Achieving glucose targets without hypoglycaemia is the treatment goal in type 1 diabetes. Structured education, intensified insulin injection regimens, continuous glucose monitoring, automated insulin delivery, and ongoing support from a multidisciplinary team all support people with type 1 diabetes to achieve this goal. Despite these advances, significant barriers to achieving optimal management remain. Continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion has comparable or better glucose outcomes to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and may reduce the frequency of hypoglycaemia, including severe episodes. Intraperitoneal insulin may be considered as a treatment modality for children and adults with type 1 diabetes using optimised intensive insulin therapy for whom subcutaneous insulin has failed due to lipoatrophy, -dystrophy or -hypertrophy, local allergy, subcutaneous insulin resistance or co-existing skin conditions. Failure of subcutaneous insulin may result in recurrent or unexplained severe hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia. Intraperitoneal insulin may also be considered as a treatment modality for people with type 1 diabetes with severe needle-phobia, and for those being considered for islet cell or pancreatic transplantation, or where transplantation is not available. This paper summarises current intraperitoneal insulin delivery technology, its potential risks and benefits, and an expert position statement. It is intended for use by diabetes specialist healthcare professionals, and as a reference for other healthcare professionals, commissioners, payors, people with diabetes, their carers, and advocates.
Nick S. Oliver, B. Gehr, R. Lal et al.· Diabetes, obesity and metabo...· 0 citations
AIMS
Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems typically require user‑initiated meal boluses. This study leveraged real-world data from Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System users to evaluate whether glycemic outcomes using simplified meal bolusing were non-inferior to carbohydrate counting.
METHODS
A retrospective analysis of Omnipod 5 users in the US, UK, France, and Germany from 01/01/25 - 31/03/25 was conducted. Carbohydrate counting or simplified bolusing categorization was based on the proportion of boluses that used each individual's top five carbohydrate entries. The primary comparison used quantile regression and adjusted for users' characteristics and device settings/usage.
RESULTS
The overall cohort included 195,529 individuals (92 % T1D). In T1D, simplified bolusing was associated with 2.5 % lower time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL, 0.19 % lower time below range (TBR) < 70 mg/dL, and 5 mg/dL higher mean glucose compared with carbohydrate counting. All endpoints met noninferiority, with similar findings across age groups and countries. In T2D, differences were - 1.7 % for TIR, -0.05 % for TBR, and + 4 mg/dL for mean glucose, also meeting noninferiority. Among those using optimized settings and expected use patterns, T1D maintained noninferiority and T2D met noninferiority for TBR only.
CONCLUSIONS
Glycemic outcomes with simplified bolusing were non‑inferior to carbohydrate counting, suggesting carbohydrate counting ability should not affect AID access.
Georgia M. Davis, Gregory P. Forlenza, B. Gehr et al.· Diabetes Research and Clinic...· 0 citations