Search

OBJECTIVE To evaluate exercise-related glucose and counterregulatory responses (CRR) in adults with type 1 diabetes with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) using hybrid closed-loop (HCL) insulin delivery to maintain glucose homeostasis. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Twelve participants undertook 45-min high-intensity intermittent exercise (HIIE) and moderate-intensity exercise (MIE) in random order. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) time in range (70–180 mg/dL) for 24-h post–exercise commencement. RESULTS CGM time in range was similar for HIIE and MIE (median 79.5% [interquartile range 73.2, 87.6] vs. 76.1% [70.3, 83.9], P = 0.37), and time with levels CONCLUSIONS IAH adults using HCL undertaking HIIE and MIE exhibit heterogeneity in CRR. Novel findings were a preserved cortisol response and variable catecholamine responses to HIIE.

OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy and safety of closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy among older adults with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This open-label, randomized (1:1), crossover trial compared 4 months of closed-loop versus sensor-augmented pump therapy. Eligible adults were aged ≥60 years, with type 1 diabetes (duration ≥10 years), using an insulin pump. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) time in range (TIR; 3.9–10.0 mmol/L). RESULTS There were 30 participants (mean age 67 [SD 5] years), with median type 1 diabetes duration of 38 years (interquartile range [IQR] 20–47), randomized (n = 15 to each sequence); all completed the trial. The mean TIR was 75.2% (SD 6.3) during the closed-loop stage and 69.0% (9.1) during the sensor-augmented pump stage (difference of 6.2 percentage points [95% CI 4.4 to 8.0]; P < 0.0001). All prespecified CGM metrics favored closed loop over the sensor-augmented pump; benefits were greatest overnight. Closed loop reduced CGM time CONCLUSIONS Closed-loop therapy is an effective treatment option for older adults with long-duration type 1 diabetes, and no safety issues were identified. These older adults had higher TIR accompanied by less time below range during closed loop than during sensor-augmented pump therapy. Of particular clinical importance, closed loop reduced the time spent in hypoglycemic range overnight.

OBJECTIVE To compare glucose control with hybrid closed-loop (HCL) when challenged by high intensity exercise (HIE), moderate intensity exercise (MIE), and resistance exercise (RE) while profiling counterregulatory hormones, lactate, ketones, and kinetic data in adults with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This study was an open-label multisite randomized crossover trial. Adults with type 1 diabetes undertook 40 min of HIE, MIE, and RE in random order while using HCL (Medtronic MiniMed 670G) with a temporary target set 2 h prior to and during exercise and 15 g carbohydrates if pre-exercise glucose was RESULTS Median TIR was 81% (67, 93%), 91% (80, 94%), and 80% (73, 89%) for 0–14 h post–exercise commencement for HIE, MIE, and RE, respectively (n = 30), with no difference between exercise types (MIE vs. HIE; P = 0.11, MIE vs. RE, P = 0.11; and HIE vs. RE, P = 0.90). Time-below-range was 0% for all exercise bouts. For HIE and RE compared with MIE, there were greater increases, respectively, in noradrenaline (P = 0.01 and P = 0.004), cortisol (P < 0.001 and P = 0.001), lactate (P ≤ 0.001 and P ≤ 0.001), and heart rate (P = 0.007 and P = 0.015). During HIE compared with MIE, there were greater increases in growth hormone (P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS Under controlled conditions, HCL provided satisfactory glucose control with no difference between exercise type. Lactate, counterregulatory hormones, and kinetic data differentiate type and intensity of exercise, and their measurement may help inform insulin needs during exercise. However, their potential utility as modulators of insulin dosing will be limited by the pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous insulin delivery.

OBJECTIVETo evaluate glucose control using fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) compared with insulin aspart (IAsp) delivered by the MiniMed Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) system in adults with type 1 diabetes.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSIn this randomized, open-label, crossover study, participants were assigned to receive faster aspart or IAsp in random order. Stages 1 and 2 comprised of 6 weeks in closed loop, preceded by 2 weeks in open loop. This was followed by stage 3, whereby participants changed directly back to the insulin formulation used in stage 1 for 1 week in closed loop. Participants chose their own meals except for two standardized meal tests, a missed meal bolus and late meal bolus. The primary outcome was the percentage of time sensor glucose values were from 70 to 180 mg/dL (time in range [TIR]).RESULTSTwenty-five adults (52% male) were recruited; the median (interquartile range) age was 48 (37, 57) years, and the median HbA1c was 7.0% (6.6, 7.2) (53 [49, 55] mmol/mol). Faster aspart demonstrated greater overall TIR compared with IAsp (82.3% [78.5, 83.7] vs. 79.6% [77.0, 83.4], respectively; mean difference 1.9% [0.5, 3.3]; P = 0.007). Four-hour postprandial glucose TIR was higher using faster aspart compared with IAsp for all meals combined (73.6% [69.4, 80.2] vs. 72.1% [64.5, 78.5], respectively; median difference 3.5% [1.0, 7.3]; P = 0.003). There was no ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia.CONCLUSIONSFaster aspart safely improved glucose control compared with IAsp in a group of adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes using AHCL. The modest improvement was mainly related to mealtime glycemia. While the primary outcome demonstrated statistical significance, the clinical impact may be small, given an overall difference in TIR of 1.9%.

These studies examined the effect of fenfluramine on insulin action and insulin secretion in healthy subjects and patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM). In the first study, a double-blind crossover design was used in healthy subjects to compare the effect of short-term fenfluramine therapy (60 mg orally for 3 days) with placebo. Insulin secretion and whole-body insulin sensitivity (determined by frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance tests with analysis by the minimal-model method) were unchanged by fenfluramine. In the second study, involving patients with NIDDM inadequately controlled on submaximal to maximal doses of oral hypoglycemic agents, a double-blind crossover strategy was used to compare baseline studies (conducted after a run-in period) with fenfluramine (60 mg orally) or placebo for 4 wk. There was a signficant fall in fasting blood glucose after therapy with fenfluramine compared with the baseline study period (13.0 ± 1.2 vs. 8.4 ± 0.89 mM, mean ± SE, P < .01) with no significant fall in fasting serum insulin (20± 2 vs. 24 ± 3 (μU/ml) or C-peptide (1.3 ± 0.2 vs. 1.3 ± 0.1 nM). During euglycemichyperinsulinemic (1 mU · kg−1 · min−1) clamp studies there was a significant increase in insulin action from 12.7± 2.3 to 17.3 ± 1.8 min−1 103 μU · ml1 (P < .05), although clamp insulin levels were lower after fenfluramine treatment (136 ± 14 vs. 96 ± 9 μU/ml−1, P < .02), reflecting an enhanced metabolic clearance rate for insulin (12.7 ± 1.5 vs. 20.1 ± 2.1 ml · kg−1 · min−1 P < .025). When insulin action was normalized for the prevailing insulin level during the clamp, the increase of insulin action/in concentration was more marked (0.11 ± 0.22 to 0.22 ±0.04 min−1 103μU · ml−1