Search

OBJECTIVE: Assess the safety and efficacy of automated insulin delivery (AID) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) at high risk for hypoglycemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants were 72 adults with T1D who used an insulin pump with Clarke Hypoglycemia Perception Awareness scale score >3 and/or had severe hypoglycemia during the previous 6 months confirmed by time below range (TBR; defined as sensor glucose [SG] reading <70 mg/dL) of at least 5% during 2 weeks of blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Parallel-arm, randomized trial (2:1) of AID (Tandem t:slim ×2 with Control-IQ technology) versus CGM and pump therapy for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was TBR change from baseline. Secondary outcomes included time in target range (TIR; 70–180 mg/dL), time above range (TAR), mean SG reading, and time with glucose level <54 mg/dL. An optional 12-week extension with AID was offered to all participants. RESULTS: Compared with the sensor and pump (S&P), AID resulted in significant reduction of TBR by −3.7% (95% CI −4.8, −2.6), P < 0.001; an 8.6% increase in TIR (95% CI 5.2, 12.1), P < 0.001; and a −5.3% decrease in TAR (95% CI −87.7, −1.8), P = 0.004. Mean SG reading remained similar in the AID and S&P groups. During the 12-week extension, the effects of AID were sustained in the AID group and reproduced in the S&P group. Two severe hypoglycemic episodes occurred using AID. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with T1D at high risk for hypoglycemia, AID reduced the risk for hypoglycemia more than twofold, as quantified by TBR, while improving TIR and reducing hyperglycemia. Hence, AID is strongly recommended for this specific population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Assess the efficacy of inControl AP, a mobile closed-loop control (CLC) system.Research Design and Methods: This protocol, NCT02985866, is a 3-month parallel-group, multicenter, randomized unblinded trial designed to compare mobile CLC with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. Eligibility criteria were type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year, use of insulin pumps for at least 6 months, age ≥14 years, and baseline HbA1c <10.5% (91 mmol/mol). The study was designed to assess two coprimary outcomes: superiority of CLC over SAP in continuous glucose monitor (CGM)-measured time below 3.9 mmol/L and noninferiority in CGM-measured time above 10 mmol/L.Results: Between November 2017 and May 2018, 127 participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to CLC (n = 65) versus SAP (n = 62); 125 participants completed the study. CGM time below 3.9 mmol/L was 5.0% at baseline and 2.4% during follow-up in the CLC group vs. 4.7% and 4.0%, respectively, in the SAP group (mean difference -1.7% [95% CI -2.4, -1.0]; P < 0.0001 for superiority). CGM time above 10 mmol/L was 40% at baseline and 34% during follow-up in the CLC group vs. 43% and 39%, respectively, in the SAP group (mean difference -3.0% [95% CI -6.1, 0.1]; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority). One severe hypoglycemic event occurred in the CLC group, which was unrelated to the study device.Conclusions: In meeting its coprimary end points, superiority of CLC over SAP in CGM-measured time below 3.9 mmol/L and noninferiority in CGM-measured time above 10 mmol/L, the study has demonstrated that mobile CLC is feasible and could offer certain usability advantages over embedded systems, provided the connectivity between system components is stable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the safety and efficacy of an automated unified safety system (USS) in providing overnight closed-loop (OCL) control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes attending diabetes summer camps. Research Design and Methods: The Diabetes Assistant (DIAS) USS used the Dexcom G4 Platinum glucose sensor (Dexcom) and t:slim insulin pump (Tandem Diabetes Care). An initial inpatient study was completed for 12 participants to evaluate safety. For the main camp study, 20 participants with type 1 diabetes were randomized to either OCL or sensor-augmented therapy (control conditions) per night over the course of a 5- to 6-day diabetes camp. Results: Subjects completed 54 OCL nights and 52 control nights. On an intention-to-treat basis, with glucose data analyzed regardless of system status, the median percent time in range, from 70-150 mg/dL, was 62% (29, 87) for OCL nights versus 55% (25, 80) for sensor-augmented pump therapy (P = 0.233). A per-protocol analysis allowed for assessment of algorithm performance. The median percent time in range, from 70-150 mg/dL, was 73% (50, 89) for OCL nights (n = 41) versus 52% (24, 83) for control conditions (n = 39) (P = 0.037). There was less time spent in the hypoglycemic range <50, <60, and <70 mg/dL during OCL compared with the control period (P = 0.019, P = 0.009, and P = 0.023, respectively). Conclusions: The DIAS USS algorithm is effective in improving time spent in range as well as reducing nocturnal hypoglycemia during the overnight period in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in a diabetes camp setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE -- The purpose of this study was to compare the numerical and clinical accuracy of four continuous glucose monitors (CGMs): Guardian, DexCom, Navigator, and Glucoday. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS -- Accuracy data for the four CGMs were collected in two studies: Study 1 enrolled 14 adults with type 1 diabetes at the University of Virginia (UVA), Charlottesville, Virginia; study 2 enrolled 20 adults with type 1 diabetes at the Profil Institute for Metabolic Research, Neuss, Germany. All participants underwent hyperinsulinemic clamps including 1.5-2 h of maintained euglycemia at 5.6 mmol/l followed by descent into hypoglycemia, sustained hypoglycemia at 2.5 mmol/l for 30 min, and recovery. Reference blood glucose sampling was performed every 5 min. The UVA study tested Guardian, DexCom, and Navigator simultaneously; the Profil study tested Glucoday. RESULTS -- Regarding numerical accuracy, during euglycemia, the mean absolute relative differences (MARDs) of Guardian, DexCom, Navigator, and Glucoday were 15.2, 21.2, 15.3, and 15.6%, respectively. During hypoglycemia, the MARDs were 16.1, 21.5, 10.3, and 17.5%, respectively. Regarding clinical accuracy, continuous glucose-error grid analysis (CG-EGA) revealed 98.9, 98.3, 98.6, and 95.5% zones A + B hits in euglycemia. During hypoglycemia, zones A + B hits were 84.4, 97.0, and 96.2% for Guardian, Navigator, and Glucoday, respectively. Because of frequent loss of sensitivity, there were insufficient hypoglycemic DexCom data to perform CG-EGA. CONCLUSIONS-- The numerical accuracy of Guardian, Navigator, and Glucoday was comparable, with an advantage to the Navigator in hypoglycemia; the numerical errors of the DexCom were ∼30% larger. The clinical accuracy of the four sensors was similar in euglycemia and was higher for the Navigator and Glucoday in hypoglycemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Limited information is available about glycemic outcomes with a closed-loop control (CLC) system compared with a predictive low-glucose suspend (PLGS) system., Research Design and Methods: After 6 months of use of a CLC system in a randomized trial, 109 participants with type 1 diabetes (age range, 14-72 years; mean HbA 1c , 7.1% [54 mmol/mol]) were randomly assigned to CLC ( N = 54, Control-IQ) or PLGS ( N = 55, Basal-IQ) groups for 3 months. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitor (CGM)-measured time in range (TIR) for 70-180 mg/dL. Baseline CGM metrics were computed from the last 3 months of the preceding study., Results: All 109 participants completed the study. Mean ± SD TIR was 71.1 ± 11.2% at baseline and 67.6 ± 12.6% using intention-to-treat analysis (69.1 ± 12.2% using per-protocol analysis excluding periods of study-wide suspension of device use) over 13 weeks on CLC vs. 70.0 ± 13.6% and 60.4 ± 17.1% on PLGS (difference = 5.9%; 95% CI 3.6%, 8.3%; P < 0.001). Time >180 mg/dL was lower in the CLC group than PLGS group (difference = -6.0%; 95% CI -8.4%, -3.7%; P < 0.001) while time <54 mg/dL was similar (0.04%; 95% CI -0.05%, 0.13%; P = 0.41). HbA 1c after 13 weeks was lower on CLC than PLGS (7.2% [55 mmol/mol] vs. 7.5% [56 mmol/mol], difference -0.34% [-3.7 mmol/mol]; 95% CI -0.57% [-6.2 mmol/mol], -0.11% [1.2 mmol/mol]; P = 0.0035)., Conclusions: Following 6 months of CLC, switching to PLGS reduced TIR and increased HbA 1c toward their pre-CLC values, while hypoglycemia remained similarly reduced with both CLC and PLGS., (© 2020 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: Artificial pancreas (AP) systems are best positioned for optimal treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and are currently being tested in outpatient clinical trials. Our consortium developed and tested a novel adaptive AP in an outpatient, single-arm, uncontrolled multicenter clinical trial lasting 12 weeks., Research Design and Methods: Thirty adults with T1D completed a continuous glucose monitor (CGM)-augmented 1-week sensor-augmented pump (SAP) period. After the AP was started, basal insulin delivery settings used by the AP for initialization were adapted weekly, and carbohydrate ratios were adapted every 4 weeks by an algorithm running on a cloud-based server, with automatic data upload from devices. Adaptations were reviewed by expert study clinicians and patients. The primary end point was change in hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ). Outcomes are reported adhering to consensus recommendations on reporting of AP trials., Results: Twenty-nine patients completed the trial. HbA 1c , 7.0 ± 0.8% at the start of AP use, improved to 6.7 ± 0.6% after 12 weeks (-0.3, 95% CI -0.5 to -0.2, P < 0.001). Compared with the SAP run-in, CGM time spent in the hypoglycemic range improved during the day from 5.0 to 1.9% (-3.1, 95% CI -4.1 to -2.1, P < 0.001) and overnight from 4.1 to 1.1% (-3.1, 95% CI -4.2 to -1.9, P < 0.001). Whereas carbohydrate ratios were adapted to a larger extent initially with minimal changes thereafter, basal insulin was adapted throughout. Approximately 10% of adaptation recommendations were manually overridden. There were no protocol-related serious adverse events., Conclusions: Use of our novel adaptive AP yielded significant reductions in HbA 1c and hypoglycemia., (© 2017 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a portable, wearable, wireless artificial pancreas system (the Diabetes Assistant [DiAs] running the Unified Safety System) on glucose control at home in overnight-only and 24/7 closed-loop control (CLC) modes in patients with type 1 diabetes., Research Design and Methods: At six clinical centers in four countries, 30 participants 18-66 years old with type 1 diabetes (43% female, 96% non-Hispanic white, median type 1 diabetes duration 19 years, median A1C 7.3%) completed the study. The protocol included a 2-week baseline sensor-augmented pump (SAP) period followed by 2 weeks of overnight-only CLC and 2 weeks of 24/7 CLC at home. Glucose control during CLC was compared with the baseline SAP., Results: Glycemic control parameters for overnight-only CLC were improved during the nighttime period compared with baseline for hypoglycemia (time <70 mg/dL, primary end point median 1.1% vs. 3.0%; P < 0.001), time in target (70-180 mg/dL: 75% vs. 61%; P < 0.001), and glucose variability (coefficient of variation: 30% vs. 36%; P < 0.001). Similar improvements for day/night combined were observed with 24/7 CLC compared with baseline: 1.7% vs. 4.1%, P < 0.001; 73% vs. 65%, P < 0.001; and 34% vs. 38%, P < 0.001, respectively., Conclusions: CLC running on a smartphone (DiAs) in the home environment was safe and effective. Overnight-only CLC reduced hypoglycemia and increased time in range overnight and increased time in range during the day; 24/7 CLC reduced hypoglycemia and increased time in range both overnight and during the day. Compared with overnight-only CLC, 24/7 CLC provided additional hypoglycemia protection during the day., (© 2016 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered.)