The significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers, and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past 6 years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage.

The achievement of glycaemic control remains challenging for patients with type 1 diabetes. We assessed the effectiveness of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in people with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older. In this open-label, multicentre, multinational, single-period, parallel randomised controlled trial, participants were recruited from diabetes outpatient clinics at four hospitals in the UK and two centres in the USA. We randomly assigned participants with type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older treated with insulin pump and with suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·5-10·0%) to receive either hybrid closed-loop therapy or sensor-augmented pump therapy over 12 weeks of free living. Training on study insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring took place over a 4-week run-in period. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned using central randomisation software. Allocation to the two study groups was unblinded, and randomisation was stratified within centre by low (<8·5%) or high (≥8·5%) HbA1c. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range of 3·9-10·0 mmol/L at 12 weeks post randomisation. Analyses of primary outcome and safety measures were done in all randomised patients. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02523131, and is closed to accrual. From May 12, 2016, to Nov 17, 2017, 114 individuals were screened, and 86 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive hybrid closed-loop therapy (n=46) or sensor-augmented pump therapy (n=40; control group). The proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range was significantly higher in the closed-loop group (65%, SD 8) compared with the control group (54%, SD 9; mean difference in change 10·8 percentage points, 95% CI 8·2 to 13·5; p<0·0001). In the closed-loop group, HbA1c was reduced from a screening value of 8·3% (SD 0·6) to 8·0% (SD 0·6) after the 4-week run-in, and to 7·4% (SD 0·6) after the 12-week intervention period. In the control group, the HbA1c values were 8·2% (SD 0·5) at screening, 7·8% (SD 0·6) after run-in, and 7·7% (SD 0·5) after intervention; reductions in HbA1c percentages were significantly greater in the closed-loop group compared with the control group (mean difference in change 0·36%, 95% CI 0·19 to 0·53; p<0·0001). The time spent with glucose concentrations below 3·9 mmol/L (mean difference in change -0·83 percentage points, -1·40 to -0·16; p=0·0013) and above 10·0 mmol/L (mean difference in change -10·3 percentage points, -13·2 to -7·5; p<0·0001) was shorter in the closed-loop group than the control group. The coefficient of variation of sensor-measured glucose was not different between interventions (mean difference in change -0·4%, 95% CI -1·4% to 0·7%; p=0·50). Similarly, total daily insulin dose was not different (mean difference in change 0·031 U/kg per day, 95% CI -0·005 to 0·067; p=0·09) and bodyweight did not differ (mean difference in change 0·68 kg, 95% CI -0·34 to 1·69; p=0·19). No severe hypoglycaemia occurred. One diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group due to infusion set failure. Two participants in each study group had significant hyperglycaemia, and there were 13 other adverse events in the closed-loop group and three in the control group. Hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery improves glucose control while reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia across a wide age range in patients with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes. JDRF, NIHR, and Wellcome Trust.

In patients with diabetes, hospitalization can complicate the achievement of recommended glycemic targets. There is increasing evidence that a closed-loop delivery system (artificial pancreas) can improve glucose control in patients with type 1 diabetes. We wanted to investigate whether a closed-loop system could also improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes who were receiving noncritical care.

Akkermansia muciniphila and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii are highly abundant human gut microbes in healthy individuals, and reduced levels are associated with inflammation and alterations of metabolic processes involved in the development of type 2 diabetes. Dietary factors can influence the abundance of A. muciniphila and F. prausnitzii, but the evidence is not clear. We systematically searched PubMed and Embase to identify clinical trials investigating any dietary intervention in relation to A. muciniphila and F. prausnitzii. Overall, 29 unique trials were included, of which five examined A. muciniphila, 19 examined F. prausnitzii, and six examined both, in a total of 1444 participants. A caloric restriction diet and supplementation with pomegranate extract, resveratrol, polydextrose, yeast fermentate, sodium butyrate, and inulin increased the abundance of A. muciniphila, while a diet low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols decreased the abundance of A. muciniphila. For F. prausnitzii, the main studied intervention was prebiotics (e.g. fructo-oligosaccharides, inulin type fructans, raffinose); seven studies reported an increase after prebiotic intervention, while two studies reported a decrease, and four studies reported no difference. Current evidence suggests that some dietary factors may influence the abundance of A. muciniphila and F. prausnitzii. However, more research is needed to support these microflora strains as targets of microbiome shifts with dietary intervention and their use as medical nutrition therapy in prevention and management of chronic disease.

Consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPF) has increased worldwide during the last decades because they are hyperpalatable, cheap, and ready-to-consume products. However, uncertainty exists about their impact on health. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the association of UPF consumption with all-cause mortality risk. Five bibliographic databases were searched for relevant studies. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Of 6,951 unique citations, 40 unique prospective cohort studies comprising 5,750,133 individuals were included; publication dates ranged from 1984 to 2021. Compared with low consumption, highest consumption of UPF (RR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.17, 1.42), sugar-sweetened beverages (RR = 1.11, 95% CI, 1.04, 1.18), artificially sweetened beverages (RR = 1.14, 95% CI, 1.05, 1.22), and processed meat/red meat (RR = 1.15, 95% CI, 1.10, 1.21) were significantly associated with increased risk of mortality. However, breakfast cereals were associated with a lower mortality risk (RR = 0.85, 95% CI, 0.79, 0.92). This meta-analysis suggests that high consumption of UPF, sugar-sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, processed meat, and processed red meat might increase all-cause mortality, while breakfast cereals might decrease it. Future studies are needed to address lack of standardized methods in UPF categorization.

Tight control of blood glucose concentration in people with type 1 diabetes predisposes to hypoglycaemia. We aimed to investigate whether day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery can improve glucose control while alleviating the risk of hypoglycaemia in adults with HbA1c below 7·5% (58 mmol/mol). In this open-label, randomised, crossover study, we recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c below 7·5% from Addenbrooke's Hospital (Cambridge, UK) and Medical University of Graz (Graz, Austria). After a 2-4 week run-in period, participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using web-based randomly permuted blocks of four, to receive insulin via the day-and-night hybrid closed-loop system or usual pump therapy for 4 weeks, followed by a 2-4 week washout period and then the other intervention for 4 weeks. Treatment interventions were unsupervised and done under free-living conditions. During the closed-loop period, a model-predictive control algorithm directed insulin delivery, and prandial insulin delivery was calculated with a standard bolus wizard. The primary outcome was the proportion of time when sensor glucose concentration was in target range (3·9-10·0 mmol/L) over the 4 week study period. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02727231, and is completed. Between March 21 and June 24, 2016, we recruited 31 participants, of whom 29 were randomised. One participant withdrew during the first closed-loop period because of dissatisfaction with study devices and glucose control. The proportion of time when sensor glucose concentration was in target range was 10·5 percentage points higher (95% CI 7·6-13·4; p<0·0001) during closed-loop delivery compared with usual pump therapy (65·6% [SD 8·1] when participants used usual pump therapy vs 76·2% [6·4] when they used closed-loop). Compared with usual pump therapy, closed-loop delivery also reduced the proportion of time spent in hypoglycaemia: the proportion of time with glucose concentration below 3·5 mmol/L was reduced by 65% (53-74, p<0·0001) and below 2·8 mmol/L by 76% (59-86, p<0·0001). No episodes of serious hypoglycaemia or other serious adverse events occurred. Use of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery under unsupervised, free-living conditions for 4 weeks in adults with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c below 7·5% is safe and well tolerated, improves glucose control, and reduces hypoglycaemia burden. Larger and longer studies are warranted. Swiss National Science Foundation (P1BEP3_165297), JDRF, UK National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, and Wellcome Strategic Award (100574/Z/12/Z).