Search

Diabetes technologies represent a paradigm shift in type 1 diabetes care. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) pumps and continuous glucose monitors (CGM) improve glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, enhance time in optimal glycemic range, limit severe hypoglycemia, and reduce diabetes distress. The artificial pancreas or closed-loop system connects these devices via a control algorithm programmed to maintain target glucose, partially relieving the person living with diabetes of this constant responsibility. Automating insulin delivery reduces the input required from those wearing the device, leading to better physiological and psychosocial outcomes. Hybrid closed-loop therapy systems, requiring user-initiated prandial insulin doses, are the most advanced closed-loop systems commercially available. Fully closed-loop systems, requiring no user-initiated insulin boluses, and dual hormone systems have been shown to be safe and efficacious in the research setting. Clinical adoption of closed-loop therapy remains in early stages despite recent technological advances. People living with diabetes, health care professionals, and regulatory agencies continue to navigate the complex path to equitable access. We review the available devices, evidence, clinical implications, and barriers regarding these innovatory technologies.

We evaluated the use of hybrid closed-loop (HCL) insulin delivery with faster insulin aspart (Fiasp) in very young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). In a double-blind, multicenter, randomized, crossover study, children aged 2-6 years with T1D underwent two 8-week periods of HCL using CamAPS FX with Fiasp and standard insulin aspart (IAsp), in random order. Primary endpoint was between-treatment difference in time in target range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L. We randomized 25 participants: mean (±standard deviation) age 5.1 ± 1.3 years, baseline HbA1c 55 ± 9 mmol/mol. Time in range was not significantly different between interventions (64% ± 9% vs. 65% ± 9% for HCL with Fiasp vs. IAsp; mean difference -0.33% [95% confidence interval: -2.13 to 1.47; P = 0.71]). There was no significant difference in time with glucose

INTRODUCTION: Over the last five years, closed-loop insulin delivery systems have transitioned from research-only to real-life use. A number of systems have been commercialized and are increasingly used in clinical practice. Given the rapidity of new developments in the field, understanding the capabilities and key similarities and differences of current systems can be challenging. This review aims to provide an update on the state of the field of closed-loop insulin delivery systems, including emerging technologies. AREAS COVERED: We summarize key clinical safety and efficacy evidence of commercial and emerging insulin-only hybrid closed-loop systems for type 1 diabetes. A literature search was conducted and clinical trials using closed-loop systems during free-living conditions were identified to report on safety and efficacy data. We comment on emerging technologies and adjuncts for closed-loop systems, as well as non-technological priorities in closed-loop insulin delivery. EXPERT OPINION: Commercial hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems are efficacious, consistently improving glycemic control when compared to standard therapy. Challenges remain in widespread adoption due to clinical inertia and the lack of resources to embrace technological developments by health care professionals.

Objective: We aimed to assess whether percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia during closed-loop insulin delivery differs by age group and time of day. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from hybrid closed-loop studies involving young children (2-7 years), children and adolescents (8-18 years), adults (19-59 years), and older adults (≥60 years) with type 1 diabetes. Main outcome was time spent in hypoglycemia

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of short‐term fully closed‐loop insulin delivery using faster versus standard insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes. Fifteen adults with insulin‐treated type 2 diabetes underwent 22 hours of closed‐loop insulin delivery with either faster or standard insulin aspart in a double‐blind randomised crossover design. Basal‐bolus regimen was replaced by model predictive control algorithm‐directed insulin delivery based on sensor glucose levels. The primary outcome was time with plasma glucose in target range (5.6‐10.0mmol/l) and did not differ between treatments (mean difference [95%CI] ‐3.3% [8.2;1.7], p=0.17). Mean glucose and glucose variability were comparable, as was time spent below and above target range. Hypoglycaemia (

Aim: To evaluate the use of hybrid closed‐loop glucose control with faster‐acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Research Design and Methods: In a double‐blind, multinational, randomized, crossover study, 25 adults with T1D using insulin pump therapy (mean ± SD, age 38 ± 9 years, HbA1c 7.4% ± 0.8% [57 ± 8 mmol/mol]) underwent two 8‐week periods of unrestricted living comparing hybrid closed‐loop with Fiasp and hybrid closed‐loop with standard insulin aspart in random order. During both interventions the CamAPS FX closed‐loop system incorporating the Cambridge model predictive control algorithm was used. Results: In an intention‐to‐treat analysis, the proportion of time sensor glucose was in the target range (3.9–10.0 mmol/L; primary endpoint) was not different between interventions (75% ± 8% vs. 75% ± 8% for hybrid closed‐loop with Fiasp vs. hybrid closed‐loop with standard insulin aspart; mean‐adjusted difference −0.6% [95% CI −1.8% to 0.7%]; p < .001 for non‐inferiority [non‐inferiority margin 5%]). The proportion of time with sensor glucose less than 3.9 mmol/L (median [IQR] 2.4% [1.2%–3.2%] vs. 2.9% [1.7%–4.0%]; p = .01) and less than 3.0 mmol/L (median [IQR] 0.4% [0.2%–0.7%] vs. 0.7% [0.2%–0.9%]; p = .03) was reduced with Fiasp versus standard insulin aspart. There was no difference in mean glucose (8.1 ± 0.8 vs. 8.0 ± 0.8 mmol/L; p = .13) or glucose variability (SD of sensor glucose 2.9 ± 0.5 vs. 2.9 ± 0.5 mmol/L; p = .90). Total daily insulin requirements did not differ (49 ± 15 vs. 49 ± 15 units/day; p = .45). No severe hypoglycaemia or ketoacidosis occurred. Conclusions: The use of Fiasp in the CamAPS FX closed‐loop system may reduce hypoglycaemia without compromising glucose control compared with standard insulin aspart in adults with T1D.

Inpatient diabetes management of those on hemodialysis poses a major challenge. In a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial, we compared the efficacy of fully automated closed-loop insulin delivery vs. usual care in patients undergoing hemodialysis while in hospital. Compared to control patients receiving conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy, those patients receiving closed-loop insulin delivery significantly increased the proportion of time when a continuous glucose monitor was in the target range of 5.6-10.0 mmol/l by 37.6 percent without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. Thus, closed-loop insulin delivery offers a novel way to achieve effective and safe glucose control in this vulnerable patient population.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the experiences of families with very young children aged 1 to 7 years (inclusive) with type 1 diabetes using day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery. METHODS: Parents/caregivers of 20 children aged 1 to 7 years with type 1 diabetes completed a closed-loop experience survey following two 3-week periods of unrestricted day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin therapy using Cambridge FlorenceM system at home. Benefits, limitations, and improvements of closed-loop technology were explored. RESULTS: Responders reported reduced burden of diabetes management, less time spent managing diabetes, and improved quality of sleep with closed-loop. Ninety percent of the responders felt less worried about their child's glucose control using closed-loop. Size of study devices, battery performance and connectivity issues were identified as areas for improvement. Parents/caregivers wished for more options to input information to the system such as temporary glucose targets. CONCLUSIONS: Parents/caregivers of very young children reported important quality of life benefits associated with using closed-loop, supporting adoption of this technology in this population.

OBJECTIVE: To explore individuals' experiences of daytime use of a day-and-night hybrid closed-loop system, their information and support needs, and their views about how future systems could be improved.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twenty-four adults, adolescents, and parents were interviewed before using a hybrid day-and-night closed-loop system and 3 months later, data were analyzed thematically.RESULTS: Participants praised the closed loop's ability to respond to high and low blood glucose in ways which extended beyond their own capabilities and to act as a safety net and mop up errors, such as when a mealtime bolus was forgotten or unplanned activity was undertaken. Participants also described feeling less burdened by diabetes as a consequence and more able to lead flexible, spontaneous lives. Contrary to their initial expectations, and after trust in the system had been established, most individuals wanted opportunities to collaborate with the closed loop to optimize its effectiveness. Such individuals expressed a need to communicate information, such as when routines changed or to indicate different intensities of physical activity. While individuals valued frequent contact with staff in the initial month of use, most felt that their long-term support needs would be no greater than when using an insulin pump.CONCLUSIONS: While participants reported substantial benefits to using the closed loop during the day, they also identified ways in which the technology could be refined and education and training tailored to optimize effective use. Our findings suggest that mainstreaming this technology will not necessarily lead to increased demands on clinical staff.

INTRODUCTION: Despite therapeutic advances, many people with type 1 diabetes are still unable to achieve optimal glycaemic control, limited by the occurrence of hypoglycaemia. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of day and night home closed-loop over the medium term compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycaemic control. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will adopt an open label, three-centre, multinational, randomised, two-period crossover study design comparing automated closed-loop glucose control with sensor augmented insulin pump therapy. The study will aim for 30 completed participants. Eligible participants will be adults (≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy and suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)≥7.5% (58 mmol/mmol) and ≤10% (86 mmol/mmol)). Following a 4-week optimisation period, participants will undergo a 3-month use of automated closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy, with a 4-6 week washout period in between. The order of the interventions will be random. All analysis will be conducted on an intention to treat basis. The primary outcome is the time spent in the target glucose range from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L based on continuous glucose monitoring levels during the 3 months free living phase. Secondary outcomes include HbA1c changes; mean glucose and time spent above and below target glucose levels. Further, participants will be invited at baseline, midpoint and study end to participate in semistructured interviews and complete questionnaires to explore usability and acceptance of the technology, impact on quality of life and fear of hypoglycaemia. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained at all sites. Before screening, all participants will be provided with oral and written information about the trial. The study will be disseminated by peer-review publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01961622 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

$\textbf{Introduction:}$ Despite therapeutic advances, many individuals with type 1 diabetes are unable to achieve tight glycaemic target without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. The objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a 3-month day-and-night home closed-loop glucose control combined with a pump suspend feature, compared with sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy in youths and adults with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes. $\textbf{Methods and analysis:}$ The study adopts an open-label, multi-centre, multi-national (UK and USA), randomised, single-period, parallel design and aims for 84 randomised patients. Participants are youths (6-21 years) or adults (>21 years) with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy and suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.5% (58 mmol/mol) and ≤10% (86 mmol/mol)). Following a 4-week run-in period, eligible participants will be randomised to a 3-month use of automated closed-loop insulin delivery combined with pump suspend feature or to sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome is the time spent in the target glucose range from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L based on continuous glucose monitoring levels during the 3-month free-living phase. Secondary outcomes include HbA1c at 3 months, mean glucose, time spent below and above target; time with glucose levels 16.7 mmol/L, glucose variability; total, basal and bolus insulin dose and change in body weight. Participants' and their families' perception in terms of lifestyle change, daily diabetes management and fear of hypoglycaemia will be evaluated. $\textbf{Ethics and dissemination:}$ Ethics/institutional review board approval has been obtained. Before screening, all participants/guardians will be provided with oral and written information about the trial. The study will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. $\textbf{Trial registration number:}$ NCT02523131; Pre-results.

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop (CL) systems direct insulin delivery based on continuous glucose monitor (CGM) sensor values. CGM accuracy varies with sensor life, being least accurate on day 1 of sensor insertion. We evaluated the effect of sensor life (enhanced Enlite, Medtronic MiniMed, Northridge, CA) on overnight CL. METHODS: In an open-label, randomized, 2-period, inpatient crossover pilot study, 12 adolescents on insulin pump (age 16.7 ± 1.9 years; HbA1c 66 ± 10 mmol/mol) attended a clinical research facility on 2 overnight occasions. In random order, participants received CL on day 1 or on day 3-4 after sensor insertion. During both periods, glucose was automatically controlled by a model predictive control algorithm informed by sensor glucose. Plasma glucose was measured every 30 to 60 min. RESULTS: During overnight CL (22:30 to 07:30), the proportion of time with plasma glucose readings in the target range (3.9-8.0 mmol/l, primary endpoint) when initiated on day 1 of sensor insertion vs day 3-4 were comparable (58 ± 32% day 1 vs 56 ± 36% day 3-4; P = .34), and there were no significant differences between interventions in terms of mean plasma glucose ( P = .26), percentage time above 8.0 mmol/l ( P = .49), and time spent below 3.9 mmol/l ( P = .93). Sensor accuracy varied with sensor life (mean absolute relative difference 19.8 ± 15.0% on day 1 and 13.7 ± 10.2% on day 3 to 4). Sensor glucose tended to under-read plasma glucose inflating benefits of CL on glucose control. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of differences in sensor accuracy, overnight CL glucose control informed by sensor glucose on day 1 or day 3-4 after sensor insertion was comparable. The model predictive controller appears to mitigate against sensor inaccuracies.

Parameters of physiological models of glucose-insulin regulation in type 1 diabetes have previously been estimated using data collected over short periods of time and lack the quantification of day-to-day variability. We developed a new hierarchical model to relate subcutaneous insulin delivery and carbohydrate intake to continuous glucose monitoring over 12 weeks while describing day-to-day variability. Sensor glucose data sampled every 10 min, insulin aspart delivery and meal intake were analyzed from 8 adults with type 1 diabetes (male/female 5/3, age 39.9±9.5 years, BMI 25.4±4.4 kg/m2, HbA1c 8.4±0.6%) who underwent a 12-week home study of closed-loop insulin delivery. A compartment model comprised five linear differential equations; model parameters were estimated using the Markov chain Monte Carlo approach within a hierarchical Bayesian model framework. Physiologically plausible a posteriori distributions of model parameters including insulin sensitivity, time-to-peak insulin action, time-to-peak gut absorption, and carbohydrate bioavailability, and good model fit were observed. Day-to-day variability of model parameters was estimated in the range of 38 to 79% for insulin sensitivity and 27 to 48% for time-to-peak of insulin action. In conclusion, a linear Bayesian hierarchical approach is feasible to describe a 12-week glucose-insulin relationship using conventional clinical data. The model may facilitate in silico testing to aid the development of closed-loop insulin delivery systems.

INTRODUCTION: Despite therapeutic advances, many people with type 1 diabetes are still unable to achieve optimal glycaemic control, limited by the occurrence of hypoglycaemia. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of day and night home closed-loop over the medium term compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycaemic control. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will adopt an open label, three-centre, multinational, randomised, two-period crossover study design comparing automated closed-loop glucose control with sensor augmented insulin pump therapy. The study will aim for 30 completed participants. Eligible participants will be adults (≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy and suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)≥7.5% (58 mmol/mmol) and ≤10% (86 mmol/mmol)). Following a 4-week optimisation period, participants will undergo a 3-month use of automated closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy, with a 4-6 week washout period in between. The order of the interventions will be random. All analysis will be conducted on an intention to treat basis. The primary outcome is the time spent in the target glucose range from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L based on continuous glucose monitoring levels during the 3 months free living phase. Secondary outcomes include HbA1c changes; mean glucose and time spent above and below target glucose levels. Further, participants will be invited at baseline, midpoint and study end to participate in semistructured interviews and complete questionnaires to explore usability and acceptance of the technology, impact on quality of life and fear of hypoglycaemia. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained at all sites. Before screening, all participants will be provided with oral and written information about the trial. The study will be disseminated by peer-review publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01961622 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

The artificial pancreas (closed-loop system) addresses the unmet clinical need for improved glucose control whilst reducing the burden of diabetes self-care in type 1 diabetes. Glucose-responsive insulin delivery above and below a preset insulin amount informed by sensor glucose readings differentiates closed-loop systems from conventional, threshold-suspend and predictive-suspend insulin pump therapy. Insulin requirements in type 1 diabetes can vary between one-third-threefold on a daily basis. Closed-loop systems accommodate these variations and mitigate the risk of hypoglycaemia associated with tight glucose control. In this review we focus on the progress being made in the development and evaluation of closed-loop systems in outpatient settings. Randomised transitional studies have shown feasibility and efficacy of closed-loop systems under supervision or remote monitoring. Closed-loop application during free-living, unsupervised conditions by children, adolescents and adults compared with sensor-augmented pumps have shown improved glucose outcomes, reduced hypoglycaemia and positive user acceptance. Innovative approaches to enhance closed-loop performance are discussed and we also present the outlook and strategies used to ease clinical adoption of closed-loop systems.

INTRODUCTION: Management of newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (T1D) in children and adolescents is challenging for patients, families and healthcare professionals. The objective of this study is to determine whether continued intensive metabolic control using hybrid closed-loop (CL) insulin delivery following diagnosis of T1D can preserve C-peptide secretion, a marker of residual beta-cell function, compared with standard multiple daily injections (MDI) therapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study adopts an open-label, multicentre, randomised, parallel design, and aims to randomise 96 participants aged 10-16.9 years, recruited within 21 days of diagnosis with T1D. Following a baseline mixed meal tolerance test (MMTT), participants will be randomised to receive 24 months treatment with conventional MDI therapy or with CL insulin delivery. A further 24-month optional extension phase will be offered to all participants to continue with the allocated treatment. The primary outcome is the between group difference in area under the stimulated C-peptide curve (AUC) of the MMTT at 12 months post diagnosis. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Key secondary outcomes are between group differences in time spent in target glucose range (3.9-10 mmol/L), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and time spent in hypoglycaemia (

BACKGROUND: Rapid progress over the past decade has been made with the development of the 'Artificial Pancreas', also known as the closed-loop system, which emulates the feedback glucose-responsive functionality of the pancreatic beta cell. The recent FDA approval of the first hybrid closed-loop system makes the Artificial Pancreas a realistic therapeutic option for people with type 1 diabetes. In anticipation of its advent into clinical care, we provide a primer and appraisal of this novel therapeutic approach in type 1 diabetes for healthcare professionals and non-specialists in the field. DISCUSSION: Randomised clinical studies in outpatient and home settings have shown improved glycaemic outcomes, reduced risk of hypoglycaemia and positive user attitudes. User input and interaction with existing closed-loop systems, however, are still required. Therefore, management of user expectations, as well as training and support by healthcare providers are key to ensure optimal uptake, satisfaction and acceptance of the technology. An overview of closed-loop technology and its clinical implications are discussed, complemented by our extensive hands-on experience with closed-loop system use during free daily living. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of the artificial pancreas into clinical practice represents a milestone towards the goal of improving the care of people with type 1 diabetes. There remains a need to understand the impact of user interaction with the technology, and its implication on current diabetes management and care.

Introduction: Management of newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (T1D) in children and adolescents is challenging for patients, families and healthcare professionals. The objective of this study is to determine whether continued intensive metabolic control using hybrid closed-loop (CL) insulin delivery following diagnosis of T1D can preserve C-peptide secretion, a marker of residual beta-cell function, compared with standard multiple daily injections (MDI) therapy. Methods and analysis: The study adopts an open-label, multicentre, randomised, parallel design, and aims to randomise 96 participants aged 10–16.9 years, recruited within 21 days of diagnosis with T1D. Following a baseline mixed meal tolerance test (MMTT), participants will be randomised to receive 24 months treatment with conventional MDI therapy or with CL insulin delivery. A further 24-month optional extension phase will be offered to all participants to continue with the allocated treatment. The primary outcome is the between group difference in area under the stimulated C-peptide curve (AUC) of the MMTT at 12 months post diagnosis. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Key secondary outcomes are between group differences in time spent in target glucose range (3.9–10 mmol/L), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and time spent in hypoglycaemia (

There is considerable physiological and clinical evidence of harm and increased risk of death associated with dysglycemia in critical care. However, glycemic control (GC) currently leads to increased hypoglycemia, independently associated with a greater risk of death. Indeed, recent evidence suggests GC is difficult to safely and effectively achieve for all patients. In this review, leading experts in the field discuss this evidence and relevant data in diabetology, including the artificial pancreas, and suggest how safe, effective GC can be achieved in critically ill patients in ways seeking to mimic normal islet cell function. The review is structured around the specific clinical hurdles of: understanding the patient's metabolic state; designing GC to fit clinical practice, safety, efficacy, and workload; and the need for standardized metrics. These aspects are addressed by reviewing relevant recent advances in science and technology. Finally, we provide a set of concise recommendations to advance the safety, quality, consistency, and clinical uptake of GC in critical care. This review thus presents a roadmap toward better, more personalized metabolic care and improved patient outcomes.

Insulin replacement therapy is integral to the management of type 1 diabetes, which is characterised by absolute insulin deficiency. Optimal glycaemic control, as assessed by glycated haemoglobin, and avoidance of hyper- and hypoglycaemic excursions have been shown to prevent diabetes-related complications. Insulin pump use has increased considerably over the past decade with beneficial effects on glycaemic control, quality of life and treatment satisfaction. The advent and progress of ambulatory glucose sensor technology has enabled continuous glucose monitoring based on real-time glucose levels to be integrated with insulin therapy. Low glucose and predictive low glucose suspend systems are currently used in clinical practice to mitigate against hypoglycaemia, and provide the first step towards feedback glucose control. The more advanced technology approach, an artificial pancreas or a closed-loop system, gradually increases and decreases insulin delivery in a glucose-responsive fashion to mitigate against hyper- and hypoglycaemia. Randomised outpatient clinical trials over the past 5 years have demonstrated the feasibility, safety and efficacy of the approach, and the recent FDA approval of the first single hormone closed-loop system establishes a new standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Closed-loop systems titrate insulin based on sensor glucose levels, providing novel means to reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia while improving glycaemic control. We will assess effectiveness of 6-month day-and-night closed-loop insulin delivery compared with usual care (conventional or sensor-augmented pump therapy) in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The trial adopts an open-label, multicentre, multinational (UK and USA), randomised, single-period, parallel design. Participants (n=130) are children and adolescents (aged ≥6 and 16.7 mmol/L (300 mg/dL), area under the curve of glucose >10.0 mmol/L (180 mg/dL), total, basal and bolus insulin dose, body mass index z-score and blood pressure. Cognitive, emotional and behavioural characteristics of participants and caregivers and their responses to the closed-loop and clinical trial will be assessed. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for closed-loop will be estimated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee and Jaeb Center for Health Research Institutional Review Office approved the study. The findings will be disseminated by peer-review publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02925299; Pre-results.

Inpatient diabetes management of those on hemodialysis poses a major challenge. In a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial, we compared the efficacy of fully automated closed-loop insulin delivery vs. usual care in patients undergoing hemodialysis while in hospital. Compared to control patients receiving conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy, those patients receiving closed-loop insulin delivery significantly increased the proportion of time when a continuous glucose monitor was in the target range of 5.6-10.0 mmol/l by 37.6 percent without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. Thus, closed-loop insulin delivery offers a novel way to achieve effective and safe glucose control in this vulnerable patient population.

BACKGROUND: In patients with diabetes, hospitalization can complicate the achievement of recommended glycemic targets. There is increasing evidence that a closed-loop delivery system (artificial pancreas) can improve glucose control in patients with type 1 diabetes. We wanted to investigate whether a closed-loop system could also improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes who were receiving noncritical care. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label trial conducted on general wards in two tertiary hospitals located in the United Kingdom and Switzerland, we assigned 136 adults with type 2 diabetes who required subcutaneous insulin therapy to receive either closed-loop insulin delivery (70 patients) or conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy, according to local clinical practice (66 patients). The primary end point was the percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was within the target range of 100 to 180 mg per deciliter (5.6 to 10.0 mmol per liter) for up to 15 days or until hospital discharge. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was in the target range was 65.8±16.8% in the closed-loop group and 41.5±16.9% in the control group, a difference of 24.3±2.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.6 to 30.0; P

Objective: Many hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems struggle to manage unusually high glucose levels as experienced with intercurrent illness or pre-menstrually. Manual correction boluses may be needed, increasing hypoglycemia risk with overcorrection. The Cambridge HCL system includes a user-initiated algorithm intensification mode (“Boost”), activation of which increases automated insulin delivery by approximately 35%, while remaining glucose-responsive. In this analysis, we assessed the safety of “Boost” mode. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from closed-loop studies involving young children (1-7 years, n = 24), children and adolescents (10-17 years, n = 19), adults (≥24 years, n = 13), and older adults (≥60 years, n = 20) with type 1 diabetes. Outcomes were calculated per participant for days with ≥30 minutes of “Boost” use versus days with no “Boost” use. Participants with Results: Eight weeks of data for 76 participants were analyzed. There was no difference in time spent 300 mg/dL was 1.39 percentage points (1.01 to 1.77; P < .001) higher on “Boost” days, with higher mean glucose and lower time in target range ( P < .001). Conclusions: Use of an algorithm intensification mode in HCL therapy is safe across all age groups with type 1 diabetes. The higher time in hyperglycemia observed on “Boost” days suggests that users are more likely to use algorithm intensification on days with extreme hyperglycemic excursions.

Hybrid closed-loop therapy is an emerging technology transforming the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D). Research studies demonstrate glycemic and quality of life benefits of hybrid closed-loop therapy for people with T1D. Translating these outcomes into standard clinical practice is critical for reimbursement and improving access to this technology. High-quality training is essential for achieving optimal outcomes with hybrid closed-loop therapy. Basic diabetes skills and tasks are as important, or even more important, with closed-loop therapy than with standard insulin therapy and need to be reiterated. Establishing expectations of hybrid closed-loop therapy clearly at the outset promotes long-term usage and optimal outcomes. We share key aspects of training and support for users of commercially available hybrid closed-loop systems and consider who may benefit from this technology.

Hybrid closed-loop (artificial pancreas) systems have recently been introduced into clinical practice for adults with type 1 diabetes. This reflects successful translation from research studies in highly supervised settings to evaluation of the technology in free-living home settings. We review the different closed-loop approaches and the key clinical evidence supporting adoption of hybrid closed-loop systems for adults with type 1 diabetes. We also discuss the growing evidence for automated insulin delivery in pregnant women and in hospitalized patients with hyperglycemia. We consider the psychosocial impact of closed-loop systems and the challenges and potential future advancements for automated insulin delivery.

Hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery has been shown to be safe and effective in improving time in target glucose range and reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia for people with type 1 diabetes. Benefits in terms of reduction in diabetes burden have also been demonstrated. After decades of research and development, four hybrid closed-loop systems are now commercially available in the UK with more expected soon. We review the hybrid closed-loop systems currently available – Tandem t:slim with Control-IQ, CamAPS FX, Medtronic MiniMed 670G and second generation, Medtronic MiniMed 780G – and discuss the components and key features of these technologies. As hybrid closed-loop systems become more widely available, education and training of health care professionals and users will be pivotal in ensuring the research benefits are translated into real-world outcomes. Users need to be supported to make appropriate choices about the different systems available and be guided in realistic expectations regarding outcomes. Attention must be given to the key training and education requirements and how these differ from traditional insulin pump therapy. Training and interpretation in reviewing closed-loop data are essential for post-initiation reviews and optimisation. Developments in diabetes technology are progressing rapidly and other hybrid closed-loop systems currently in pivotal clinical trials may soon become commercially available. We also consider other important progress in this field including the use of faster-acting insulin analogues, adjunctive therapies such as SGLT2 inhibitors and dual hormone closed-loop systems.

Graphical abstract Advances in diabetes technologies have enabled the development of automated closed-loop insulin delivery systems. Several hybrid closed-loop systems have been commercialised, reflecting rapid transition of this evolving technology from research into clinical practice, where it is gradually transforming the management of type 1 diabetes in children and adults. In this review we consider the supporting evidence in terms of glucose control and quality of life for presently available closed-loop systems and those in development, including dual-hormone closed-loop systems. We also comment on alternative ‘do-it-yourself’ closed-loop systems. We remark on issues associated with clinical adoption of these approaches, including training provision, and consider limitations of presently available closed-loop systems and areas for future enhancements to further improve outcomes and reduce the burden of diabetes management. Supplementary Information The online version contains a slideset of the figures for download available at 10.1007/s00125-021-05391-w.

Purpose of review: Advances in diabetes technologies have enabled the development of artificial pancreas (closed-loop) systems for people with diabetes. We review the key studies which have led to the adoption of the artificial pancreas in clinical practice and consider ongoing challenges and areas for future enhancements. Recent findings: Studies have demonstrated safety and efficacy of closed-loop insulin delivery systems in free-living settings over periods of up to 6 months for children and adults with type 1 diabetes. Since 2017, four hybrid closed-loop systems have been approved by regulatory bodies worldwide, but these systems are not entirely automated, requiring user interaction to deliver mealtime insulin boluses. Improving usability of these devices in the real-world setting is an important challenge. Summary: The artificial pancreas has become the gold standard for the treatment of type 1 diabetes. First generation systems are increasingly being adopted in clinical practice, however further work is required, developing advanced systems and faster acting insulin analogues to allow complete automation and further reduce the burden of type 1 diabetes., upported by the National Institute of Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation National Institute for Health Research, The Leona M. & Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, JDRF, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and Diabetes UK.

Insulin replacement therapy is integral to the management of type 1 diabetes, which is characterised by absolute insulin deficiency. Optimal glycaemic control, as assessed by glycated haemoglobin, and avoidance of hyper- and hypoglycaemic excursions have been shown to prevent diabetes-related complications. Insulin pump use has increased considerably over the past decade with beneficial effects on glycaemic control, quality of life and treatment satisfaction. The advent and progress of ambulatory glucose sensor technology has enabled continuous glucose monitoring based on real-time glucose levels to be integrated with insulin therapy. Low glucose and predictive low glucose suspend systems are currently used in clinical practice to mitigate against hypoglycaemia, and provide the first step towards feedback glucose control. The more advanced technology approach, an artificial pancreas or a closed-loop system, gradually increases and decreases insulin delivery in a glucose-responsive fashion to mitigate against hyper- and hypoglycaemia. Randomised outpatient clinical trials over the past 5 years have demonstrated the feasibility, safety and efficacy of the approach, and the recent FDA approval of the first single hormone closed-loop system establishes a new standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes.

Objective: This study evaluated a novel diabetes treatment device that combines commercially available continuous glucose monitoring and insulin infusion technology in such a way as to perform insulin delivery and glucose sensing through a single skin insertion site (single-port device). Methods: Ten type 1 diabetes patients used the device for up to six days in their home/work environment for open-loop insulin delivery and glucose sensing. On an additional day, the device was used in combination with an algorithm to perform automated closed-loop glucose control under hospital settings. To assess the performance of the device, capillary blood glucose concentrations were frequently determined and a continuous glucose sensor was additionally worn by the patients. Results: The average mean absolute relative deviation from blood glucose concentrations obtained for the sensor of the device was low (median, 13.0%; interquartile range, 10.5–16.7%; n = 10) and did not differ from that of the additionally worn glucose sensor (versus 13.9%; 11.9–15.3%; P = 0.922). Furthermore, insulin delivery with the single-port device was reliable and safe during home use and, when performed in combination with the control algorithm, was adequate to achieve and maintain near normoglycemia. Conclusion: Our data show the feasibility of open- and closed-loop glucose control in diabetes patients using a device that combines insulin delivery and glucose sensing at a single tissue site. Significance: The reduction in device size and invasiveness achieved by this design may largely increase patient convenience and enhance acceptance of diabetes treatment with continuous glucose monitoring and insulin delivery technology.