 mmol/mol). Participants completed 2 weeks of CGM sensor data collection (blinded for those not previously using CGM) with their standard therapy (ST), then transitioned to 8 weeks of AID. Participants who previously used basal-only injections used the AID system in manual mode for 2 weeks before starting AID. Antihyperglycemic agents were continued at clinician discretion. Primary safety outcomes were percentage of time with sensor glucose ≥250 mg/dL and <54 mg/dL during AID. Additional outcomes included HbA1c and time in target range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL).ResultsParticipants (N = 24) had a mean (± SD) age of 61 ± 8 years, baseline HbA1c of 9.4% ± 0.9% (79 ± 10 mmol/mol), and diabetes duration of 19 ± 9 years. Percentage of time with sensor glucose ≥250 mg/dL decreased with AID by 16.9% ± 16.2% (P < 0.0001), whereas percentage of time at <54 mg/dL remained low during both ST and AID (median [interquartile range] 0.0% [0.00%, 0.06%] vs. 0.00% [0.00%, 0.03%]; P = 0.4543). HbA1c (± SD) decreased by 1.3% ± 0.7% (14 ± 8 mmol/mol; P < 0.0001) and TIR increased by 21.9% ± 15.2% (P < 0.0001) without a significant change in total daily insulin or BMI with AID.ConclusionsFindings from this feasibility trial of AID in adults with type 2 diabetes with suboptimal glycemic outcomes justify further evaluation of this technology in this population.
| S-EPMC10090930 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: Pivotal trials of automated insulin delivery (AID) closed-loop systems have demonstrated a consistent picture of glycemic benefit, supporting approval of multiple systems by the Food and Drug Administration or Conformité Européenne mark receipt. To assess how pivotal trial findings translate to commercial AID use, a systematic review of retrospective real-world studies was conducted. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for articles published after 2018 with more than five nonpregnant individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Data were screened/extracted in duplicate for sample size, AID system, glycemic outcomes, and time in automation. Results: Of 80 studies identified, 20 met inclusion criteria representing 171,209 individuals. Time in target range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was the primary outcome in 65% of studies, with the majority of reports (71%) demonstrating a >10% change with AID use. Change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was reported in nine studies (range 0.1%-0.9%), whereas four reported changes in glucose management indicator (GMI) with a 0.1%-0.4% reduction noted. A decrease in HbA1c or GMI of >0.2% was achieved in two-thirds of the studies describing change in HbA1c and 80% of articles where GMI was described. Time below range <70 mg/dL (<3.9 mmol/L) was reported in 16 studies, with all but 1 study showing stable or reduced levels. Most systems had >90% time in automation. Conclusion: With larger and more diverse populations, and follow-up periods of longer duration (∼9 months vs. 3-6 months for pivotal trials), real-world retrospective analyses confirm pivotal trial findings. Given the glycemic benefits demonstrated, AID is rapidly becoming the standard of care for all people living with T1D. Individuals should be informed of these systems and differences between them, have access to and coverage for these technologies, and receive support as they integrate this mode of insulin delivery into their lives.
| S-EPMC10890954 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo evaluate psychosocial outcomes for adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using the tubeless Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System.MethodsA single-arm, multicenter (across the United States), prospective safety and efficacy study of the tubeless AID system included 115 adults with T1D. Participants aged 18-70 years completed questionnaires assessing psychosocial outcomes - diabetes distress (T1-DDS), hypoglycemic confidence (HCS), well-being (WHO-5), sleep quality (PSQI), insulin delivery satisfaction (IDSS), diabetes treatment satisfaction (DTSQ), and system usability (SUS) - before and after 3 months of AID use. Associations among participant characteristics, psychosocial measures and glycemic outcomes were evaluated using linear regression analyses.ResultsAdults using the tubeless AID system demonstrated improvements in diabetes-specific psychosocial measures, including diabetes distress, hypoglycemic confidence, insulin delivery satisfaction, diabetes treatment satisfaction, and system usability after 3 months (all P < 0.001). No changes in general well-being or sleep quality were observed. The psychosocial outcomes assessed were not consistently associated with baseline participant characteristics (i.e., age, sex, diabetes duration, glycemic outcomes including percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL, percent time below range < 70 mg/dL, hemoglobin A1c, or insulin regimen).ConclusionsUse of the Omnipod 5 AID system was associated with significant improvements in diabetes-related psychosocial outcomes for adults with T1D.Clinical trials registration numberNCT04196140.
| S-EPMC10901155 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThis study examined the psychosocial impact of Loop, an open-source automated insulin dosing system that has emerged from the diabetes technology "Do-It-Yourself" (DIY) movement.MethodsSubsamples of 239 adults, 115 children, and 243 parents completed data collection at the time of Loop initiation and 3 and 6 months later. Surveys collected demographic and clinical information, percent time-in-range, HbA1c, and validated psychosocial measures. Analyses included paired t tests and McNemar's tests to compare psychosocial functioning at 3 and 6 months and regression models to assess baseline predictors of psychosocial outcomes at 6 months.ResultsAdults reported significant improvements in diabetes distress (t = -7.20 P < .001; t = -8.01, P < .001), sleep quality (t = 6.81, P < .001; t = 2.98, P = .003), fear of hypoglycemia (t = -4.42, P < .001; t = -4.97, P < .001), and hypoglycemia confidence (t = 8.68, P < .001; t = 7.96 P < .001) from baseline to 3 months and 6 months, respectively. Significant improvements in parents' and children's sleep quality and parents' fear of hypoglycemia were also observed. Several baseline characteristics were associated with psychosocial outcomes at 6 months.ConclusionsThe current findings support the broad and sustained benefits of Loop across multiple aspects of psychosocial well-being. Advancement and dissemination of such technologies has the potential to improve mental and physiological health among people living with type 1 diabetes.
| S-EPMC10658689 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo pilot test a new closed-loop control technology to validate it for a further large clinical trial.Research design and methodsThe t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ Technology (Tandem Diabetes Care) includes a Dexcom G6 sensor and a closed-loop algorithm implemented in the pump that 1) automates insulin correction boluses, 2) has a dedicated hypoglycemia safety system, and 3) gradually intensifies control overnight, aiming for blood glucose levels of approximately 100-120 mg/dL every morning.ResultsFive patients with type 1 diabetes (mean age 52.8 years, 2/3 male/female, mean A1C 6.5%) used Control-IQ in an outpatient setting (hotel) for approximately 37 h. During the closed loop, mean glucose was 129 mg/dL (135/121 mg/dL during the day/night), time within target range 70-180 mg/dL was 87% (82%/94% during the day/night), and time <60 mg/dL was 1.1% (2.0%/0.0% during the day/night).ConclusionsFollowing this pilot trial, Control-IQ was deployed in several studies, including the large-scale National Institutes of Health International Diabetes Closed-Loop (iDCL) Trial.
| S-EPMC6245207 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have demonstrated improvements in time-in-range (TIR, blood glucose 70-180 mg/dL) without increasing hypoglycemia. Testing a closed-loop system in an inpatient environment with supervised challenges allows for initial evaluation of performance and safety of the system. Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) were enrolled into two similar studies (n = 10 per study), with 3-day inpatient analysis periods. Participants tested a Lilly hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system comprising an investigational insulin pump, insulin lispro, a pump-embedded model predictive control algorithm, a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and an external dedicated controller. Each protocol included meal-related and exercise challenges to simulate real-world diabetes self-management errors. Only study staff interacted with the HCL system. Performance was assessed using standard CGM metrics overall and within prespecified periods. Results: Participants (25% male) had mean ± standard deviation (SD) age 44.7 ± 14.2 years, T1D duration 30.2 ± 11.1 years, A1C 7.2% ± 0.8%, and insulin usage 0.53 ± 0.21 U/(kg·day). Percentage TIR 70-180 mg/dL (mean ± SD) was 81.2 ± 8.4 overall, 85.2 ± 8.1 outside of challenge periods, 97.3 ± 5.3 during the nocturnal periods, and 74.5 ± 16.2 for the postprandial periods. During challenge periods, percentage TIR for the overbolus challenge was 65.4 ± 29.2 and that for the delayed bolus challenge was 57.1 ± 25.1. No adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, or unanticipated adverse device events occurred while participants were using the HCL system. Conclusions: In participants with T1D, Lilly AID system demonstrated expected algorithm performance and safety with satisfactory glycemic outcomes overall and in response to simulated diabetes management challenges. Additional studies in less supervised conditions and with broader patient populations are warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration number NCT03743285, NCT03849612.
| S-EPMC7906863 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Loop is an open-source automated insulin delivery (AID) system, used by more than 9,000 people with type 1 diabetes. Understanding the pros and cons of Loop use may help improve disease management and support population level innovation. Methods: Focus groups revealed 72 new and existing users' perspectives on Loop uptake, use, and persistence. A subsample of participants from a mixed-methods, observational cohort study shared first-hand accounts of their experiences using Loop. Participants were predominately white (95%), male (50%), privately insured (94%), and reported annual household income ≥$100K (73%) and education exceeding a bachelor's degree (87%) with a mean HbA1c of 6.6% ± 0.8%. Data were analyzed and synthesized by a multidisciplinary team. Results: Participants detailed their experiences with (1) Loop technical support and troubleshooting, (2) decreased mental/behavioral burden, (3) technical issues with parts of the system, (4) glycemic control, (5) personalizing settings, and (6) providers while using Loop. Decreased burden was the most endorsed benefit defined by less worry, stress, and cognitive effort and less time spent on diabetes management tasks. Participants highlighted the benefits of Loop overnight and their introduction to "Loop communities" during use. The most discussed challenges involved technical issues. A range of provider attitudes and knowledge about Loop complicated users' clinical experiences and disclosure. Conclusions: This sample of new and experienced Loop users reported benefits to quality of life and glycemic control that outweighed challenges of setting up system components, customizing the system to suit one's lifestyle and habits, and adjusting system settings. Challenges related to system setup and calibrating settings are remediable and, if addressed, may better serve Loop users. Users reported feeling empowered by the customizability of and the educational effects facilitated by the open-source AID system. Loop helped users learn more about their chronic illness and physiology in an acceptable format. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03838900.
| S-EPMC9208860 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAutomated insulin delivery (AID) systems have shown to improve glycemic control in a range of populations and settings. At the start of this study, only one commercial AID system had entered the Austrian market (MiniMed 670G, Medtronic). However, there is an ever-growing community of people living with type 1 diabetes (PWT1D) using open-source (OS) AID systems.Materials and methodsA total of 144 PWT1D who used either the MiniMed 670G (670G) or OS-AID systems routinely for a period of at least three to a maximum of six months, between February 18, 2020 and January 15, 2023, were retrospectively analyzed (116 670G aged from 2.6 to 71.8 years and 28 OS-AID aged from 3.4 to 53.5 years). The goal is to evaluate and compare the quality of glycemic control of commercially available AID and OS-AID systems and to present all data by an in-depth descriptive analysis of the population. No statistical tests were performed.ResultsThe PWT1D using OS-AID systems spent more time in range (TIR)70-180 mg/dL (81.7% vs 73.9%), less time above range (TAR)181-250 mg/dL (11.1% vs 19.6%), less TAR>250 mg/dL (2.5% vs 4.3%), and more time below range (TBR)54-69 mg/dL (2.2% vs 1.7%) than PWT1D using the 670G system. The TBR<54 mg/dL was comparable in both groups (0.3% vs 0.4%). In the OS-AID group, median glucose level and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were lower than in the 670G system group (130 vs 150 mg/dL; 6.2% vs 7.0%).ConclusionIn conclusion, both groups were able to achieve satisfactory glycemic outcomes independent of age, gender, and diabetes duration. However, the PWT1D using OS-AID systems attained an even better glycemic control with no clinical safety concerns.
| S-EPMC11571566 | biostudies-literature