Erste pädiatrische Nutzung eines AID-Systems mit automatischem Korrekturbolus in Deutschland

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung Als Upgrade eines teilautomatischen Insulindosierungssystems (AID) ist die Weiterentwicklung einer prädiktiven Insulinabschaltung vom Hypoglykämieschutz (Basal-IQ) zu Tandem Control IQ das zweite in Deutschland für Kinder und Jugendliche zu Lasten der gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung rezeptierbare System mit automatischer Basalratenmodulation und Korrekturbolusgaben erhältlich. In dieser Studie wurden der iterative Umstieg von zunächst nur prädiktiver Abschaltung mit dem sofortigen Beginn von AID mit Insulinmodulation zur Reduktion von Hypo- und Hyperglykämie verglichen.

Methodik Kindern und Jugendlichen mit intensivierter Insulintherapie (ICT oder CSII) mit Krankenkassengenehmigung für Tandem Basal IQ wurde vor Markteinführung des neuen Systems eine Behandlung mit dem AID-System Control IQ angeboten. Teilnehmende und Eltern erhielten eine Systemschulung. Eine Gruppe nutzte zuvor kein anderes AID-System (START-Gruppe). Eine andere Gruppe, die bereits Tandem Basal IQ nutzte, wurde vor Markteinführung des neuen Systems ein Pumpenupgrade (SWITCH-Gruppe) auf das AID-System Control IQ angeboten. Es wurden die Therapiedaten und Fragebögen zum Wohlbefinden vor Beginn der neuen Therapieform und nach 3 Monaten miteinander verglichen.

Resultate Insgesamt konnten 49 Kinder und Jugendliche (mittleres Alter 12±3,4 Jahre, 38% weiblich, BMI-SDS 0,28±1,0, Diabetesdauer 4,7±4,1 Jahre) ausgewertet werden, eine Jugendliche musste aufgrund eines allergischen Kontaktekzems abbrechen. Der primäre Endpunkt Time in Range (TIR) zeigte sich nach der Intervention signifikant erhöht mit 68,8±12,0 vs. zuvor 64,1±16,2 %, p=0.003; die Zeit in der Unterzuckerung sank von 2,7±2,0 auf 1,7±1,6 % (p=0.02)

Verbesserte glykämische Parameter nach drei Monaten lagen sowohl bei START (HbA1c 7,1±1,1 vs. 6,9±0,8 %, TIR 66,6±17,5 vs. 69,8±13,9 %, TBR (54–70 mg/dl) 2,7±2,2 vs. 1,4±1,6 %, TBR (<54 mg/dl) 1,3±1,6 vs. 0,5±0,9 %) wie auch SWITCH (HbA1c 6,9±0,6 vs. 6,9±0,6 %, TIR 6,.9±14,9 vs. 67,7±10,1 %, TBR (54–70 mg/dl) 2,6±1,8 vs. 1,9±1,6 %) vor. Signifikante Verbesserungen elterlicher Hypoglykämieangst waren bei 2 bzw. 8 Items in beiden Gruppen zu finden.

Schlussfolgerung Nach Therapieumstellung auf ein AID-System konnte bei bereits guten Ausgangswerten des Kollektivs sowohl in der START- wie auch der SWITCH-Gruppe trotzdem eine Verbesserung der glykämischen Parameter erzielt werden, auch über das Gesamtkollektiv bestand eine Verbesserung. Die elterliche Hypoglykämieangst konnte signifikant reduziert werden.

Abstract

Introduction As an upgrade of a semi-automatic insulin dosing system (AID), Tandem Control IQ is the second system with automatic basal insulin modulation and correction boluses that can be prescribed in Germany for children and adolescents at the expense of the statutory health insurance. It is a further development of a predictive insulin suspension for hypoglycemia protection (Basal-IQ). In this study, the iterative switch from initially predictive suspension only to immediate initiation of AID with insulin modulation to reduce hypo- and hyperglycemia was compared.

Methodology Children and adolescents on intensified insulin therapy (MDI or CSII) with health insurance approval for Tandem Basal IQ, were offered treatment with the Control IQ AID system before the new system was launched. Participants and parents received system training. One group was not previously using any other AID system (START group). Another group already using Tandem Basal IQ was offered a pump upgrade (SWITCH group) to the Control IQ AID system prior to the launch of the new system. Therapy data and well-being questionnaires were compared before starting the new form of therapy and after 3 months.

Results In total 49 children and adolescents (mean age 12±3.4 years, 38% female, BMI-SDS 0.28±1.0, diabetes duration 4.7±4.1 Jahre) completed the study, one adolescent had to stop due to allergic skin reaction. Primary endpoint Time in Range (TIR) was significantly higher after 3 months 68.8±12.0 vs. 64.1±16.2 %, p=0.003; Time in Hypoglycemia was reduced from 2.7±2.0 to 1.7±1.6 % (p=0.02)

Improved glycemic parameters at 3 months were evident in both START (TIR 66.6±17.5 vs. 69.8±13.9%, TBR (54–70 mg/dl) 2.7±2.2 vs. 4±1.6 %, TBR (<54 mg/dl) 1.3±1.6 vs. 0.5±0.9; HbA1c 7.1±1.1 vs. 6.9±0.8%), as well as SWITCH (TIR 61.9±14.9 vs. 67.7±10.1 %, TBR (54–70 mg/dl) 2.6±1.8 vs. 1.9±1.6 %, HbA1c 6.9±0.6 vs. 6.9±0.6 %) were present. Significant improvements in parental hypoglycemic anxiety were found in 2 and 8 items, respectively, in both groups.

Conclusion After switching therapy to an AID system, an improvement in glycemic parameters was achieved in both the START and SWITCH groups with already good baseline values of the collective and in the overall cohort. Parental anxiety of hypoglycema was significantly reduced.

Schlüsselwörter

Insulinpumpe - Glukosesensor - automatische Insulindosierung - Zeit im Zielbereich - Hypoglykämie - AID - insulin pump - glucose sensor - automated insulin delivery - AID - time in range - hypoglycemia

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 14. April 2023

Angenommen nach Revision: 13. Juli 2023

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
16. August 2023

• Literatur

• 1 Holt RIG, DeVries JH, Hess-Fischl A. et al. The Management of Type 1 Diabetes in Adults. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care 2021; 44 (11) 2589-2625 DOI: 10.2337/dci21-0043. (PMID: 34593612)
• 2 Sherr JL, Schoelwer M, Dos Santos TJ. et al. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2022: Diabetes technologies: Insulin delivery. Pediatr Diabetes 2022; 23 (08) 1406-1431 DOI: 10.1111/pedi.13421. (PMID: 36468192)
• 3 Gesundheitsbericht Diabetes 2023, DiabetesDE, Kirchheim Verlag.
• 4 Forlenza GP, Li Z, Buckingham BA. et al. Predictive low-glucose suspend reduces hypoglycemia in adults, adolescents, and children with type 1 diabetes in an at-home randomized crossover study: Results of the PROLOG Trial. Diabetes Care 2018; 41: 2155-2161 DOI: 10.2337/dc18-0771.
• 5 Biester T, Kordonouri O, Holder M. et al. „Let the Algorithm Do the Work“: Reduction of Hypoglycemia Using Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy with Predictive Insulin Suspension (SmartGuard) in Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes Patients. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017; 19: 173-182 DOI: 10.1089/dia.2016.0349.
• 6 Garg SK, Weinzimer SA, Tamborlane WV. et al. Glucose outcomes with the in-home use of a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017; 19: 155-163 DOI: 10.1089/dia.2016.0421.
• 7 Thabit H, Tauschmann M, Allen JM. et al. Home Use of an Artificial Beta Cell in Type 1 Diabetes. N Engl J Med 2015; 373 (22) 2129-2140 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1509351. (PMID: 26379095)
• 8 Danne T, Nimri R, Battelino T. et al. International consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care 2017; 40: 1631-1640 DOI: 10.2337/dci19-0028. (PMID: 31177185)
• 9 Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM. et al. Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range. Diabetes Care 2019; 42 (08) 1593-1603
• 10 Messer LH, Forlenza GP, Sherr JL. et al. Optimizing hybrid closed-loop therapy in adolescents and emerging adults using the MiniMed 670G system. Diabetes Care 2018; 41 (04) 789-796
• 11 Bergenstal RM, Nimri R, Beck RW. et al. FLAIR Study Group. 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: 208-219 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32514-9.
• 12 von dem Berge T, Remus K, Biester S. et al. Erste Anwendungserfahrung eines neuen, Glukosesensor-unterstützten Pumpensystems mit vorausschauender Insulin-Abschaltung zum Hypoglykämieschutz bei pädiatrischen Patienten in Deutschland. Diabetologie und Stoffwechsel 2022; 17 (04) 289-296 DOI: 10.1055/a-1720-8882.
• 13 Brown S, Raghinaru D, Emory E. et al. A New-Generation Automated Insulin Delivery System. Diabetes Care 2018; 41 (12) 2634-2636 DOI: 10.2337/dc18-1249. (PMID: 30305346)
• 14 Biester T, Tauschmann M, Chobot A. et al. The automated pancreas: A review of technologies and clinical practice. Diabetes Obes Metab 2021; DOI: 10.1111/dom.14576. (PMID: 34658126)
• 15 Brown SA, Kovatchev BP, Raghinaru D. et al. iDCL Trial Research Group. Six-Month Randomized, Multicenter Trial of Closed-Loop Control in Type 1 Diabetes. N Engl J Med 2019; 381 (18) 1707-1717
• 16 Forlenza GP, Ekhlaspour L, Breton M. et al. Successful At-Home Use of the Tandem Control-IQ Artificial Pancreas System in Young Children During a Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Technol Ther 2019; 21 (04) 159-169
• 17 Breton MD, Kanapka LG, Beck RW. et al. iDCL Trial Research Group. A Randomized Trial of Closed-Loop Control in Children with Type 1 Diabetes. N Engl J Med 2020; 383 (09) 836-845
• 18 Ekhlaspour L, Forlenza GP, Chernavvsky D. et al. Closed loop control in adolescents and children during winter sports: Use of the Tandem Control-IQ AP system. Pediatr Diabetes 2019; 20 (06) 759-768
• 19 Pinsker JE, Müller L, Constantin A. et al. Real-World Patient Reported Outcomes and Glycemic Results with Initiation of Control-IQ Technology. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021; 23 (02) 120-127 DOI: 10.1089/dia.2020.0388.
• 20 Cobry EC, Bisio A, Wadwa RP. et al. Improvements in Parental Sleep, Fear of Hypoglycemia, and Diabetes Distress With Use of an Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop System. Diabetes Care 2022; dc211778 DOI: 10.2337/dc21-1778.
• 21 Haak T, Gölz S, Fritsche A. et al. Therapie des Typ-1-Diabetes.Kurzfassung der S3-Leitlinie (AWMF-Registernummer: 057–013; 2. Auflage). Diabetologie 2020; 15 (Suppl. 01) S40-S50
• 22 Neu A, Bürger-Büsing J, Danne T. et al. Diagnostik, Therapie und Verlaufskontrolle des Diabetes mellitus im Kindes- und Jugendalter. Diabetologie 2020; 15 (Suppl. 01) S51-S64
• 23 Battelino T, Alexander CM, Amiel SA. et al. Continuous glucose monitoring and metrics for clinical trials: an international consensus statement. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2023; 11 (01) 42-57 DOI: 10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00319-9. (PMID: 36493795)
• 24 Clarke WL, Gonder-Frederick A, Snyder AL. et al. Maternal fear of hypoglycemia in their children with insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 1998; 11: 189-194 DOI: 10.1515/jpem.1998.11.s1.189.
• 25 Gonder-Frederick L, Nyer M, Shepard JA. et al. Assessing fear of hypoglycemia in children with type 1 diabetes and their parents. Diabetes Management 2011; 1: 627-639
• 26 Schoelwer MJ, Robic JL, Gautier T. et al. Safety and Efficacy of Initializing the Control-IQ Artificial Pancreas System Based on Total Daily Insulin in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2020; 22 (08) 594-601
• 27 Battelino T, Dovč K. Glycemic Variability: The Danger of a Physiologically Stable Metric. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2020; 105 (10) e3815-e3817 DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa486. (PMID: 32772083)
• 28 Beck RW, Kanapka LG, Breton MD. et al. A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trial Outcomes for the t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ Technology in youth and adults from age 2 to 72. Diabetes Obes Metab 2023; 25 (05) 329-342 DOI: 10.1089/dia.2022.0558.
• 29 Hermann JM, Miller KM, Hofer SE. et al. The Transatlantic HbA1c gap: differences in glycaemic control across the lifespan between people included in the US T1D Exchange Registry and those included in the German/Austrian DPV registry. Diabet Med 2019; DOI: 10.1111/dme.14148.
• 30 Schoelwer MJ, Kanapka LG, Wadwa RP. et al. iDCL Trial Research Group. Predictors of Time-in-Range (70–180 mg/dL) Achieved Using a Closed-Loop Control System. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021; 23 (07) 475-481 DOI: 10.1089/dia.2020.0646.
• 31 Bisio A, Brown SA, McFadden R. et al. Sleep and diabetes-specific psycho-behavioral outcomes of a new automated insulin delivery system in young children with type 1 diabetes and their parents. Pediatr Diabetes 2021; 22 (03) 495-502 DOI: 10.1111/pedi.13164.
• 32 Schoelwer MJ, Robic JL, Gautier T. et al. Safety and Efficacy of Initializing the Control-IQ Artificial Pancreas System Based on Total Daily Insulin in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2020; 22 (08) 594-601
• 33 Dovc K, Boughton C, Tauschmann M. et al. Young children have higher variability of insulin requirements: observations during hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery. Diabetes Care 2019; 42 (07) 1344-1347
• 34 Sundberg F, deBeaufort C, Krogvold L. et al. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2022: Managing diabetes in preschoolers. Pediatr Diabetes 2022; 23 (08) 1496-1511 DOI: 10.1111/pedi.13427. (PMID: 36537520)
• 35 Ekhlaspour L, Schoelwer MJ, Forlenza GP. et al. Safety and Performance of the Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ Automated Insulin Delivery System in Toddlers and Preschoolers. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021; 23 (05) 384-391 DOI: 10.1089/dia.2020.0507.
• 36 Wadwa RP, Reed ZW, Buckingham BA. et al. PEDAP Trial Study Group. Trial of Hybrid Closed-Loop Control in Young Children with Type 1 Diabetes. N Engl J Med 2023; 388 (11) 991-1001 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2210834.
• 37 Ware J, Allen JM, Boughton CK. et al. KidsAP Consortium. Randomized Trial of Closed-Loop Control in Very Young Children with Type 1 Diabetes. N Engl J Med 2022; 386 (03) 209-219 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2111673.
• 38 Braune K, Lal RA, Petruželková L. et al. OPEN International Healthcare Professional Network and OPEN Legal Advisory Group. Open-source automated insulin delivery: international consensus statement and practical guidance for health-care professionals. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2022; 10 (01) 58-74 DOI: 10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00267-9.