Moderator of 2 Sessions
Session Description:
Introducing our first Smart MDI system. It combines the power of real time CGM with predictive glucose alerts and the personalized insulin dosing to help your patients stay ahead of their glucose levels and take the right dose at the right time. Help your patients prevent highs and lows before they occur, while you can have access to your patients glucose and insulin data to help you optimize their glycemic control.
Presenter of 5 Presentations
The need for Smart MDI System
Q&A
Poster & Data
The industry approach: Smart Pens: The Need, Outcomes, and Future Applications
Abstract
Abstract Body
Major milestones in non-automated insulin administration include plastic syringes, pre-filled insulin pens, and smart insulin pens. The InPenTM smart insulin pen enables users to capture both the time and amount of insulin delivered and can provide missed bolus reminders to the person with diabetes. The need for such advance technology was found in observational data of over 1.1 million meals where on-time bolusing occurred in just over half of all boluses and that boluses were missed almost one-third of the time. The time-in-range (70-180 mg/dL) was strongly correlated with the frequency of on-time bolusing (r=0.59, p<0.001). When the InPenTM is used with the accompanying smartphone app to calculate the meal dose or correction dose of insulin, the user can safely determine the dose because insulin-on-board is incorporated in the dose calculation. InPenTM use is associated with almost 2% less time-below-range (TBR) in those who had TBR greater than 8% before initiating its use. In adolescents (13-17) and young adults (18-22) using MDI for management of their diabetes, those using InPenTM (with CGM) had significantly lower GMI’s compared to those using traditional insulin pens (p<0.001). Combining the data provided by a smart insulin pen and CGM with sensors that capture the duration/intensity of exercise, sleep and meal gestures may allow MDI users to obtain real-time and/or retrospective decision support for their diabetes management.
IMPROVED GLYCEMIC CONTROL WITH HYBRID CLOSED-LOOP (HCL) VERSUS CONTINUOUS SUBCUTANEOUS INSULIN INFUSION (CSII) THERAPY: RESULTS FROM A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (RCT)
Abstract
Background and Aims
This study investigated safety and effectiveness outcomes after HCL versus CSII use for six months.
Methods
Participants (n=302, aged 2-80 years) with T1D were randomized to MiniMed™ 670G system HCL or control (CSII without CGM) for six months, after completing a baseline run-in period (~2 weeks). Effectiveness endpoints included difference in A1C, time spent below target range (TBR<70mg/dL), time spent in target range (TIR, 70-180mg/dL) over 24 hours and nighttime, and coefficient of variation (CV). Endpoints were evaluated by baseline HbA1c >8% (Group 1) and baseline HbA1c ≤8% (Group 2) first, then by combined groups (Group 1 and 2). A one-way ANOVA was used to compare HCL and CSII outcomes. Safety endpoints included severe hypoglycemic, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and serious device-related adverse events (AEs).
Results
For each group, HbA1c and TBR<70mg/dL were lower with HCL versus CSII (p<0.001 for both, Table). For the overall group, the nighttime and 24-hour TIR, in addition to CV, were also improved with HCL (p<0.001 for all). Throughout the study period, there was 1 serious device-related AE (HCL), 4 severe hypoglycemic (HCL:0, Control:4) events, and no DKA events.
Conclusions
This large RCT demonstrated significant improvement in glycemic control with HCL therapy over CSII therapy irrespective of baseline HbA1c.This large RCT demonstrated significant improvement in glycemic control with HCL therapy over CSII therapy irrespective of baseline HbA1c.
