Eric Renard | PubMed Health

PubMed2026

The management of type 1 diabetes in adults. The updated 2026 consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).

This 2026 consensus report from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) builds on the 2021 consensus report to provide guidance for managing type 1 diabetes in adults. Reflecting the rapid advances in the field, this update places particular emphasis on the integration of new technologies, while all sections have been revised to incorporate new evidence, advances in clinical practice and novel therapies, including interventions to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes. It also broadens its scope to screening for long-term diabetes complications, and the management of obesity and cardiovascular risk factors. Psychosocial care and diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) remain key elements. The report was developed using the Accurate Consensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) framework. The guidance aligns with the current ADA 'Standards of Care in Diabetes' (Standards of Care) and relevant EASD and ADA documents and aims to support clinicians globally in delivering high-quality, personalised care for adults with type 1 diabetes, with recommendations that can be adapted across diverse healthcare systems and resource settings.

Adjunctive therapy↗

PubMed2026

The Management of Type 1 Diabetes in Adults. The Updated 2026 Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).

This 2026 consensus report from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) builds on the 2021 consensus report to provide guidance for managing type 1 diabetes in adults. Reflecting the rapid advances in the field, this update places particular emphasis on the integration of new technologies, while all sections have been revised to incorporate new evidence, advances in clinical practice, and novel therapies, including interventions to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes. It also broadens its scope to screening for long-term diabetes complications, and the management of obesity and cardiovascular risk factors. Psychosocial care and diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) remain key elements.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2026

Factors Associated With Progression From Level 1 to Level 2 Sensor-Detected Hypoglycaemia in People With Type 1 and Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: A Post Hoc Analysis From the Hypo-METRICS Study.

AIMS: We investigated the proportion of sensor-detected hypoglycaemic (SDH) events progressing to level 2, and associated variables. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used data from Hypo-METRICS, which recruited people with type 1 (pwT1D) and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (pwT2D) with ≥ 1 hypoglycaemic event in preceding 3 months, wearing blinded continuous glucose monitoring devices (CGM), additional to usual monitoring modality, and FitBits for 10 weeks. We defined: L1: SDH < 3.9 mmol/L for ≥ 15 min but ≥ 3.0 mmol/L; L2: SDH < 3.9 mmol/L with ≥ 15 min of sensor glucose < 3.0 mmol/L; L2 ratio = L2/(L1 + L2), restricted to participants with both event types during the study period. Associations of selected variables on L2 ratio was assessed using beta regression and purposeful variable selection. RESULTS: We analysed 23 768 SDH events from 212 pwT1D and 213 pwT2D. PwT1D were predominantly female (53% vs. 42% in T2D, p = 0.023) and younger (median age 49 vs. 62 years, p < 0.001), with a higher L2 ratio (16% vs. 14%, p = 0.03). Coefficient of variation (CV), OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.06-1.09 (p < 0.001), and mean sensor glucose, OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.08-1.18 (p < 0.001) were the principal predictors in T1D and T2D respectively; mean L1-SDH duration, weekly L1-SDH frequency, personal CGM usage, impaired awareness were not. Progression was higher during sleep than wakefulness (21% vs. 11%, p < 0.001); L2 ratios during sleep did not differ by awareness status. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one sixth of SDH events progressed to L2, with a higher proportion in T1D than T2D. The principal determinants were CV in T1D and mean glucose in T2D. Awareness status was not associated with progression risk during sleep.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Continuous Intraperitoneal Insulin Infusion for People With Type 1 Diabetes: A Literature Review and International Position Statement.

Achieving glucose targets without hypoglycaemia is the treatment goal in type 1 diabetes. Structured education, intensified insulin injection regimens, continuous glucose monitoring, automated insulin delivery, and ongoing support from a multidisciplinary team all support people with type 1 diabetes to achieve this goal. Despite these advances, significant barriers to achieving optimal management remain. Continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion has comparable or better glucose outcomes to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and may reduce the frequency of hypoglycaemia, including severe episodes. Intraperitoneal insulin may be considered as a treatment modality for children and adults with type 1 diabetes using optimised intensive insulin therapy for whom subcutaneous insulin has failed due to lipoatrophy, -dystrophy or -hypertrophy, local allergy, subcutaneous insulin resistance or co-existing skin conditions. Failure of subcutaneous insulin may result in recurrent or unexplained severe hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia. Intraperitoneal insulin may also be considered as a treatment modality for people with type 1 diabetes with severe needle-phobia, and for those being considered for islet cell or pancreatic transplantation, or where transplantation is not available. This paper summarises current intraperitoneal insulin delivery technology, its potential risks and benefits, and an expert position statement. It is intended for use by diabetes specialist healthcare professionals, and as a reference for other healthcare professionals, commissioners, payors, people with diabetes, their carers, and advocates.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Hypoglycaemia Was Not Associated With Depression, Anxiety, Diabetes Distress or Fear of Hypoglycaemia Scores in People With Type 1 or Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes in the Hypo-METRICS Study.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Letter↗

PubMed2026

Gold and Clarke Questionnaires Identify Different People With Insulin-Treated Diabetes and Impaired Awareness of Hypoglycaemia in Almost 60% of Cases: A Post Hoc Analysis From the Hypo-METRICS Study.

AIMS: Gold and Clarke questionnaires are used to identify impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) and severe hypoglycaemic event (SHE) risk in people with diabetes (pwD). We explored their overlap, including Clarke's Hypoglycaemia Awareness Status (Clarke-HAS) subfactor, and subsection differences in SHE incidence (Gold, Clarke, overlap). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This post hoc analysis of the Hypo-METRICS study recruited pwD on insulin (type 1: T1D; type 2: T2D) with ≥ 1 hypoglycaemic event in the previous 3 months. IAH was defined as Gold ≥ 4, Clarke ≥ 4, Clarke-HAS ≥ 2. RESULTS: Gold and Clarke were completed by 232 pwT1D and 285 pwT2D (age: 47 vs. 62 years, p < 0.001; HbA1c: 56 mmol/mol (7.3%) vs. 57 mmol/mol (7.4%), p = 0.03). IAH prevalence in T1D vs. T2D was 21% vs. 26% (p = 0.1), 14% vs. 18% (p = 0.2), and 41% vs. 48% (p = 0.2) according to Gold, Clarke and Clarke-HAS. The overlap between Gold ≥ 4, Clarke ≥ 4 was 40% (T1D: 45%; T2D: 37%); between Gold ≥ 4, Clarke-HAS ≥ 2 it was 45% (T1D: 43%; T2D: 47%). The overlap between Gold ≥ 4, Clarke ≥ 4 was 41% vs. 39% in CGM vs. non-CGM users (T1D: 50% vs. 35%; T2D: 32% vs. 40%); between Gold ≥ 4, Clarke-HAS ≥ 2 it was 39% vs. 53% (T1D: 38% vs. 54%; T2D: 40% vs. 53%). In the IAH sample, SHE rate was lower in people found with IAH by Gold vs. Clarke, 9% vs. 53%, and in those assessed by Gold-Clarke overlap vs. Clarke, 20% vs. 53% (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Gold and Clarke show moderate consistency (37%-54%) in identifying IAH in insulin-treated diabetes, with/without CGM use, each associated with different SHE rates, indicating the two questionnaires measure different, independent aspects of IAH.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Extended Use of the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: 12-Month Extension of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System is safe and effective for individuals managing Type 1 diabetes (T1D). Longer-term studies may provide additional evidence of sustained effectiveness and safety of AID system use in T1D. METHODS: This 12-month extension study was conducted following a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) where participants used either AID (Omnipod 5) or standard therapy (current non-automated pump therapy) for 13 weeks. Participants in France (n = 76) could transition to or continue with AID for an additional 12 months. Glycemic, safety, and psychosocial outcomes during or at the end of the extension phase were compared with baseline or end of RCT, as appropriate. RESULTS: Seventy-five participants enrolled in the extension phase. From RCT baseline to the end of the extension phase, time in range 70-180 mg/dL increased by 17.9% (p < 0.0001) or 4.3 h/day to 62.3%. Time above range > 180 mg/dL and mean sensor glucose decreased by 17.7% and 27.8 mg/dL (both p < 0.0001), respectively. HbA1c decreased from 8.33% to 7.18% (-1.14%; p < 0.0001). Glycemic improvements were maintained for those continuing with AID from the RCT intervention group and for those transitioning to AID from standard therapy. Diabetes Quality of Life-brief and Hypoglycemia Confidence Scale scores were maintained or improved at 6 and 12 months compared to RCT baseline. Adverse events were infrequent (12 per 100 person-years). CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the RCT results, demonstrating safety and sustained improvements in glycemic and psychosocial outcomes with the Omnipod 5 System in adults in France with T1D over 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05409131.

Humans↗

PubMed2025

Evolution of the Artificial Pancreas: Components and Integration-CGMs, Insulin, and AP Systems.

The landmark Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) showed that glucose control is critical to reducing the risk of diabetes-related complications. This chapter outlines a series of innovations and investigations that followed the DCCT, aimed at minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia while further improving glucose control. The chapter presents an example of innovations in wired enzyme technology that facilitated the movement from capillary glucose monitoring to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and ultimately, the first-factory calibrated CGM system. The next glycemic management innovation was to connect CGM data to an insulin pump containing an algorithm able to adjust insulin delivery based on the changing glucose levels and trends. The key features of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, currently approved in the United States, are presented. The AID summary table includes type of pump, type and function of the insulin delivery algorithm, the data management system, and the indications for use. The next section explores the innovation of alternative routes of insulin delivery to move toward the goal of a fully automated insulin delivery system. The main trials in developing and implementing an implantable intraperitoneal programmable system are summarized. The last section explores if sensor input in addition to glucose levels such as continuous sensing of ketone, lactate, or insulin levels may provide valuable feedback to move us closer to a fully autonomous AID system. Much of this diabetes innovation and investigation work has been supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases over that last 75 years.

Humans↗