User login
TORONTO – Closed-loop insulin delivery is expected to become the standard of care in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), but there are multiple barriers that patients need to overcome.
“Many people who are potentially going to be using closed-loop systems are enthusiastic but have unrealistic expectations of how the systems are going to perform, and there are many barriers to uptake and optimal use that we still haven’t quite figured out,” said Korey K. Hood, PhD, a professor in the departments of pediatrics and psychiatry & behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University.
In a session dedicated to all aspects of closed-loop automated insulin delivery at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, Dr. Hood offered comments on patient and family factors important to the uptake and use of closed-loop technologies. His research at Stanford is focused on understanding the psychosocial aspects of diabetes management and how these factors contribute to disease outcomes.
Closed-loop insulin delivery refers to technologies that combine automated glucose monitoring (AGM) with an algorithm to determine insulin needs and an insulin delivery device. Sometimes called an “artificial pancreas” or “bionic pancreas,” closed-loop insulin delivery is considered a significant advance in the management of T1DM, relegating daily finger sticks and nighttime hypoglycemia to things of the past.
In a recent meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, use of any automated device added nearly 2.5 hours of time in near normoglycemia over 24 hours in patients with TIDM, compared with any other type of insulin-based treatment (BMJ. 2018. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k1310). The benefit was primarily based on better glucose control in the overnight period.
In September 2016, the Food and Drug Administration approved the MiniMed 670G Insulin Pump System (Medtronic), the first hybrid automated insulin delivery device for T1DM and the only one approved in the United States. The system is intended for subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and continuous delivery of basal insulin and administration of insulin for the management of T1DM in persons 14 years of age and older.
Barriers from different perspectives
Barriers to uptake and use are common for the devices that are components of closed-loop systems. In a survey of 1,503 adults with TIDM, Dr. Hood’s group found a wide range of barriers to adoption of CGM or insulin pumps that could potentially also impact use of closed-loop systems (Diabetes Care. 2017;40:181-7). Some were nonmodifiable, like costs, but most were modifiable.
“Many people talk about the hassle of wearing devices. They don’t like having multiple devices on their bodies. They don’t always like the way that they look, and so these are things that we can have some kind of impact on and need to be paying attention to,” he said.
“The younger participants indicated a lot more barriers to using devices, and as they got older, they indicated fewer barriers. But what was also interesting is that the younger participants also indicated a lot more diabetes distress. As time went on, that was less of a factor in whether or not people were using diabetes devices,” reported Dr. Hood.
Not surprisingly, he added, was that younger participants had more favorable views of technology in general. “But they had less favorable views of diabetes technology [than older participants], so they’re really not crazy about using these devices.”
Dr. Hood’s group has also studied whether patient-reported barriers to CGM use align with what clinicians perceive to be patient-related barriers (Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11[3]484-92). Similar to the patients, clinicians most frequently endorsed the perception that patients dislike having the device on their body. However, other things they felt their patients worried about were the alarms on the device and the difficulty in understanding its features, neither of which patients considered a primary barrier to CGM or insulin pump adoption.
“So, we need to be cautious and mindful as we move forward that there are mismatches between the patient-reported and clinician-reported barriers,” said Dr. Hood. “Our response, often, is to teach and to provide some kind of education, when that’s not necessarily what the patient is asking for.”
Would you use it?
In 2017, a group of investigators conducted a qualitative study of 284 participants, ranging in age from 8 to 86 years, with T1DM. The researchers used structured interviews or focus groups to explore expectations, desired features, potential benefits, and perceived burdens of automated insulin delivery systems (Diabetes Care. 2017;40[11]:1453-61).
“We were interested in children, adolescents, and adults with type 1, and then also the partners of the adults and the parents of the youth,” he explained.
“The findings revealed three themes identified as pressing for the uptake of automated insulin delivery: considerations of trust and control, system features, and concerns and barriers to adoption.
“For children, the areas of most concern revolved around specific social situations. Adolescents, on the other hand, were more concerned about the physical features of the device, the wearability, the discreetness of using it, and the comfort,” said Dr. Hood.
Adults and parents were much more interested in device accuracy, safety, adaptability, and algorithm quality. “For the kids and teens, not surprisingly, this wasn’t high on their list,” he added.
A clear indication of the unrealistic expectations surrounding this technology came from a 2018 study of almost 200 family members, which found that “reducing the constant concerns about diabetes, relieving family stress, and improving overall family relationships” were the three major areas the participants hoped would be helped with automated insulin delivery (Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20[3]:222-8).
“If we come up with a device that does this, then I think we will have fixed everything!” Dr. Hood said, adding that it really highlights the “very high hopes and expectations” of what closed-loop systems should deliver.
Device readiness is another area researchers have studied in the run-up to closed-loop systems. “The idea that everybody’s going to be ready to start in the same way, I think, is going to set us up for some failures,” he noted, adding that, in general, parents are much more enthusiastic about this than pediatric patients.
“Individuals who had been using diabetes devices – and some had already been in closed-loop studies – They had more realistic expectations of what these systems are going to be, because they knew that it wasn’t going to be a complete fix. Whereas others with more limited experience with component devices and these systems had much higher expectations and reported a fair amount of dissatisfaction at the end of the study because it didn’t do everything that they wanted it to do.”
Waves of uptake
“Ultimately, a closed-loop system is going to be judged by whether it can increase time on target and reduce cognitive burden,” said Dr. Hood. He finished his talk with some projections about the future of closed-loop systems. “I think we’re going to probably to have different waves, or types, of closed-loop users.”
The first wave will be the group that’s already “sold” on the idea, which might encompass about 15% of patients. The second wave, which might represent about 30% of the relevant patient population, will be those who are sold on the idea and will likely use it but will have high expectations of the system’s ease of use and effectiveness and thus are highly likely to discontinue its use if those expectations are not met.
“The third wave will be those who might use a closed-loop system but might be unaware of them currently and will need a fair amount of education.” And, finally, the fourth group are unlikely to ever use closed-loop insulin delivery. “They are a group that feels burned by previous generations of systems, and I think that they may not perceive benefit,” Dr. Hood suggested.
“But all of this is to say that I do think that a tailored experience, and one that is focused on different profiles, can optimize both the uptake and the use of these systems.”
Dr. Hood reported receiving grant/research support from Dexcom and being a consultant for Lilly Innovation Center, J&J Diabetes Institute, and Bigfoot Biomedical.
TORONTO – Closed-loop insulin delivery is expected to become the standard of care in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), but there are multiple barriers that patients need to overcome.
“Many people who are potentially going to be using closed-loop systems are enthusiastic but have unrealistic expectations of how the systems are going to perform, and there are many barriers to uptake and optimal use that we still haven’t quite figured out,” said Korey K. Hood, PhD, a professor in the departments of pediatrics and psychiatry & behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University.
In a session dedicated to all aspects of closed-loop automated insulin delivery at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, Dr. Hood offered comments on patient and family factors important to the uptake and use of closed-loop technologies. His research at Stanford is focused on understanding the psychosocial aspects of diabetes management and how these factors contribute to disease outcomes.
Closed-loop insulin delivery refers to technologies that combine automated glucose monitoring (AGM) with an algorithm to determine insulin needs and an insulin delivery device. Sometimes called an “artificial pancreas” or “bionic pancreas,” closed-loop insulin delivery is considered a significant advance in the management of T1DM, relegating daily finger sticks and nighttime hypoglycemia to things of the past.
In a recent meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, use of any automated device added nearly 2.5 hours of time in near normoglycemia over 24 hours in patients with TIDM, compared with any other type of insulin-based treatment (BMJ. 2018. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k1310). The benefit was primarily based on better glucose control in the overnight period.
In September 2016, the Food and Drug Administration approved the MiniMed 670G Insulin Pump System (Medtronic), the first hybrid automated insulin delivery device for T1DM and the only one approved in the United States. The system is intended for subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and continuous delivery of basal insulin and administration of insulin for the management of T1DM in persons 14 years of age and older.
Barriers from different perspectives
Barriers to uptake and use are common for the devices that are components of closed-loop systems. In a survey of 1,503 adults with TIDM, Dr. Hood’s group found a wide range of barriers to adoption of CGM or insulin pumps that could potentially also impact use of closed-loop systems (Diabetes Care. 2017;40:181-7). Some were nonmodifiable, like costs, but most were modifiable.
“Many people talk about the hassle of wearing devices. They don’t like having multiple devices on their bodies. They don’t always like the way that they look, and so these are things that we can have some kind of impact on and need to be paying attention to,” he said.
“The younger participants indicated a lot more barriers to using devices, and as they got older, they indicated fewer barriers. But what was also interesting is that the younger participants also indicated a lot more diabetes distress. As time went on, that was less of a factor in whether or not people were using diabetes devices,” reported Dr. Hood.
Not surprisingly, he added, was that younger participants had more favorable views of technology in general. “But they had less favorable views of diabetes technology [than older participants], so they’re really not crazy about using these devices.”
Dr. Hood’s group has also studied whether patient-reported barriers to CGM use align with what clinicians perceive to be patient-related barriers (Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11[3]484-92). Similar to the patients, clinicians most frequently endorsed the perception that patients dislike having the device on their body. However, other things they felt their patients worried about were the alarms on the device and the difficulty in understanding its features, neither of which patients considered a primary barrier to CGM or insulin pump adoption.
“So, we need to be cautious and mindful as we move forward that there are mismatches between the patient-reported and clinician-reported barriers,” said Dr. Hood. “Our response, often, is to teach and to provide some kind of education, when that’s not necessarily what the patient is asking for.”
Would you use it?
In 2017, a group of investigators conducted a qualitative study of 284 participants, ranging in age from 8 to 86 years, with T1DM. The researchers used structured interviews or focus groups to explore expectations, desired features, potential benefits, and perceived burdens of automated insulin delivery systems (Diabetes Care. 2017;40[11]:1453-61).
“We were interested in children, adolescents, and adults with type 1, and then also the partners of the adults and the parents of the youth,” he explained.
“The findings revealed three themes identified as pressing for the uptake of automated insulin delivery: considerations of trust and control, system features, and concerns and barriers to adoption.
“For children, the areas of most concern revolved around specific social situations. Adolescents, on the other hand, were more concerned about the physical features of the device, the wearability, the discreetness of using it, and the comfort,” said Dr. Hood.
Adults and parents were much more interested in device accuracy, safety, adaptability, and algorithm quality. “For the kids and teens, not surprisingly, this wasn’t high on their list,” he added.
A clear indication of the unrealistic expectations surrounding this technology came from a 2018 study of almost 200 family members, which found that “reducing the constant concerns about diabetes, relieving family stress, and improving overall family relationships” were the three major areas the participants hoped would be helped with automated insulin delivery (Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20[3]:222-8).
“If we come up with a device that does this, then I think we will have fixed everything!” Dr. Hood said, adding that it really highlights the “very high hopes and expectations” of what closed-loop systems should deliver.
Device readiness is another area researchers have studied in the run-up to closed-loop systems. “The idea that everybody’s going to be ready to start in the same way, I think, is going to set us up for some failures,” he noted, adding that, in general, parents are much more enthusiastic about this than pediatric patients.
“Individuals who had been using diabetes devices – and some had already been in closed-loop studies – They had more realistic expectations of what these systems are going to be, because they knew that it wasn’t going to be a complete fix. Whereas others with more limited experience with component devices and these systems had much higher expectations and reported a fair amount of dissatisfaction at the end of the study because it didn’t do everything that they wanted it to do.”
Waves of uptake
“Ultimately, a closed-loop system is going to be judged by whether it can increase time on target and reduce cognitive burden,” said Dr. Hood. He finished his talk with some projections about the future of closed-loop systems. “I think we’re going to probably to have different waves, or types, of closed-loop users.”
The first wave will be the group that’s already “sold” on the idea, which might encompass about 15% of patients. The second wave, which might represent about 30% of the relevant patient population, will be those who are sold on the idea and will likely use it but will have high expectations of the system’s ease of use and effectiveness and thus are highly likely to discontinue its use if those expectations are not met.
“The third wave will be those who might use a closed-loop system but might be unaware of them currently and will need a fair amount of education.” And, finally, the fourth group are unlikely to ever use closed-loop insulin delivery. “They are a group that feels burned by previous generations of systems, and I think that they may not perceive benefit,” Dr. Hood suggested.
“But all of this is to say that I do think that a tailored experience, and one that is focused on different profiles, can optimize both the uptake and the use of these systems.”
Dr. Hood reported receiving grant/research support from Dexcom and being a consultant for Lilly Innovation Center, J&J Diabetes Institute, and Bigfoot Biomedical.
TORONTO – Closed-loop insulin delivery is expected to become the standard of care in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), but there are multiple barriers that patients need to overcome.
“Many people who are potentially going to be using closed-loop systems are enthusiastic but have unrealistic expectations of how the systems are going to perform, and there are many barriers to uptake and optimal use that we still haven’t quite figured out,” said Korey K. Hood, PhD, a professor in the departments of pediatrics and psychiatry & behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University.
In a session dedicated to all aspects of closed-loop automated insulin delivery at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, Dr. Hood offered comments on patient and family factors important to the uptake and use of closed-loop technologies. His research at Stanford is focused on understanding the psychosocial aspects of diabetes management and how these factors contribute to disease outcomes.
Closed-loop insulin delivery refers to technologies that combine automated glucose monitoring (AGM) with an algorithm to determine insulin needs and an insulin delivery device. Sometimes called an “artificial pancreas” or “bionic pancreas,” closed-loop insulin delivery is considered a significant advance in the management of T1DM, relegating daily finger sticks and nighttime hypoglycemia to things of the past.
In a recent meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, use of any automated device added nearly 2.5 hours of time in near normoglycemia over 24 hours in patients with TIDM, compared with any other type of insulin-based treatment (BMJ. 2018. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k1310). The benefit was primarily based on better glucose control in the overnight period.
In September 2016, the Food and Drug Administration approved the MiniMed 670G Insulin Pump System (Medtronic), the first hybrid automated insulin delivery device for T1DM and the only one approved in the United States. The system is intended for subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and continuous delivery of basal insulin and administration of insulin for the management of T1DM in persons 14 years of age and older.
Barriers from different perspectives
Barriers to uptake and use are common for the devices that are components of closed-loop systems. In a survey of 1,503 adults with TIDM, Dr. Hood’s group found a wide range of barriers to adoption of CGM or insulin pumps that could potentially also impact use of closed-loop systems (Diabetes Care. 2017;40:181-7). Some were nonmodifiable, like costs, but most were modifiable.
“Many people talk about the hassle of wearing devices. They don’t like having multiple devices on their bodies. They don’t always like the way that they look, and so these are things that we can have some kind of impact on and need to be paying attention to,” he said.
“The younger participants indicated a lot more barriers to using devices, and as they got older, they indicated fewer barriers. But what was also interesting is that the younger participants also indicated a lot more diabetes distress. As time went on, that was less of a factor in whether or not people were using diabetes devices,” reported Dr. Hood.
Not surprisingly, he added, was that younger participants had more favorable views of technology in general. “But they had less favorable views of diabetes technology [than older participants], so they’re really not crazy about using these devices.”
Dr. Hood’s group has also studied whether patient-reported barriers to CGM use align with what clinicians perceive to be patient-related barriers (Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11[3]484-92). Similar to the patients, clinicians most frequently endorsed the perception that patients dislike having the device on their body. However, other things they felt their patients worried about were the alarms on the device and the difficulty in understanding its features, neither of which patients considered a primary barrier to CGM or insulin pump adoption.
“So, we need to be cautious and mindful as we move forward that there are mismatches between the patient-reported and clinician-reported barriers,” said Dr. Hood. “Our response, often, is to teach and to provide some kind of education, when that’s not necessarily what the patient is asking for.”
Would you use it?
In 2017, a group of investigators conducted a qualitative study of 284 participants, ranging in age from 8 to 86 years, with T1DM. The researchers used structured interviews or focus groups to explore expectations, desired features, potential benefits, and perceived burdens of automated insulin delivery systems (Diabetes Care. 2017;40[11]:1453-61).
“We were interested in children, adolescents, and adults with type 1, and then also the partners of the adults and the parents of the youth,” he explained.
“The findings revealed three themes identified as pressing for the uptake of automated insulin delivery: considerations of trust and control, system features, and concerns and barriers to adoption.
“For children, the areas of most concern revolved around specific social situations. Adolescents, on the other hand, were more concerned about the physical features of the device, the wearability, the discreetness of using it, and the comfort,” said Dr. Hood.
Adults and parents were much more interested in device accuracy, safety, adaptability, and algorithm quality. “For the kids and teens, not surprisingly, this wasn’t high on their list,” he added.
A clear indication of the unrealistic expectations surrounding this technology came from a 2018 study of almost 200 family members, which found that “reducing the constant concerns about diabetes, relieving family stress, and improving overall family relationships” were the three major areas the participants hoped would be helped with automated insulin delivery (Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20[3]:222-8).
“If we come up with a device that does this, then I think we will have fixed everything!” Dr. Hood said, adding that it really highlights the “very high hopes and expectations” of what closed-loop systems should deliver.
Device readiness is another area researchers have studied in the run-up to closed-loop systems. “The idea that everybody’s going to be ready to start in the same way, I think, is going to set us up for some failures,” he noted, adding that, in general, parents are much more enthusiastic about this than pediatric patients.
“Individuals who had been using diabetes devices – and some had already been in closed-loop studies – They had more realistic expectations of what these systems are going to be, because they knew that it wasn’t going to be a complete fix. Whereas others with more limited experience with component devices and these systems had much higher expectations and reported a fair amount of dissatisfaction at the end of the study because it didn’t do everything that they wanted it to do.”
Waves of uptake
“Ultimately, a closed-loop system is going to be judged by whether it can increase time on target and reduce cognitive burden,” said Dr. Hood. He finished his talk with some projections about the future of closed-loop systems. “I think we’re going to probably to have different waves, or types, of closed-loop users.”
The first wave will be the group that’s already “sold” on the idea, which might encompass about 15% of patients. The second wave, which might represent about 30% of the relevant patient population, will be those who are sold on the idea and will likely use it but will have high expectations of the system’s ease of use and effectiveness and thus are highly likely to discontinue its use if those expectations are not met.
“The third wave will be those who might use a closed-loop system but might be unaware of them currently and will need a fair amount of education.” And, finally, the fourth group are unlikely to ever use closed-loop insulin delivery. “They are a group that feels burned by previous generations of systems, and I think that they may not perceive benefit,” Dr. Hood suggested.
“But all of this is to say that I do think that a tailored experience, and one that is focused on different profiles, can optimize both the uptake and the use of these systems.”
Dr. Hood reported receiving grant/research support from Dexcom and being a consultant for Lilly Innovation Center, J&J Diabetes Institute, and Bigfoot Biomedical.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM PAS 2018