Increasing numbers of people, particularly with type 1 diabetes (T1D), are using wearable technologies. That is, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) pumps, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, and hybrid closed-loop systems, which combine both these elements. Given over a quarter of all people admitted to hospital have diabetes, there is a need for clinical guidelines for when people using them are admitted to hospital. The Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care (JBDS-IP) provide a scoping review and summary of guidelines on the use of diabetes technology in people with diabetes admitted to hospital. JBDS-IP advocates enabling people who can self-manage and use their own diabetes technology to continue doing so as they would do out of hospital. Whilst people with diabetes are recommended to achieve a target of 70% time within range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]), this can be very difficult to achieve whilst unwell. We therefore recommend targeting hypoglycemia prevention as a priority, keeping time below 3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) at < 1%, being aware of looming hypoglycemia if glucose is between 4.0 and 5.9 mmol/L (72-106 mg/dL), and consider intervening, particularly if there is a downward CGM trend arrow. Health care organizations need clear local policies and guidance to support individuals using diabetes technologies, and ensure the relevant workforce is capable and skilled enough to ensure their safe use within the hospital setting. The current set of guidelines is divided into two parts. Part 1, which follows below, outlines the guidance for use of CGM in hospital. The second part outlines guidance for use of CSII and hybrid closed-loop in hospital.

Background: With advances in technology, there is an emerging concern that inequalities exist in provision and diabetes outcomes in areas of greater deprivation. We assess the relationship between socio‐economic status and deprivation with access to diabetes technology and their outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes.Methods: Retrospective, observational analysis of adults attending a tertiary centre, comprising three urban hospitals in the UK. Socio‐economic deprivation was assessed by the English Indices of Deprivation 2019. Data analysis was performed using one‐way ANOVAs and chi‐squared tests.Results: In total, 1631 adults aged 44 ± 15 years and 758 (47%) women were included, with 391 (24%) using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, 312 (19%) using real‐time continuous glucose monitoring and 558 (34%) using intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring. The highest use of diabetes technology was in the least deprived quintile compared to the most deprived quintile (67% vs. 45%, respectively; p < 0.001). HbA_1c outcomes were available in 400 participants; no association with deprivation was observed (p = 0.872). Participation in structured education was almost twice as high from the most deprived to the least deprived groups (23% vs. 43%; p < 0.001). Adults with white or mixed ethnicity were more likely to use technology compared to black ethnicity (60% vs. 40%; p < 0.001).Conclusions: Adults living in the most deprived quintile had less technology use. Irrespective of socio‐economic status or ethnicity, glycaemia was positively affected in all groups. It is imperative that health disparities are further addressed.

(1) Objective: Blood glucose forecasting in type 1 diabetes (T1D) management is a maturing field with numerous algorithms being published and a few of them having reached the commercialisation stage. However, accurate long-term glucose predictions (e.g., >60 min), which are usually needed in applications such as precision insulin dosing (e.g., an artificial pancreas), still remain a challenge. In this paper, we present a novel glucose forecasting algorithm that is well-suited for long-term prediction horizons. The proposed algorithm is currently being used as the core component of a modular safety system for an insulin dose recommender developed within the EU-funded PEPPER (Patient Empowerment through Predictive PERsonalised decision support) project. (2) Methods: The proposed blood glucose forecasting algorithm is based on a compartmental composite model of glucose–insulin dynamics, which uses a deconvolution technique applied to the continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) signal for state estimation. In addition to commonly employed inputs by glucose forecasting methods (i.e., CGM data, insulin, carbohydrates), the proposed algorithm allows the optional input of meal absorption information to enhance prediction accuracy. Clinical data corresponding to 10 adult subjects with T1D were used for evaluation purposes. In addition, in silico data obtained with a modified version of the UVa-Padova simulator was used to further evaluate the impact of accounting for meal absorption information on prediction accuracy. Finally, a comparison with two well-established glucose forecasting algorithms, the autoregressive exogenous (ARX) model and the latent variable-based statistical (LVX) model, was carried out. (3) Results: For prediction horizons beyond 60 min, the performance of the proposed physiological model-based (PM) algorithm is superior to that of the LVX and ARX algorithms. When comparing the performance of PM against the secondly ranked method (ARX) on a 120 min prediction horizon, the percentage improvement on prediction accuracy measured with the root mean square error, A-region of error grid analysis (EGA), and hypoglycaemia prediction calculated by the Matthews correlation coefficient, was $18.8\%$ , $17.9\%$ , and $80.9\%$ , respectively. Although showing a trend towards improvement, the addition of meal absorption information did not provide clinically significant improvements. (4) Conclusion: The proposed glucose forecasting algorithm is potentially well-suited for T1D management applications which require long-term glucose predictions.

Background: The Patient Empowerment through Predictive Personalized Decision Support (PEPPER) system provides personalized bolus advice for people with type 1 diabetes. The system incorporates an adaptive insulin recommender system (based on case-based reasoning, an artificial intelligence methodology), coupled with a safety system, which includes predictive glucose alerts and alarms, predictive low-glucose suspend, personalized carbohydrate recommendations, and dynamic bolus insulin constraint. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the PEPPER system compared to a standard bolus calculator. Methods: This was an open-labeled multicenter randomized controlled crossover study. Following 4-week run-in, participants were randomized to PEPPER/Control or Control/PEPPER in a 1:1 ratio for 12 weeks. Participants then crossed over after a washout period. The primary end-point was percentage time in range (TIR, 3.9–10.0 mmol/L [70–180 mg/dL]). Secondary outcomes included glycemic variability, quality of life, and outcomes on the safety system and insulin recommender. Results: Fifty-four participants on multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump completed the run-in period, making up the intention-to-treat analysis. Median (interquartile range) age was 41.5 (32.3–49.8) years, diabetes duration 21.0 (11.5–26.0) years, and HbA1c 61.0 (58.0–66.1) mmol/mol. No significant difference was observed for percentage TIR between the PEPPER and Control groups (62.5 [52.1–67.8] % vs. 58.4 [49.6–64.3] %, respectively, P = 0.27). For quality of life, participants reported higher perceived hypoglycemia with the PEPPER system despite no objective difference in time spent in hypoglycemia. Conclusions: The PEPPER system was safe, but did not change glycemic outcomes, compared to control. There is wide scope for integrating PEPPER into routine diabetes management for pump and MDI users. Further studies are required to confirm overall effectiveness. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03849755

Background: Self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) and real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) are used by people living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to assess glucose and inform decision-making. Percentage time in range (%TIR) between 3.9 and 10 mmol/L has been associated with incident microvascular complications using historical SMBG data. However, the association between %TIR calculated from rtCGM data has not been identified. This study investigates whether %TIR values generated from rtCGM and SMBG data significantly differ from each other in adults with T1D. Materials and Methods: rtCGM and SMBG data from the REPLACE-BG study were obtained and analyzed. The dataset contained rtCGM (Dexcom G4 Platinum) and SMBG (Contour Next) values for 226 participants during a run-in phase lasting up to 10 weeks, followed by the 26-week trial. Percentages times in hypoglycemic, euglycemia and hyperglycemic ranges were generated from rtCGM and SMBG data using last observation carry forward method (zero-order hold) and linear interpolation (first-order hold). Results: Participants had a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 43.0 (31.0–55.0) years, and hemoglobin A1C of 53 (49–57) mmol/mol [7.0 (6.6–7.4)%]. The median (IQR) %TIR was significantly higher with rtCGM than with SMBG; 63.0 (55.9–71.0)% versus 54.6 (45.6–63.0)%, respectively, P < 0.001. Median %times in hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia were significantly different with SMBG than rtCGM ( P < 0.001). SMBG-derived data using linear interpolation significantly differed from the carry forward method ( P < 0.001 for all glycemic ranges). Differences reported were greater at night than during the day ( P < 0.001 for all glycemic ranges). Conclusion: The %time in all glycemic ranges reported by SMBG and rtCGM differ significantly, suggesting relationships between times in ranges, and complication status may be different between monitoring modalities. In addition, varying methods of calculating %TIR from SMBG-derived data provide significantly differing results. %TIR targets may therefore vary by monitoring choice and methods of calculation and harmonization of TIR standards may be challenging.