The American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) convened a writing group to develop a consensus statement on the management of type 1 diabetes in adults. The writing group has considered the rapid development of new treatments and technologies and addressed the following topics: diagnosis, aims of management, schedule of care, diabetes self-management education and support, glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, behavioral considerations, psychosocial care, diabetic ketoacidosis, pancreas and islet transplantation, adjunctive therapies, special populations, inpatient management, and future perspectives. Although we discuss the schedule for follow-up examinations and testing, we have not included the evaluation and treatment of the chronic microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes as these are well-reviewed and discussed elsewhere. The writing group was aware of both national and international guidance on type 1 diabetes and did not seek to replicate this but rather aimed to highlight the major areas that health care professionals should consider when managing adults with type 1 diabetes. Though evidence-based where possible, the recommendations in the report represent the consensus opinion of the authors.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of transitioning to the MiniMed 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system in adult individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) naive to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technologies. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a two-center, randomized, controlled, parallel-group trial with evaluation of individuals with T1DM aged 26–60 years managed with multiple daily injections (MDI) and self-monitoring of blood glucose (BGM) with HbA1c <10%. RESULTS: A total of 41 participants were recruited and randomized to either the AHCL (n = 20) or the MDI+BGM (n = 21) group, and 37 participants (mean ± SD age 40.3 ± 8.0 years, duration of diabetes 17.3 ± 12.1 years, BMI 25.1 ± 3.1 kg/m2, HbA1c 7.2 ± 1.0%) completed the study. Time spent with glucose levels in target range increased from 69.3 ± 12.3% at baseline to 85.0 ± 6.3% at 3 months in the AHCL group, while remaining unchanged in the control group (treatment effect 21.5% [95% CI 15.7, 27.3]; P < 0.001). The time with levels below range (<70 mg/dL) decreased from 8.7 ± 7.3% to 2.1 ± 1.7% in the AHCL group and remained unchanged in the MDI+BGM group (treatment effect −4.4% [95% CI −7.4, −2.1]; P < 0.001). Participants from the AHCL group also had significant improvements in HbA1c levels (treatment effect −0.6% [95% CI −0.9, −0.2]; P = 0.005) and in quality of life (QoL) in specific subscales compared with the MDI+BGM group. CONCLUSIONS: People with T1DM naive to CSII and CGM technologies initiating AHCL significantly and safely improved their glycemic control, as well as their QoL and psychological well-being.

Application of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has moved diabetes care from a reactive to a proactive process, in which a person with diabetes can prevent episodes of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia, rather than taking action only once low and high glucose are detected. Consequently, CGM devices are now seen as the standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Evidence now supports the use of CGM in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on any treatment regimen, not just for those on insulin therapy. Expanding the application of CGM to include all people with T1DM or T2DM can support effective intensification of therapies to reduce glucose exposure and lower the risk of complications and hospital admissions, which are associated with high healthcare costs. All of this can be achieved while minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia and improving quality of life for people with diabetes. Wider application of CGM can also bring considerable benefits for women with diabetes during pregnancy and their children, as well as providing support for acute care of hospital inpatients who experience the adverse effects of hyperglycemia following admission and surgical procedures, as a consequence of treatment-related insulin resistance or reduced insulin secretion. By tailoring the application of CGM for daily or intermittent use, depending on the patient profile and their needs, one can ensure the cost-effectiveness of CGM in each setting. In this article we discuss the evidence-based benefits of expanding the use of CGM technology to include all people with diabetes, along with a diverse population of people with non-diabetic glycemic dysregulation.

This observational study assessed metabolic control in young, active professionals with type 1 diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with or without the use of a bolus calculator. Eighteen patients aged 19 − 51 years with diabetes duration of 6 − 22 years were included; eight patients used a bolus calculator and 10 did not. Metabolic control was assessed by glycosylated haemoglobin (Hb_A1c) measurements and blood glucose profiles. A continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) was also used by three patients from each group. Mean Hb_A1c and fasting blood glucose levels were not significantly different between the two groups, but mean post-prandial blood glucose was significantly lower in bolus calculator users than non-users. The CGMS showed more blood glucose levels within the target range in bolus calculator users than non-users, but statistical significance was not achieved. In conclusion, a bolus calculator may help to improve post-prandial blood glucose levels in active professional type 1 diabetes patients treated with CSII, but does not have a major impact on Hb_A1c levels.

It is generally accepted that in adult type 1 diabetes patients (T1D) continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) via a personal pump is more effective than the multiple daily injections (MDI) model. However, it is not clear whether all age groups of adult T1D patients may equally benefit from CSII therapy. We aimed to compare the glycemic control and use of selected pump tools in T1D subjects using CSII over the age of 50 (50+ T1D) with patients younger than 50 years of age. The last available insulin pump/blood glucose meter downloads and last available HbA1c levels of 124 adult T1D subjects using CSII were reviewed. We divided our cohort into two subgroups: 50+ T1D patients (n = 13) and younger patients (n = 111). There were no differences in glycemic control achieved with CSII treatment in 50+ T1D patients vs. younger subjects. HbA1c levels were 7.01 ± 0.67% and 7.34 ± 1.24% (p = 0.46), and the mean glycemia based on glucometer downloads was 141.8 ± 17.7 mg/dl and 150.8 ± 35.7 mg/dl (p = 0.69), respectively. Also, there were no differences with respect to the use of important personal pump options and tools. In conclusion, insulin pump therapy appears to be effective and safe in T1D patients regardless of age.

Recently, several studies explored associations between type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and microbiota. The aim of our study was to assess the colonic microbiota structure according to the metabolic control in T1DM patients treated with insulin pumps. We studied 89 T1DM patients (50.6% women) at the median age of 25 (IQR, 22–29) years. Pielou’s evenness (p = 0.02), and Shannon’s (p = 0.04) and Simpson’s diversity indexes (p = 0.01), were higher in patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥ 53 mmol/mol (7%). There were no differences in beta diversity between groups. A linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) algorithm showed that one family (Ruminococcaceae) was enriched in patients with HbA1c < 53 mmol/mol, whereas one family (Streptococcaceae) and four species (Ruminococcus torques, unclassified species of Lactococcus, Eubacteroim dolichum, and Coprobacillus cateniformis) were enriched in patients with HbA1c ≥ 53 mmol/mol. We found that at class level, the following pathways according to Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes were enriched in patients with HbA1c < 53 mmol/mol: bacterial motility proteins, secretion system, bacterial secretion system, ribosome biogenesis, translation proteins, and lipid biosynthesis, whereas in patients with HbA1c ≥ 53 mmol/mol, the galactose metabolism, oxidative phosphorylation, phosphotransferase system, fructose, and mannose metabolism were enriched. Observed differences in alpha diversity, metabolic pathways, and associations between bacteria and HbA1c in colonic flora need further investigation.