Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2023 Apr 1;46(4):742-750.
doi: 10.2337/dc22-1915.

Safety and Efficacy of the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: From Injections to Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Safety and Efficacy of the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: From Injections to Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy

Georgia M Davis et al. Diabetes Care. .

Abstract

Objective: Automated insulin delivery (AID) has rarely been studied in adults with type 2 diabetes. We tested the feasibility of using AID for type 2 diabetes with the Omnipod 5 System in a multicenter outpatient trial.

Research design and methods: Participants previously were using either basal-only or basal-bolus insulin injections, with or without the use of a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and had a baseline HbA1c ≥8% (≥64 mmol/mol). Participants completed 2 weeks of CGM sensor data collection (blinded for those not previously using CGM) with their standard therapy (ST), then transitioned to 8 weeks of AID. Participants who previously used basal-only injections used the AID system in manual mode for 2 weeks before starting AID. Antihyperglycemic agents were continued at clinician discretion. Primary safety outcomes were percentage of time with sensor glucose ≥250 mg/dL and <54 mg/dL during AID. Additional outcomes included HbA1c and time in target range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL).

Results: Participants (N = 24) had a mean (± SD) age of 61 ± 8 years, baseline HbA1c of 9.4% ± 0.9% (79 ± 10 mmol/mol), and diabetes duration of 19 ± 9 years. Percentage of time with sensor glucose ≥250 mg/dL decreased with AID by 16.9% ± 16.2% (P < 0.0001), whereas percentage of time at <54 mg/dL remained low during both ST and AID (median [interquartile range] 0.0% [0.00%, 0.06%] vs. 0.00% [0.00%, 0.03%]; P = 0.4543). HbA1c (± SD) decreased by 1.3% ± 0.7% (14 ± 8 mmol/mol; P < 0.0001) and TIR increased by 21.9% ± 15.2% (P < 0.0001) without a significant change in total daily insulin or BMI with AID.

Conclusions: Findings from this feasibility trial of AID in adults with type 2 diabetes with suboptimal glycemic outcomes justify further evaluation of this technology in this population.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Duality of Interest. G.M.D. reports research support from Insulet and has served as a consultant for Medscape. B.W.B. reports research support from Insulet during the conduct of the study, as well as research support from Abbott, Advance, Diasome, DexCom, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Provention Bio, Sanofi, Sanvita, Senseonics, REMD Biotherapeutics, Xeris, and vTv Therapeutics. B.W.B. reports consultant and speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Insulet, Eli Lilly and Company, Mannkind, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Senseonics, Xeris, and Zealand. A.L.C. conducts research sponsored by Medtronic, Abbott, Insulet, Dexcom, Sanofi, UnitedHealth, Eli Lilly and Company, and Novo Nordisk; and has served as a consultant, speaker, and/or advisory board member for Mannkind, Medtronic, and Sanofi. A.L.P. served on an advisory board for Abbott Diabetes Care, Astra-Zeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, NovoNordisk, Vertex, Zealand, and Medscape; and received research funding from Insulet, Dexcom, and Abbott. A.L.C. has stock options from Teladoc and Omada Health. L.M.H., B.D., T.E.V., and T.T.L. are full-time employees of and own stock in Insulet Corporation. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Figures

None
Graphical abstract
Figure 1
Figure 1
Individual level and group level glycemic response to AID by baseline insulin regimen. A and B: Individual efficacy outcomes showing HbA1c (left), percentage TIR 70–180 mg/dL (middle), and percentage time below range (TBR) (<70 mg/dL) (right) for prior basal-bolus injection users (n = 12) (A) and prior basal-only injection users (n = 12) (B). Each set of circles connected by a line indicates the results of a single person with their prior therapy and with 8 weeks of the Omnipod 5 AID System. C and D: Median sensor glucose measurements across participants in group A (n = 12) (C) and group B (n = 12) (D) by time of day during the AID phase (blue line) and the standard therapy phase (red line), with blue and red shaded areas indicating the IQR for each phase. The target range (70–180 mg/dL) is indicated by black dashed lines. Measurements represent a 24-h period from midnight to midnight.

References

    1. Montvida O, Shaw J, Atherton JJ, Stringer F, Paul SK. Long-term trends in antidiabetes drug usage in the U.S.: real-world evidence in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2018;41:69–78 - PubMed
    1. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee . 6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2022. Diabetes Care 2021;45:S83–S96 - PubMed
    1. Garber AJ, Handelsman Y, Grunberger G, et al. . Consensus statement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology on the comprehensive type 2 diabetes management algorithm - 2020 Executive Summary. Endocr Pract 2020;26:107–139 - PubMed
    1. Lloyd A, Sawyer W, Hopkinson P. Impact of long-term complications on quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes not using insulin. Value Health 2001;4:392–400 - PubMed
    1. Khunti K, Wolden ML, Thorsted BL, Andersen M, Davies MJ. Clinical inertia in people with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study of more than 80,000 people. Diabetes Care 2013;36:3411–3417 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types