CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 152Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes and associated disordersDiabetes Management and Education

ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2022: Diabetes technologies: Insulin delivery

Open access
Sherr, Jennifer L., Schoelwer, Melissa, Dos Santos, Tiago Jeronimo, Reddy, Leenatha, Biester, Torben, Galderisi, Alfonso, van Dyk, Jacobus Cornelius, Hilliard, Marisa E. +2 more·2022·Pediatric Diabetes
DOI 10.1111/pedi.13421
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

J.L.S. reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Insulet, Medtronic, and Zealand and serves on advisory boards of Bigfoot Biomedical, Cecelia Health, Insulet Corporation, Medtronic Diabetes, JDRF T1D Fund, and Vertex. She has been a consultant for Insulet and Medtronic. J.L.S.'s institution received research grant support from JDRF, Medtronic, Insulet, and NIDDK. M.S. reports research grant support, paid to her institution, from Tandem Diabetes Care, Insulet, Medtronic, JDRF, and NIDDK. T.S. has no conflict to disclose. L.R. reports speaker fees from Sanofi, Pfizer, NovoNordisk. T.B. reports speaker fees, consulting honoraria or research support from AstraZeneca, Ascensia, DexCom, Medtronic, NovoNordisk, Roche, Sanofi, and Ypsomed. Since 2021, he is member of the Expert group for medical devices of the European Medicines Agency. A.G. received speaker honoraria from Ypsomed. A.G.'s institution received research support from the European Commission (H2020 program). J.V. has no conflict to disclose. M.E.H. receives research grant support from NIDDK, JDRF, and The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. C.B. has been a consultant for Insulet. L.A.D. reports that in the last 3 years she has consulted for Vertex and served on a Mannkind, Merck, and Abata adivosry board. She has also recieved research support to her instiution from Caladrius, Lilly, Mannkind, Medtronic, Provention, and Zealand. The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1111/pedi.13421. JLS reviewed the literature, drafted sections of the guidelines, oversaw completion of the first draft of the guidelines, and edited the manuscript. MS, TD, LR, TB, AG, JV, MEH and CB reviewed the literature, provided drafts of sections and edited the manuscript. LAD outlined the guidelines, reviewed the literature, edited the manuscript, and served as the senior author. The authors gratefully acknowledge the editorial assistance of Dr. Leena Priyambada. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/pedi.13421

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 190

  1. Wood JR, Miller KM, Maahs DM, et al. Most youth with type 1 dia- betes in the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry do not meet American Diabetes Association or International Society for Pediatric and Ado- lescent Diabetes Clinical Guidelines. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(7): 2035-2037. doi:10.2337/dc12-1959 · DOI
  2. Foster NC, Beck RW, Miller KM, et al. State of type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D exchange in 2016-2018. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(2):66-72. doi:10.1089/dia.2018.0384 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Anderzen J, Hermann JM, Samuelsson U, et al. International bench- marking in type 1 diabetes: large difference in childhood HbA1c between eight high-income countries but similar rise during adolescence-a quality registry study. Pediatr Diabetes. 2020;21(4): 621-627. doi:10.1111/pedi.13014 · DOI
  4. 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. 2020;37(5):848- 855. doi:10.1111/dme.14148 · DOI
  5. Miller KM, Beck RW, Foster NC, Maahs DM. HbA1c levels in type 1 diabetes from early childhood to older adults: a deeper dive into the influence of technology and socioeconomic status on HbA1c in the T1D exchange clinic registry findings. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020;22(9):645-650. doi:10.1089/dia.2019.0393 · DOI
  6. Cengiz E, Xing D, Wong JC, et al. Severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis among youth with type 1 diabetes in the T1D exchange clinic registry. Pediatr Diabetes. 2013;14(6):447-454. doi:10.1111/ pedi.12030 · DOI · Paper page
  7. O'Connell SM, Cooper MN, Bulsara MK, Davis EA, Jones TW. Reducing rates of severe hypoglycemia in a population-based cohort of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes over the decade 2000-2009. Dia- betes Care. 2011;34(11):2379-2380. doi:10.2337/dc11-0748 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Jensen MV, Broadley M, Speight J, et al. The impact of hypoglycae- mia in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes on parental quality of life and related outcomes: a systematic review. Pediatr Diabetes. 2022;23:390-405. doi:10.1111/pedi.13308 · DOI
  9. Haynes A, Hermann JM, Clapin H, et al. Decreasing trends in mean HbA(1c) are not associated with increasing rates of severe hypogly- cemia in children: a longitudinal analysis of two contemporary population-based pediatric type 1 diabetes registries from Australia and Germany/Austria between 1995 and 2016. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(9):1630-1636. doi:10.2337/dc18-2448 · DOI
  10. DeSalvo DJ, Miller KM, Hermann JM, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring and glycemic control among youth with type 1 diabetes: international comparison from the T1D exchange and DPV initiative. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018;19:1271-1275. doi:10.1111/pedi.12711 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Miller KM, Hermann J, Foster N, et al. Longitudinal changes in con- tinuous glucose monitoring use among individuals with type 1 diabe- tes: international comparison in the German and Austrian DPV and U.S. T1D exchange registries. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(1):e1-e2. doi: 10.2337/dc19-1214 · DOI
  12. Sherr JL, Hermann JM, Campbell F, et al. Use of insulin pump ther- apy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and its impact on metabolic control: comparison of results from three large, trans- atlantic paediatric registries. Diabetologia. 2016;59(1):87-91. doi:10. 1007/s00125-015-3790-6 · DOI
  13. Tauschmann M, Hermann JM, Freiberg C, et al. Reduction in diabetic ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycemia in pediatric type 1 diabetes during the first year of continuous glucose monitoring: a multicenter analysis of 3,553 subjects from the DPV registry. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(3):e40-e42. doi:10.2337/dc19-1358 · DOI
  14. Gerhardsson P, Schwandt A, Witsch M, et al. The SWEET project 10-year benchmarking in 19 countries worldwide is associated with improved HbA1c and increased use of diabetes technology in youth with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021;23(7):491-499. doi:10.1089/dia.2020.0618 · DOI
  15. Addala A, Auzanneau M, Miller K, et al. A decade of disparities in diabetes technology use and HbA1c in pediatric type 1 diabetes: a transatlantic comparison. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(1):133-140. doi: 10.2337/dc20-0257 · DOI · Paper page
  16. O'Connor MR, Carlin K, Coker T, Zierler B, Pihoker C. Disparities in insulin pump therapy persist in youth with type 1 diabetes despite rising overall pump use rates. J Pediatr Nurs. 2019;44:16-21. doi:10. 1016/j.pedn.2018.10.005 · DOI
  17. Mönkemöller K, Müller-Godeffroy E, Lilienthal E, et al. The associa- tion between socio-economic status and diabetes care and outcome in children with diabetes type 1 in Germany: the DIAS study (diabe- tes and social disparities). Pediatr Diabetes. 2019;20(5):637-644. doi: 10.1111/pedi.12847 · DOI
  18. Majidi S, Ebekozien O, Noor N, et al. Inequities in health outcomes in children and adults with type 1 diabetes: data from the T1D exchange quality improvement collaborative. Clin Diabetes. 2021; 39(3):278-283. doi:10.2337/cd21-0028 · DOI
  19. Lipman TH, Smith JA, Patil O, Willi SM, Hawkes CP. Racial dispar- ities in treatment and outcomes of children with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2021;22(2):241-248. doi:10.1111/pedi.13139 · DOI
  20. Lipman TH, Hawkes CP. Racial and socioeconomic disparities in pediatric type 1 diabetes: time for a paradigm shift in approach. Dia- betes Care. 2021;44(1):14-16. doi:10.2337/dci20-0048 · DOI
  21. Dos Santos TJ, Donado Campos JM, Argente J, Rodríguez- Artalejo F. Effectiveness and equity of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusions in pediatric type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2021; 172:108643. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108643 · DOI
  22. Agiostratidou G, Anhalt H, Ball D, et al. Standardizing clinically mean- ingful outcome measures beyond HbA1c for type 1 diabetes: a consen- sus report of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, JDRF International, The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the T1D Exchange. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(12):1622- 1630. doi:10.2337/dc17-1624 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Petersson J, Åkesson K, Sundberg F, Särnblad S. Translating glycated hemoglobin A1c into time spent in glucose target range: a multicen- ter study. Pediatr Diabetes. 2019;20(3):339-344. doi:10.1111/pedi. 12817 · DOI
  24. Vigersky RA, McMahon C. The relationship of hemoglobin A1C to time-in-range in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019; 21(2):81-85. doi:10.1089/dia.2018.0310 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Whittemore R, Jaser S, Chao A, Jang M, Grey M. Psychological expe- rience of parents of children with type 1 diabetes: a systematic mixed-studies review. Diabetes Educ. 2012;38(4):562-579. doi:10. 1177/0145721712445216 · DOI
  26. Naranjo D, Tanenbaum ML, Iturralde E, Hood KK. Diabetes technol- ogy: uptake, outcomes, barriers, and the intersection with distress. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016;10(4):852-858. doi:10.1177/ 1932296816650900 · DOI
  27. Tanenbaum ML, Hanes SJ, Miller KM, Naranjo D, Bensen R, Hood KK. Diabetes device use in adults with type 1 diabetes: bar- riers to uptake and potential intervention targets. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(2):181-187. doi:10.2337/dc16-1536 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Sherr JL, Tauschmann M, Battelino T, et al. ISPAD clinical practice consensus guidelines 2018: diabetes technologies. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018;19(Suppl 27):302-325. doi:10.1111/pedi.12731 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Venekamp WJ, Kerr L, Dowsett SA, et al. Functionality and accept- ability of a new electronic insulin injection pen with a memory fea- ture. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22(2):315-325. doi:10.1185/ 030079906X80477 · DOI
  30. Olsen BS, Lilleøre SK, Korsholm CN, Kracht T. Novopen Echo ® for the delivery of insulin: a comparison of usability, functionality and preference among pediatric subjects, their parents, and health care professionals. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4(6):1468-1475. doi:10. 1177/193229681000400622 · DOI
  31. Guo X, Sommavilla B, Vanterpool G, Qvist M, Bethien M, Lilleøre SK. Evaluation of a new durable insulin pen with memory function among people with diabetes and healthcare professionals. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2012;9(4):355-356. doi:10.1517/17425247.2012. 671808 · DOI
  32. Klausmann G, Hramiak I, Qvist M, Mikkelsen KH, Guo X. Evaluation of preference for a novel durable insulin pen with memory function among patients with diabetes and health care professionals. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2013;7:285-292. doi:10.2147/ppa.s41929 · DOI
  33. Danne T, Forst T, Deinhard J, Rose L, Moennig E, Haupt A. No effect of insulin pen with memory function on glycemic control in a patient cohort with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes: a randomized open- label study. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6(6):1392-1397. doi:10. 1177/193229681200600619 · DOI
  34. Adolfsson P, Veijola R, Huot C, Hansen HD, Lademann JB, Phillip M. Safety and patient perception of an insulin pen with simple memory function for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes--the REMIND study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2012;28(9):1455-1463. doi:10. 1185/03007995.2012.698258 · DOI
  35. Toschi E, Slyne C, Greenberg JM, et al. Examining the relationship between pre-and postprandial glucose levels and insulin bolus tim- ing using Bluetooth-enabled insulin pen cap technology and continu- ous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020;22(1):19-24. doi:10.1089/dia.2019.0186 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Jendle J, Ericsson Å, Gundgaard J, Møller JB, Valentine WJ, Hunt B. Smart insulin pens are associated with improved clinical outcomes at lower cost versus standard-of-care treatment of type 1 diabetes in Sweden: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Diabetes Ther. 2021;12(1): 373-388. doi:10.1007/s13300-020-00980-1 · DOI
  37. Tamborlane WV, Sherwin RS, Genel M, Felig P. Reduction to normal of plasma glucose in juvenile diabetes by subcutaneous administration of insulin with a portable infusion pump. N Engl J Med. 1979;300(11):573-578. doi:10.1056/ NEJM197903153001101 · DOI
  38. Pickup JC, Keen H, Parsons JA, Alberti KG. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion: an approach to achieving normoglycaemia. Br Med J. 1978;1(6107):204-207.
  39. Pickup JC, Keen H, Stevenson RW, et al. Insulin via continuous sub- cutaneous infusion. Lancet. 1978;2(8097):988-989.
  40. Ahern JA, Boland EA, Doane R, et al. Insulin pump therapy in pediat- rics: a therapeutic alternative to safely lower HbA1c levels across all age groups. Pediatr Diabetes. 2002;3(1):10-15. doi:10.1034/j.1399- 5448.2002.30103.x · DOI
  41. Saha ME, Huuppone T, Mikael K, Juuti M, Komulainen J. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in the treatment of children and ado- lescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2002;15(7):1005-1010.
  42. Litton J, Rice A, Friedman N, Oden J, Lee MM, Freemark M. Insulin pump therapy in toddlers and preschool children with type 1 diabe- tes mellitus. J Pediatr. 2002;141(4):490-495. doi:10.1067/mpd. 2002.127500 · DOI
  43. Willi SM, Planton J, Egede L, Schwarz S. Benefits of continuous sub- cutaneous insulin infusion in children with type 1 diabetes. Clinical trial research support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. J Pediatr. 2003;143(6):796- 801. doi:10.1067/S0022-3476(03)00579-1 · DOI
  44. Sulli N, Shashaj B. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in chil- dren and adolescents with diabetes mellitus: decreased HbA1c with low risk of hypoglycemia. Clinical Trial. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2003;16(3):393-399.
  45. Hanas R, Adolfsson P. Insulin pumps in pediatric routine care improve long-term metabolic control without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. Pediatr Diabetes. 2006;7(1):25-31. doi:10.1111/j. 1399-543X.2006.00145.x · DOI
  46. Sulli N, Shashaj B. Long-term benefits of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in children with type 1 diabetes: a 4-year follow-up. Diabet Med. 2006;23(8):900-906. doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006. 01935.x · DOI
  47. Jeha GS, Karaviti LP, Anderson B, et al. Insulin pump therapy in pre- school children with type 1 diabetes mellitus improves glycemic con- trol and decreases glucose excursions and the risk of hypoglycemia. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005;7(6):876-884. doi:10.1089/dia.2005. 7.876 · DOI
  48. Maniatis AK, Klingensmith GJ, Slover RH, Mowry CJ, Chase HP. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy for children and adolescents: an option for routine diabetes care. Research support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. Pediatrics. 2001;107(2):351-356.
  49. Nimri R, Weintrob N, Benzaquen H, Ofan R, Fayman G, Phillip M. Insulin pump therapy in youth with type 1 diabetes: a retrospective paired study. Pediatrics. 2006;117(6):2126-2131. doi:10.1542/peds. 2005-2621 · DOI
  50. Mack-Fogg JE, Orlowski CC, Jospe N. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in toddlers and children with type 1 diabetes mellitus is safe and effective. Pediatr Diabetes. 2005;6(1):17-21. doi:10. 1111/j.1399-543X.2005.00090.x · DOI
  51. Berhe T, Postellon D, Wilson B, Stone R. Feasibility and safety of insulin pump therapy in children aged 2 to 7 years with type 1 diabe- tes: a retrospective study. Pediatrics. 2006;117(6):2132-2137. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-2363 · DOI
  52. Weinzimer SA, Ahern JH, Doyle EA, et al. Persistence of benefits of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in very young children with type 1 diabetes: a follow-up report. Pediatrics. 2004;114(6): 1601-1605. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-0092 · DOI
  53. Jakisch BI, Wagner VM, Heidtmann B, et al. Comparison of continu- ous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and multiple daily injections (MDI) in paediatric type 1 diabetes: a multicentre matched-pair cohort analysis over 3 years. Diabet Med. 2008;25(1):80-85. doi:10. 1111/j.1464-5491.2007.02311.x · DOI
  54. Boland EA, Grey M, Oesterle A, Fredrickson L, Tamborlane WV. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. A new way to lower risk of severe hypoglycemia, improve metabolic control, and enhance coping in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Clinical trial research support, non-U.S. Gov't research support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. Diabetes Care. 1999;22(11):1779-1784.
  55. Schiaffini R, Ciampalini P, Spera S, Cappa M, Crino A. An observa- tional study comparing continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and insulin glargine in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2005;21(4):347-352. doi:10.1002/dmrr.520 · DOI
  56. Schiaffini R, Patera PI, Bizzarri C, Ciampalini P, Cappa M. Basal insu- lin supplementation in type 1 diabetic children: a long-term compar- ative observational study between continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and glargine insulin. J Endocrinol Invest. 2007;30(7): 572-577.
  57. DiMeglio LA, Pottorff TM, Boyd SR, France L, Fineberg N, Eugster EA. A randomized, controlled study of insulin pump therapy in diabetic preschoolers. J Pediatr. 2004;145(3):380-384. doi:10. 1016/j.jpeds.2004.06.022 · DOI
  58. Wilson DM, Buckingham BA, Kunselman EL, Sullivan MM, Paguntalan HU, Gitelman SE. A two-center randomized controlled feasibility trial of insulin pump therapy in young children with diabe- tes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(1):15-19.
  59. Fox LA, Buckloh LM, Smith SD, Wysocki T, Mauras N. A randomized controlled trial of insulin pump therapy in young children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(6):1277-1281.
  60. Zabeen B, Craig ME, Virk SA, et al. Insulin pump therapy is associ- ated with lower rates of retinopathy and peripheral nerve abnormal- ity. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0153033. doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0153033 · DOI
  61. Jeitler K, Horvath K, Berghold A, et al. Continuous subcutane- ous insulin infusion versus multiple daily insulin injections in patients with diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta- analysis. Diabetologia. 2008;51(6):941-951. doi:10.1007/s00125- 008-0974-3 · DOI
  62. Pankowska E, Blazik M, Dziechciarz P, Szypowska A, Szajewska H. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion vs. multiple daily injec- tions in children with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Pediatr Diabetes. 2009; 10(1):52-58. doi:10.1111/j.1399-5448.2008.00440.x · DOI
  63. Pickup JC, Sutton AJ. Severe hypoglycaemia and glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes: meta-analysis of multiple daily insulin injections compared with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Diabet Med. 2008;25(7):765-774. doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2008.02486.x · DOI
  64. Szypowska A, Schwandt A, Svensson J, et al. Insulin pump therapy in children with type 1 diabetes: analysis of data from the SWEET reg- istry. Pediatr Diabetes. 2016;17(Suppl 23):38-45. doi:10.1111/pedi. 12416 · DOI
  65. Scrimgeour L, Cobry E, McFann K, et al. Improved glycemic control after long-term insulin pump use in pediatric patients with type 1 dia- betes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2007;9(5):421-428. doi:10.1089/dia. 2007.0214 · DOI
  66. Johnson SR, Cooper MN, Jones TW, Davis EA. Long-term outcome of insulin pump therapy in children with type 1 diabetes assessed in a large population-based case-control study. Diabetologia. 2013; 56(11):2392-2400. doi:10.1007/s00125-013-3007-9 · DOI
  67. Birkebaek NH, Drivvoll AK, Aakeson K, et al. Incidence of severe hypoglycemia in children with type 1 diabetes in the Nordic coun- tries in the period 2008-2012: association with hemoglobin a 1c and treatment modality. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2017;5(1): e000377. doi:10.1136/bmjdrc-2016-000377 · DOI
  68. Burckhardt MA, Smith GJ, Cooper MN, Jones TW, Davis EA. Real- world outcomes of insulin pump compared to injection therapy in a population-based sample of children with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018;19(8):1459-1466. doi:10.1111/pedi.12754 · DOI
  69. Phillip M, Battelino T, Rodriguez H, et al. Use of insulin pump ther- apy in the pediatric age-group: consensus statement from the European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, the Lawson Wilkins pediatric Endocrine Society, and the International Society for Pediat- ric and Adolescent Diabetes, endorsed by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(6):1653-1662. doi:10.2337/dc07-9922 · DOI
  70. Sundberg F, Barnard K, Cato A, et al. Managing diabetes in preschool children. Pediatr Diabetes. 2017;18(7):499-517. doi:10.1111/pedi. 12554 · DOI · Paper page
  71. Botros S, Islam N, Hursh B. Insulin pump therapy, pre-pump hemo- globin A1c and metabolic improvement in children with type 1 diabe- tes at a tertiary Canadian children's hospital. Pediatr Diabetes. 2019; 20(4):427-433. doi:10.1111/pedi.12834 · DOI · Paper page
  72. Ramchandani N, Ten S, Anhalt H, et al. Insulin pump therapy from the time of diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2006;8(6):663-670. doi:10.1089/dia.2006.8.663 · DOI
  73. de Beaufort CE, Houtzagers CM, Bruining GJ, et al. Continuous sub- cutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) versus conventional injection ther- apy in newly diagnosed diabetic children: two-year follow-up of a randomized, prospective trial. Diabet Med. 1989;6(9):766-771.
  74. Kamrath C, Tittel SR, Kapellen TM, et al. Early versus delayed insulin pump therapy in children with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes: results from the multicentre, prospective diabetes follow-up DPV registry. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2021;5(1):17-25. doi:10.1016/ s2352-4642(20)30339-4 · DOI
  75. Buckingham B, Beck RW, Ruedy KJ, et al. Effectiveness of early intensive therapy on beta-cell preservation in type 1 diabetes. Dia- betes Care. 2013;36(12):4030-4035. doi:10.2337/dc13-1074 · DOI
  76. Dos Santos TJ, Dave C, MacLeish S, Wood JR. Diabetes technolo- gies for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes are highly dependent on coverage and reimbursement: results from a worldwide survey. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2021;9(2):e002537. doi:10.1136/bmjdrc-2021-002537 · DOI
  77. Blackman SM, Raghinaru D, Adi S, et al. Insulin pump use in young children in the T1D exchange clinic registry is associated with lower hemoglobin A1c levels than injection therapy. Pediatr Diabetes. 2014;15(8):564-572. doi:10.1111/pedi.12121 · DOI
  78. Commissariat PV, Boyle CT, Miller KM, et al. Insulin pump use in Young children with type 1 diabetes: sociodemographic factors and parent-reported barriers. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(6):363- 369. doi:10.1089/dia.2016.0375 · DOI
  79. Hofer SE, Heidtmann B, Raile K, et al. Discontinuation of insulin pump treatment in children, adolescents, and young adults. A multi- center analysis based on the DPV database in Germany and Austria. Pediatr Diabetes. 2010;11(2):116-121. doi:10.1111/j.1399-5448. 2009.00546.x · DOI
  80. Wong JC, Boyle C, DiMeglio LA, et al. Evaluation of pump discontin- uation and associated factors in the T1D exchange clinic registry. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(2):224-232. doi:10.1177/ 1932296816663963 · DOI · Paper page
  81. Wong JC, Dolan LM, Yang TT, Hood KK. Insulin pump use and glyce- mic control in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: predictors of change in method of insulin delivery across two years. Pediatr Diabetes. 2015;16(8):592-599. doi:10.1111/pedi.12221 · DOI · Paper page
  82. Guenego A, Bouzille G, Breitel S, et al. Insulin pump failures: has there been an improvement? Update of a prospective observational study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18(12):820-824. doi:10.1089/ dia.2016.0265 101. · DOI
  83. Heinemann L, Walsh J, Roberts R. We need more research and bet- ter designs for insulin infusion sets. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014; 8(2):199-202. doi:10.1177/1932296814523882 102. · DOI
  84. Heinemann L, Krinelke L. Insulin infusion set: the Achilles heel of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6(4):954-964. doi:10.1177/193229681200600429 103. Heinemann L. Insulin infusion sets: a critical reappraisal. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18(5):327-333. doi:10.1089/dia.2016.0013 104. · DOI
  85. Forlenza GP, Deshpande S, Ly TT, et al. Application of zone model predictive control artificial pancreas during extended use of infusion set and sensor: a randomized crossover-controlled home-use trial. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(8):1096-1102. 106. Alva S, Castorino K, Cho H, Ou J. Feasibility of continuous ketone monitoring in subcutaneous tissue using a ketone sensor. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2021;15(4):768-774. doi:10.1177/19322968211008185 107. · DOI
  86. Hanas R, Lindgren F, Lindblad B. A 2-yr national population study of pediatric ketoacidosis in Sweden: predisposing conditions and insu- lin pump use. Pediatr Diabetes. 2009;10(1):33-37. doi:10.1111/j. 1399-5448.2008.00441.x 108. Brorsson AL, Viklund G, Ortqvist E, Lindholm OA. Does treatment with an insulin pump improve glycaemic control in children and ado- lescents with type 1 diabetes? A retrospective case-control study. Pediatr Diabetes. 2015;16(7):546-553. doi:10.1111/pedi.12209 109. · DOI · Paper page
  87. Wolfsdorf JI, Nicol G, Michael A, et al. Diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state: a consensus statement from the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018;19:155-177. doi:10.1111/pedi.12701 110. Alemzadeh R, Parton EA, Holzum MK. Feasibility of continuous sub- cutaneous insulin infusion and daily supplemental insulin glargine injection in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11(8):481-486. doi:10.1089/dia.2008.0124 111. · DOI
  88. Kordonouri O, Lauterborn R, Deiss D. Lipohypertrophy in young patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(3):634. 112. Kordonouri O, Biester T, Schnell K, et al. Lipoatrophy in children with type 1 diabetes: an increasing incidence? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;9(2):206-208. doi:10.1177/1932296814558348 113. · DOI
  89. Raile K, Noelle V, Landgraf R, Schwarz HP. Insulin antibodies are associated with lipoatrophy but also with lipohypertrophy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2001;109(8):393-396. doi:10.1055/s-2001-18991 114. · DOI
  90. DeSalvo DJ, Maahs DM, Messer L, et al. Effect of lipohypertrophy on accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(10):e166-e167. doi:10.2337/ dc15-1267 115. · DOI
  91. Burgmann J, Biester T, Grothaus J, Kordonouri O, Ott H. Pediatric diabetes and skin disease (PeDiSkin): a cross-sectional study in 369 children, adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2020;21(8):1556-1565. doi:10.1111/pedi.13130 116. Berg AK, Olsen BS, Thyssen JP, et al. High frequencies of dermato- logical complications in children using insulin pumps or sensors. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018;19(4):733-740. doi:10.1111/pedi.12652 117. · DOI
  92. Marks BE, Wolfsdorf JI, Waldman G, Stafford DE, Garvey KC. Pedi- atric endocrinology Trainees' education and knowledge about insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(3):105-109. doi:10.1089/dia.2018.0331 118. · DOI
  93. Marks BE, Waldman G, Reardon K, et al. Improving pediatric endo- crinology trainees' knowledge about insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors with online spaced education: technology knowl- edge optimization in T1D (TeKnO T1D). Pediatr Diabetes. 2020; 21(5):814-823. doi:10.1111/pedi.13010 119. · DOI
  94. Adolfsson P, Ziegler R, Hanas R. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion: special needs for children. Pediatr Diabetes. 2017;18(4): 255-261. doi:10.1111/pedi.12491 120. · DOI
  95. Danne T, Battelino T, Kordonouri O, et al. A cross-sectional interna- tional survey of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in 377 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus from 10 countries. Pediatr Diabetes. 2005;6(4):193-198. doi:10.1111/j. 1399-543X.2005.00131.x 121. Bode BW, Kaufman FR, Vint N. An expert opinion on advanced insulin pump use in youth with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(3):145-154. doi:10.1089/dia.2016.0354 122. · DOI
  96. Alemzadeh R, Hoffmann RG, Dasgupta M, Parton E. Development of optimal kids insulin dosing system formulas for young children with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012;14(5): 418-422. doi:10.1089/dia.2011.0184 123. · DOI
  97. Hanas R, Adolfsson P. Bolus calculator settings in well-controlled prepubertal children using insulin pumps are characterized by low insulin to carbohydrate ratios and short duration of insulin action time. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(2):247-252. doi:10.1177/ 1932296816661348 124. · DOI
  98. Del Favero S, Boscari F, Messori M, et al. Randomized summer camp crossover trial in 5-to 9-year-old children: outpatient wearable arti- ficial pancreas is feasible and safe. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(7):1180- 1185. doi:10.2337/dc15-2815 127. · DOI · Paper page
  99. Ruan Y, Elleri D, Allen JM, et al. Pharmacokinetics of diluted (U20) insulin aspart compared with standard (U100) in children aged 3-6 years with type 1 diabetes during closed-loop insulin delivery: a randomised clinical trial. Diabetologia. 2015;58(4):687-690. doi:10. 1007/s00125-014-3483-6 128. · DOI
  100. Mianowska B, Fendler W, Tomasik B, Mlynarski W, Szadkowska A. Effect of insulin dilution on lowering glycemic variability in pump-treated Young children with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17(9):605-610. doi:10.1089/dia.2014.0392 129. · DOI
  101. Nabhan ZM, Rardin L, Meier J, Eugster EA, Dimeglio LA. Predictors of glycemic control on insulin pump therapy in children and adoles- cents with type I diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2006;74(3):217- 221. doi:10.3201/eid1204.050751 130. · DOI
  102. Danne T, Battelino T, Jarosz-Chobot P, et al. Establishing glycaemic control with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: experience of the PedPump study in 17 countries. Diabetologia. 2008;51(9):1594-1601. doi:10. 1007/s00125-008-1072-2 131. · DOI
  103. Rasmussen VF, Vestergaard ET, Schwandt A, et al. Proportion of basal to Total insulin dose is associated with metabolic control, body mass index, and treatment modality in children with type 1 diabetes-a cross-sectional study with data from the international SWEET registry. J Pediatr. 2019;215(216-222):e1-222.e1. doi:10. 1016/j.jpeds.2019.06.002 132. · DOI
  104. Tsalikian E, Kollman C, Tamborlane WB, et al. Prevention of hypo- glycemia during exercise in children with type 1 diabetes by sus- pending basal insulin. Multicenter study randomized controlled trial research support, N.I.H., extramural research support, non-U.S. Gov't. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(10):2200-2204. doi:10.2337/dc06-0495 133. · DOI
  105. Hirsch IB, Abelseth J, Bode BW, et al. Sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy: results of the first randomized treat-to-target study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2008;10(5):377-383. doi:10.1089/dia.2008. 0068 134. · DOI
  106. Buse JB, Kudva YC, Battelino T, Davis SN, Shin J, Welsh JB. Effects of sensor-augmented pump therapy on glycemic variability in well- controlled type 1 diabetes in the STAR 3 study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012;14(7):644-647. doi:10.1089/dia.2011.0294 136. Slover RH, Welsh JB, Criego A, et al. Effectiveness of sensor- augmented pump therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in the STAR 3 study. Randomized controlled trial research support, non-U.S. Gov't. Pediatr Diabetes. 2012;13(1):6-11. doi:10. 1111/j.1399-5448.2011.00793.x 137. Kordonouri O, Pankowska E, Rami B, et al. Sensor-augmented pump therapy from the diagnosis of childhood type 1 diabetes: results of the Paediatric ONSET study (ONSET) after 12 months of treatment. Diabe- tologia. 2010;53(12):2487-2495. doi:10.1007/s00125-010-1878-6 138. · DOI
  107. Abraham MB, Smith GJ, Nicholas JA, et al. Effect of frequency of sensor use on glycaemic control in individuals on sensor-augmented pump therapy with and without predictive low glucose management system. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2020;159:107989. doi:10.1016/j. diabres.2019.107989 139. Roze S, Smith-Palmer J, de Portu S, Ozdemir Saltik AZ, Akgul T, Deyneli O. Cost-effectiveness of sensor-Augmented insulin pump therapy versus continuous insulin infusion in patients with type 1 diabetes in Turkey. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(12):727-735. doi:10.1089/dia.2019.0198 140. · DOI
  108. Roze S, Payet V, Debroucker F, de Portu S, Cucherat M. Projection of long term health economic benefits of sensor augmented pump (SAP) versus pump therapy alone (CSII) in uncontrolled type 1 diabetes in France. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A348. doi:10.1016/j. jval.2014.08.715 141. · DOI
  109. Shah VN, Rewers A, Garg S. Glucose monitoring devices. In: Fabris C, Kovatchev B, eds. Glucose Monitoring Devices: Measuring Blood Glucose to Manage and Control Diabetes. Elsevier; 2020:257- 274; Chap: Low glucose suspend systems. 143.
  110. Cengiz E, Sherr JL, Weinzimer SA, Tamborlane WV. Clinical equi- poise: an argument for expedited approval of the first small step toward an autonomous artificial pancreas. Editorial research sup- port, N.I.H., extramural. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2012;9(4):315-317. doi:10.1586/erd.12.33 144. Elleri D, Allen JM, Nodale M, et al. Suspended insulin infusion during overnight closed-loop glucose control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Research support, non-U.S. Gov't. Diabet Med. 2010;27(4):480-484. doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2010.02964.x 145. Bergenstal RM, Klonoff DC, Garg SK, et al. Threshold-based insulin- pump interruption for reduction of hypoglycemia. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:224-232. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1303576 146. · DOI · Paper page
  111. Ly TT, Nicholas JA, Retterath A, Lim EM, Davis EA, Jones TW. Effect of sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy and automated insulin suspension vs standard insulin pump therapy on hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. Research support, non-U.S. Gov't. JAMA. 2013;310(12):1240-1247. doi:10. 1001/jama.2013.277818 147. · DOI · Paper page
  112. Choudhary P, de Portu S, Arrieta A, Castaneda J, Campbell FM. Use of sensor-integrated pump therapy to reduce hypoglycaemia in peo- ple with type 1 diabetes: a real-world study in the UK. Diabet Med. 2019;36(9):1100-1108. doi:10.1111/dme.14043 148. · DOI
  113. Sherr JL, Collazo MP, Cengiz E, et al. Safety of nighttime 2-hour sus- pension of basal insulin in pump-treated type 1 diabetes even in the absence of low glucose. Diabetes Care. 2013;37:773-779. doi:10. 2337/dc13-1608 149. · DOI · Paper page
  114. Conget I, Martin-Vaquero P, Roze S, et al. Cost-effectiveness analy- sis of sensor-augmented pump therapy with low glucose-suspend in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and high risk of hypoglycemia in Spain. Endocrinol Diabetes Nutr (Engl Ed). 2018;65(7):380-386. doi: 10.1016/j.endinu.2018.03.008 150. Roze S, Smith-Palmer J, Valentine W, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sensor-Augmented pump therapy with low glucose suspend versus standard insulin pump therapy in two different patient populations with type 1 diabetes in France. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18(2): 75-84. doi:10.1089/dia.2015.0224 151. Excellence NIfHaC. Integrated Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy Sys- tems for Managing Blood Glucose Levels in Type 1 Diabetes (the Mini- Med Paradigm Veo System and the Vibe and G4 PLATINUM CGM System). National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2021. https://www. nice.org.uk/guidance/dg21 152. · DOI
  115. Alotaibi A, Al Khalifah R, McAssey K. The efficacy and safety of insulin pump therapy with predictive low glucose suspend feature in decreasing hypoglycemia in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Diabetes. 2020;21(7): 1256-1267. doi:10.1111/pedi.13088 153. · DOI
  116. Maahs DM, Calhoun P, Buckingham BA, et al. A randomized trial of a home system to reduce nocturnal hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. Research support, N.I.H., extramural research support, non-U.S. Gov't. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(7):1885-1891. doi:10.2337/dc13- 2159 154. · DOI
  117. Calhoun PM, Buckingham BA, Maahs DM, et al. Efficacy of an over- night predictive low-glucose suspend system in relation to hypogly- cemia risk factors in youth and adults with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016;10(6):1216-1221. doi:10.1177/ 1932296816645119 155. · DOI
  118. Buckingham BA, Raghinaru D, Cameron F, et al. Predictive low- glucose insulin suspension reduces duration of nocturnal hypoglyce- mia in children without increasing ketosis. Diabetes Care. 2015; 38(7):1197-1204. doi:10.2337/dc14-3053 156. · DOI
  119. Beck RW, Raghinaru D, Wadwa RP, et al. Frequency of morning ketosis after overnight insulin suspension using an automated noc- turnal predictive low glucose suspend system. Research support, N.I.H., extramural research support, non-U.S. Gov't. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(5):1224-1229. doi:10.2337/dc13-2775 157. · DOI
  120. Wadwa RP, Chase HP, Raghinaru D, et al. Ketone production in chil- dren with type 1 diabetes, ages 4-14 years, with and without noc- turnal insulin pump suspension. Pediatr Diabetes. 2017;18(6):422- 427. doi:10.1111/pedi.12410 158. · DOI · Paper page
  121. Buckingham BA, Bailey TS, Christiansen M, et al. Evaluation of a predictive low-glucose management system in-clinic. Diabetes Tech- nol Ther. 2017;19(5):288-292. doi:10.1089/dia.2016.0319 159. · DOI
  122. Battelino T, Nimri R, Dovc K, Phillip M, Bratina N. Prevention of hypoglycemia with predictive low glucose insulin suspension in chil- dren with type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(6):764-770. doi:10.2337/dc16-2584 160. · DOI
  123. Abraham MB, Nicholas JA, Smith GJ, et al. Reduction in hypoglyce- mia with the predictive low-glucose management system: a long- term randomized controlled trial in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(2):303-310. doi:10.2337/dc17-1604 161. · DOI
  124. Pinsker JE, Leas S, Müller L, Habif S. Real-world improvements in hypoglycemia in an insulin-dependent cohort with diabetes mellitus pre/post tandem basal-Iq technology remote software update. Endocr Pract. 2020;26(7):714-721. doi:10.4158/ep-2019-0554 163. · DOI
  125. Muller L, Habif S, Leas S, Aronoff-Spencer E. Reducing hypoglycemia in the real world: a retrospective analysis of predictive low-glucose sus- pend Technology in an Ambulatory Insulin-Dependent Cohort. Diabe- tes Technol Ther. 2019;21(9):478-484. doi:10.1089/dia.2019.0190 164. · DOI
  126. Messer LH, Campbell K, Pyle L, Forlenza GP. Basal-IQ technology in the real world: satisfaction and reduction of diabetes burden in indi- viduals with type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2021;38(6):e14381. doi: 10.1111/dme.14381 165. Chen E, King F, Kohn MA, Spanakis EK, Breton M, Klonoff DC. A review of predictive low glucose suspend and its effectiveness in preventing nocturnal hypoglycemia. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019; 21(10):602-609. doi:10.1089/dia.2019.0119 166. · DOI
  127. Scaramuzza AE, Arnaldi C, Cherubini V, et al. Recommendations for the use of sensor-augmented pumps with predictive low-glucose suspend features in children: the importance of education. Pediatr Diabetes. 2017;18:883-889. doi:10.1111/pedi.12503 167. · DOI
  128. Steil G, Rebrin K, Mastrototaro JJ. Metabolic modelling and the closed-loop insulin delivery problem. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2006; 74:S183-S186. 168. Weinzimer SA, Steil GM, Swan KL, Dziura J, Kurtz N, Tamborlane WV. Fully automated closed-loop insulin delivery versus semiautomated hybrid control in pediatric patients with type 1 dia- betes using an artificial pancreas. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(5):934- 939. doi:10.2337/dc07-1967 169. · DOI
  129. Hovorka R, Canonico V, Chassin LJ, et al. Nonlinear model predictive control of glucose concentration in subjects with type 1 diabetes. Physiol Meas. 2004;25(4):905-920. 170. Mauseth R, Wang Y, Dassau E, et al. Proposed clinical application for tuning fuzzy logic controller of artificial pancreas utilizing a per- sonalization factor. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4(4):913-922. 171. Steil G. Algorithms for a closed-loop artificial pancreas: the case for proportional-integral-derivative control. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(6):1621-1631. doi:10.1177/193229681300700623 172. · DOI
  130. Boughton CK, Hovorka R. New closed-loop insulin systems. Diabeto- logia. 2021;64(5):1007-1015. doi:10.1007/s00125-021-05391-w 173. · DOI
  131. Bequette B. Algorithms for a closed-loop artificial pancreas: the case for model predictive control. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(6):1632- 1643. doi:10.1177/193229681300700624 174. · DOI
  132. Pinsker JE, Lee JB, Dassau E, et al. Randomized crossover compari- son of personalized MPC and PID control algorithms for the artificial pancreas. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(7):1135-1142. doi:10.2337/dc15- 2344 175. · DOI
  133. Pinsker JE, Lee JB, Dassau E, et al. Response to Comment on Pins- ker et al. Randomized crossover comparison of personalized MPC and PID control algorithms for the artificial pancreas. Diabetes Care. 2016;39:1135-1142; Diabetes Care. 2017;40(1):e4-e5. doi:10.2337/ dci16-0038 176. · DOI
  134. Steil GM. Comment on Pinsker et al. randomized crossover compari- son of personalized MPC and PID control algorithms for the artificial pancreas. Diabetes Care. 2016;39:1135-1142; Diabetes Care. 2017; 40(1):e3. doi:10.2337/dc16-1693 177. · DOI
  135. Karageorgiou V, Papaioannou T, Bellos I, et al. Effectiveness of artifi- cial pancreas in the non-adult population: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Metab Clin Exp. 2019;90:20-30. doi:10. 1016/j.metabol.2018.10.002 178. · DOI
  136. Weisman A, Bai J-W, Cardinez M, Kramer CK, Perkins BA. Effect of artificial pancreas systems on glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outpatient ran- domised controlled trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5:501-512. 179. Ware J, Allen J, Boughton C, et al. Randomized trial of closed-loop control in very Young children with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(3):209-219. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2111673 180. · DOI
  137. Kariyawasam D, Morin C, Casteels K, et al. Hybrid closed-loop insu- lin delivery versus sensor-augmented pump therapy in children aged 6-12 years: a randomised, controlled, cross-over, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Digit Health. 2022;4(3):e158-e168. doi:10.1016/S2589- 7500(21)00271-5 187. von dem Berge T, Remus K, Biester S, et al. In-home use of a hybrid closed loop achieves time-in-range targets in preschoolers and school children: results from a randomized, controlled, crossover trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2022;24:1319-1327. doi:10.1111/dom. 14706 188. · DOI
  138. Forlenza G, Ekhlaspour L, DiMeglio L, et al. Glycemic outcomes of children 2-6 years of age with type 1 diabetes during the pediatric MiniMed™ 670G system trial. Pediatr Diabetes. 2022;23:324-329. doi:10.1111/pedi.13312 189. · DOI
  139. Forlenza GP, Pinhas-Hamiel O, Liljenquist DR, et al. Safety evalua- tion of the MiniMed 670G system in children 7-13 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(1):11-19. doi:10. 1089/dia.2018.0264 194. · DOI
  140. Sherr JL, Bode BW, Forlenza GP, et al. Safety and glycemic out- comes with a tubeless automated insulin delivery system in very Young children with type 1 diabetes: a single-arm multicenter clini- cal trial. Diabetes Care. 2022;45:1907-1910. doi:10.2337/dc21- 2359 195. · DOI
  141. Fredette ME, Zonfrillo MR, Park S, Quintos JB, Gruppuso PA, Topor LS. Self-reported insulin pump prescribing practices in pediat- ric type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2021;22(5):758-765. doi:10. 1111/pedi.13213 196. · DOI
  142. Ekhlaspour L, Town MA, Raghinaru D, Lum J, Brown S, Buckingham BA. Glycemic outcomes in baseline hemoglobin A1C subgroups in the international diabetes closed-loop (iDCL) trial. Dia- betes Technol Ther. 2022;24:588-591. doi:10.1089/dia.2021.0524 197. Forlenza GP, Breton MD, Kovatchev BP. Candidate selection for hybrid closed loop systems. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021;23(11):760- 762. doi:10.1089/dia.2021.0217 198. · DOI
  143. Da Silva J, Bosi E, Jendle J, et al. Real-world performance of the MiniMed™ 670G system in Europe. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2021; 23(8):1942-1949. doi:10.1111/dom.14424 199. · DOI
  144. Lal RA, Basina M, Maahs DM, Hood K, Buckingham B, Wilson DM. One year clinical experience of the first commercial hybrid closed- loop system. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(12):2190-2196. doi:10.2337/ dc19-0855 200. · DOI · Paper page
  145. Berget C, Messer LH, Vigers T, et al. Six months of hybrid closed loop in the real-world: an evaluation of children and young adults using the 670G system. Pediatr Diabetes. 2020;21(2):310-318. doi: 10.1111/pedi.12962 201. · DOI
  146. DuBose SN, Bauza C, Verdejo A, et al. Real-world, patient-reported and clinic data from individuals with type 1 diabetes using the Mini- Med 670G hybrid closed-loop system. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021; 23(12):791-798. doi:10.1089/dia.2021.0176 202. · DOI
  147. Beato-Vibora PI, Gallego-Gamero F, Ambrojo-Lopez A, Gil-Poch E, Martin-Romo I, Arroyo-Diez FJ. Amelioration of user experiences and glycaemic outcomes with an advanced hybrid closed loop sys- tem in a real-world clinical setting. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2021; 178:108986. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2021.108986 205. · DOI
  148. Tauschmann M, Allenm J, Nagl K, et al. Home use of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in very Young children: a multi- center, 3-week, randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(4):594- 600. doi:10.2337/dc18-1881 206. · DOI
  149. 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(7):1344-1347. doi:10.2337/dc18-2625 207. · DOI
  150. Toffanin C, Kozak M, Sumnik Z, Cobelli C, Petruzelkova L. In Silico trials of an open-source android-based artificial pancreas: a new par- adigm to test safety and efficacy of do-it-yourself systems. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020;22(2):112-120. doi:10.1089/dia.2019.0375 208. · DOI
  151. Braune K, Lal R, Petruželková L, et al. Open-source automated insu- lin delivery: international consensus statement and practical guid- ance for health-care professionals. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2022; 10(1):58-74. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00267-9 210. · DOI · Paper page
  152. Burnside MJ, Lewis DM, Crocket HR, et al. Open-source automated insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(10):869- 881. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2203913 211. · DOI · Paper page
  153. Hsu L, Buckingham B, Basina M, et al. Fast-acting insulin Aspart use with the MiniMed(TM) 670G system. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021; 23(1):1-7. doi:10.1089/dia.2020.0083 212. · DOI
  154. Bode B, Carlson A, Liu R, et al. Ultrarapid Lispro demonstrates simi- lar time in target range to Lispro with a hybrid closed-loop system. Dia- betes Technol Ther. 2021;23(12):828-836. doi:10.1089/dia.2021.0184 213. · DOI
  155. Dovc K, Piona C, Yesiltepe Mutlu G, et al. Faster compared with standard insulin Aspart during day-and-night fully closed-loop insu- lin therapy in type 1 diabetes: a double-blind randomized crossover trial. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(1):29-36. doi:10.2337/dc19-0895 214. · DOI
  156. Renard E. Insulin delivery route for the artificial pancreas: subcuta- neous, intraperitoneal, or intravenous? Pros and cons. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008;2(4):735-738. doi:10.1177/193229680800200429 216. · DOI
  157. Galderisi A, Cohen N, Calhoun P, et al. Effect of Afrezza on glucose dynamics during HCL treatment. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(9):2146- 2152. doi:10.2337/dc20-0091 218. · DOI · Paper page
  158. Levitsky L. Reducing caretaker burden, protecting young brains and bodies. Editorial. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:285-286. doi:10.1056/ NEJMe2119915 219. · DOI
  159. Gregory J, Smith T, Slaughter J, et al. Iatrogenic hyperinsulinemia, not hyperglycemia, drives insulin resistance in type 1 diabetes as revealed by comparison with GCK-MODY (MODY2). Diabetes. 2019;68(8):1565-1576. doi:10.2337/db19-0324 221. · DOI
  160. Sherr JL, Patel NS, Michaud CI, et al. Mitigating meal-related glyce- mic excursions in an insulin-sparing manner during closed-loop insu- lin delivery: the beneficial effects of adjunctive pramlintide and liraglutide. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(7):1127-1134. 222. Tsoukas MA, Majdpour D, Yale JF, et al. A fully artificial pancreas versus a hybrid artificial pancreas for type 1 diabetes: a single-Cen- tre, open-label, randomised controlled, crossover, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Digital Health. 2021;3(11):E723-E732. doi:10.1016/ S2589-7500(21)00139-4 223. · DOI
  161. Biester T, Muller I, von dem Berge T, et al. Add-on therapy with dapagliflozin under full closed loop control improves time in range in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes: the DAPADream study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2021;23(2):599-608. doi:10.1111/dom. 14258 224. · DOI
  162. Russell SJ, El-Khatib FH, Sinha M, et al. Outpatient glycemic control with a bionic pancreas in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(4):313-325. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1314474 225. · DOI
  163. Russell SJ, Hillard MA, Balliro C, et al. Day and night glycaemic con- trol with a bionic pancreas versus conventional insulin pump therapy in preadolescent children with type 1 diabetes: a randomised cross- over trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016;4(3):233-243. doi:10. 1016/S2213-8587(15)00489-1 226. · DOI
  164. Haidar A, Rabasa-Lhoret R, Legault L, et al. Single-and dual- hormone artificial pancreas for overnight glucose control in type 1 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101(1):214-223. doi:10. 1210/jc.2015-3003 227. · DOI
  165. Blauw H, van Bon A, Koops R, DeVries J. Performance and safety of an integrated bihormonal artificial pancreas for fully automated glu- cose control at home. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2016;18(7):671-677. 228. El-Khatib FH, Balliro C, Hillard MA, et al. Home use of a bihormonal bionic pancreas versus insulin pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre randomised crossover trial. Lancet. 2017; 389(10067):369-380. 229.
  166. Castle JR, Elander M. Long-term safety and tolerability of Dasigluca- gon, a stable-in-solution glucagon analogue. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(2):94-96. doi:10.1089/dia.2018.0363 230. · DOI
  167. Jacobs PG, El Youssef J, Reddy R, et al. Randomized trial of a dual- hormone artificial pancreas with dosing adjustment during exercise compared with no adjustment and sensor-augmented pump therapy. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2016;18:1110-1119. doi:10.1111/dom.12707 232. · DOI · Paper page
  168. DeBoer MD, Chernavvsky DR, Topchyan K, Kovatchev BP, Francis GL, Breton MD. Heart rate informed artificial pancreas system enhances glycemic control during exercise in adolescents with T1D. Pediatr Diabetes. 2017;18(7):540-546. doi:10.1111/pedi.12454 233. Patel NS, Van Name MA, Cengiz E, et al. Mitigating reductions in glucose during exercise on closed-loop insulin delivery: the ex- snacks study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18(12):794-799. doi:10. 1089/dia.2016.0311 234. · DOI
  169. Messer LH, Forlenza GP, Wadwa RP, et al. The dawn of automated insulin delivery: a new clinical framework to conceptualize insulin administration. Pediatr Diabetes. 2017;19:14-17. doi:10.1111/pedi. 12535 236. · DOI
  170. Boughton CK, Hartnell S, Allen JM, Fuchs J, Hovorka R. Training and support for hybrid closed-loop therapy. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2022; 16(1):218-223. doi:10.1177/1932296820955168 238. · DOI
  171. Berget C, Thomas SE, Messer LH, et al. A clinical training program for hybrid closed loop therapy in a pediatric diabetes clinic. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2020;14(2):290-296. doi:10.1177/1932296819835183 239. · DOI
  172. Petrovski G, Al Khalaf F, Campbell J, Fisher H, Umer F, Hussain K. 10-day structured initiation protocol from multiple daily injection to hybrid closed-loop system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabe- tes. Acta Diabetol. 2020;57(6):681-687. doi:10.1007/s00592-019- 01472-w 240. · DOI
  173. Blair J, McKay A, Ridyard C, et al. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections in children and young people at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes: the SCIPI RCT. Health Technol Assess. 2018;22(42):1-112. doi:10.3310/hta22420 241. · DOI
  174. Papadakis JL, Anderson LM, Garza K, et al. Psychosocial aspects of dia- betes technology use: the child and family perspective. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2020;49(1):127-141. doi:10.1016/j.ecl.2019.10.004 242. · DOI
  175. Lukács A, Mayer K, Sasvári P, Barkai L. Health-related quality of life of adolescents with type 1 diabetes in the context of resilience. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018;19(8):1481-1486. doi:10.1111/pedi.12769 243. Rosner B, Roman-Urrestarazu A. Health-related quality of life in paediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus using insulin infu- sion systems. A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2019;14(6):e0217655. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0217655 244. Mueller-Godeffroy E, Vonthein R, Ludwig-Seibold C, et al. Psycho- social benefits of insulin pump therapy in children with diabetes type 1 and their families: the pumpkin multicenter randomized con- trolled trial. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018;19(8):1471-1480. doi:10.1111/ pedi.12777 245. · DOI
  176. Lawton J, Blackburn M, Rankin D, et al. The impact of using a closed-loop system on food choices and eating practices among people with type 1 diabetes: a qualitative study involving adults, teenagers and parents. Diabet Med. 2019;36(6):753-760. doi:10. 1111/dme.13887 246. · DOI
  177. Lawson ML, Verbeeten KC, Courtney JM, et al. Timing of CGM initi- ation in pediatric diabetes: the CGM TIME trial. Pediatr Diabetes. 2021;22(2):279-287. doi:10.1111/pedi.13144 247. · DOI
  178. Verbeeten KC, Perez Trejo ME, Tang K, et al. Fear of hypoglycemia in children with type 1 diabetes and their parents: effect of pump therapy and continuous glucose monitoring with option of low glu- cose suspend in the CGM TIME trial. Pediatr Diabetes. 2021;22(2): 288-293. doi:10.1111/pedi.13150 248. · DOI
  179. Naranjo D, Suttiratana SC, Iturralde E, et al. What end users and stakeholders want from automated insulin delivery systems. Diabe- tes Care. 2017;40(11):1453-1461. doi:10.2337/dc17-0400 249. · DOI
  180. Cobry EC, Hamburger E, Jaser SS. Impact of the hybrid closed-loop system on sleep and quality of life in youth with type 1 diabetes and their parents. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020;22(11):794-800. doi:10. 1089/dia.2020.0057 250. · DOI
  181. Lawton J, Blackburn M, Rankin D, et al. Participants' experiences of, and views about, daytime use of a day-and-night hybrid closed-loop system in real life settings: longitudinal qualitative study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(3):119-127. doi:10.1089/dia.2018.0306 251. · DOI
  182. Farrington C. Psychosocial impacts of hybrid closed-loop systems in the management of diabetes: a review. Diabet Med. 2018;35(4):436- 449. doi:10.1111/dme.13567 252. Forlenza GP, Ekhlaspour L, Breton M, et al. Successful at-home use of the tandem control-IQ artificial pancreas system in young chil- dren during a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(4):159-169. doi:10.1089/dia.2019.0011 253. · DOI
  183. Beato-Víbora PI, Gallego-Gamero F, Lázaro-Martín L, Romero- Pérez MDM, Arroyo-Díez FJ. Prospective analysis of the impact of commercialized hybrid closed-loop system on glycemic control, gly- cemic variability, and patient-related outcomes in children and adults: a focus on superiority over predictive low-glucose suspend technology. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020;22(12):912-919. doi:10. 1089/dia.2019.0400 254. Cobry EC, Kanapka LG, Cengiz E, et al. Health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction in parents and children with type 1 diabe- tes using closed-loop control. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021;23(6): 401-409. doi:10.1089/dia.2020.0532 255. · DOI
  184. Forlenza GP, Messer LH, Berget C, Wadwa RP, Driscoll KA. Biopsy- chosocial factors associated with satisfaction and sustained use of artificial pancreas technology and its components: a call to the tech- nology field. Curr Diab Rep. 2018;18(11):114. doi:10.1007/s11892- 018-1078-1 256. · DOI
  185. Messer LH, Berget C, Vigers T, et al. Real world hybrid closed-loop discontinuation: predictors and perceptions of youth discontinuing the 670G system in the first 6 months. Pediatr Diabetes. 2020;21(2): 319-327. doi:10.1111/pedi.12971 257. · DOI
  186. Messer LH, Berget C, Pyle L, et al. Real-world use of a new hybrid closed loop improves glycemic control in youth with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021;23(12):837-843. doi:10.1089/dia.2021. 0165 258. · DOI
  187. Garza KP, Jedraszko A, Weil LEG, et al. Automated insulin delivery systems: hopes and expectations of family members. Diabetes Tech- nol Ther. 2018;20(3):222-228. doi:10.1089/dia.2017.0301 259. · DOI
  188. Weissberg-Benchell J, Shapiro JB, Hood K, et al. Assessing patient- reported outcomes for automated insulin delivery systems: the psy- chometric properties of the INSPIRE measures. Diabet Med. 2019; 36(5):644-652. doi:10.1111/dme.13930 260. · DOI
  189. Messer LH, Berget C, Ernst A, Towers L, Slover RH, Forlenza GP. Ini- tiating hybrid closed loop: a program evaluation of an educator-led control-IQ follow-up at a large pediatric clinic. Pediatr Diabetes. 2021;22(4):586-593. doi:10.1111/pedi.13183 262. · DOI
  190. Hilliard ME, De Wit M, Wasserman RM, et al. Screening and support for emotional burdens of youth with type 1 diabetes: strategies for diabetes care providers. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018;19(3):534-543. doi: 10.1111/pedi.12575 264. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sherr, J. L., Schoelwer, M., Dos Santos, T. J., Reddy, L., Biester, T., Galderisi, A., van Dyk, J. C., Hilliard, M. E., Berget, C., & DiMeglio, L. A.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • Pediatrics Unit, Vithas Almería Instituto Hispalense de Pediatría Almería Andalusia Spain
  • Rainbow Children's Hospital (IN)
  • Kinderkrankenhaus auf der Bult (DE)
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • Department of Pediatrics Life Groenkloof Hospital Pretoria South Africa
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
Corresponding author
Sherr, Jennifer L.
ORCID
Venue
Pediatric Diabetes
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-12
Volume
23
Issue
8
Pages
1406-1431
ISSN
  • 1399-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-5448
DOI
10.1111/pedi.13421
OpenAlex
W4310710557
Cited by
152
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 30
FWCI
4.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Pediatric Diabetes (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repositorio de Patentes de la Universidad de Almería (Universidad de Almería) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
insulin delivery, diabetes technology, insulin pump, continuous glucose monitoring, insulin pump therapy, type 1 diabetes, diabetes management, consensus recommendations
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Technology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review