Search

Objective: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) combined with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) achieves better glycemic control than multi-injection therapy in people with type 2 diabetes. The effectiveness of closed-loop therapy needs to be further evaluated in this population., Research Design and Methods: The study objective was to measure the impact of a hybrid closed-loop device (DBLG1) compared with CSII + CGM on glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes previously treated with CSII. The randomized, controlled, crossover, two-period, open-label, and multicenter study was conducted from August 2022 to July 2023 in 17 individuals (9 to receive 6 weeks of CSII + CGM first and 8 to receive 6 weeks of closed-loop therapy first). The primary end point was the percentage time in range (TIR: 70-180 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes were other CGM-glucose metrics, physical activity, and sleep objectively measured using 1-week actimetry., Results: Data were analyzed using a modified intention-to-treat approach. Mean age was 63 (SD 9) years and 35% were women. Mean HbA1c at inclusion was 7.9% (SD 0.9). TIR increased to 76.0% (interquartile range 69.0-84.0) during the closed-loop condition vs. 61.0% (interquartile range 55.0-70.0) during the CSII + CGM condition; mean difference was 15.0 percentage points (interquartile range 8.0-22.0; P < 0.001). Analyses of secondary end points showed a decrease in time above range, in glucose management indicator, in glucose variability, and an increase in daily insulin dose. Actimetric sleep analysis showed an improvement in sleep fragmentation during closed-loop treatment., Conclusions: Closed-loop therapy improved glycemic control more than did CSII + CGM in people with type 2 diabetes., (© 2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Aim: To evaluate the evolution of glycemic outcomes in patients living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) after 1 year of use of the MiniMed 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system. Methods: We conducted an observational, retrospective, multicentric study in 20 centers in France. The primary objective was to evaluate the improvement in glycemic control after 1-year use of AHCL. The primary endpoint was the variation of time in range (TIR) between pre-AHCL and after 1-year use of AHCL. Secondary objectives were to analyze the glycemic outcomes after 3, 6, and 12 months of AHCL use, the safety, and the long-term observance of AHCL. Results: Two hundred twenty patients were included, and 200 were analyzed for the primary endpoint. 92.7% of patients continued to use AHCL. After 1 year of use of AHCL, TIR was 72.5% ± 10.6% (+9.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] [7.6-10.5] compared to pre-AHCL initiation, P  < 0.001), HbA1c 7.1% ± 0.7% (-0.5%; 95% CI [-0.6 to -0.4]; P  < 0.001), time below range 2.0% [1.0; 3.0] (0.0% [-2.0; 0.0], P  < 0.001), and time above range 24.8% ± 10.9% (-7.3%; 95% CI [-8.8 to -5.7]; P  < 0.001). More patients achieved the glycemic treatment goals of HbA1c <7.0% (45.1% vs. 18.1%, P  < 0.001) and TIR >70% (59.0% vs. 29.5% P  < 0.001) when compared with pre-AHCL. Five patients experienced severe hypoglycemia events and two patients experienced ketoacidosis. Conclusion: After 1 year of use of AHCL, people living with T1D safely improved their glucose control and a higher proportion of them achieved optimal glycemic control.

Automated closed-loop (CL) insulin therapy has come of age. This major technological advance is expected to significantly improve the quality of care for adults, adolescents and children with type 1 diabetes. To improve access to this innovation for both patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs), and to promote adherence to its requirements in terms of safety, regulations, ethics and practice, the French Diabetes Society (SFD) brought together a French Working Group of experts to discuss the current practical consensus. The result is the present statement describing the indications for CL therapy with emphasis on the idea that treatment expectations must be clearly defined in advance. Specifications for expert care centres in charge of initiating the treatment were also proposed. Great importance was also attached to the crucial place of high-quality training for patients and healthcare professionals. Long-term follow-up should collect not only metabolic and clinical results, but also indicators related to psychosocial and human factors. Overall, this national consensus statement aims to promote the introduction of marketed CL devices into standard clinical practice., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: This analysis from the SMILE randomized study was performed to identify predictive factors associated with the greatest reductions in hypoglycemia with the Medtronic MiniMed™ 640G Suspend before low feature in adults with type 1 diabetes at high risk of severe hypoglycemia. Methods: Clinical and treatment-related factors associated with decreased sensor hypoglycemia (SH) were identified in participants from the intervention arm by univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: The reduction in SH events <54 mg/dL (<3.0 mmol/L) in the intervention group was significantly ( P  < 0.0001) associated with the baseline mean number of sensor hypoglycemic events (MNSHE) <54 mg/dL. When excluding continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) factors not readily available (MNSHE, duration of SH events, area under the curve, mean amplitude of glycemic excursions), only the baseline mean time spent <54 mg/dL was found to be a significant independent predictor factor ( P  < 0.0001). Baseline HbA1 c , mean self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), and coefficient of variation of SMBG were significant, although weak, predictors in the absence of any CGM data. Conclusions: The greatest reductions in SH events achieved with the MiniMed 640G system with the Suspend before low feature were seen in participants with higher baseline MNSHE. Measuring these (usually uncollected) events can be a useful tool to predict hypoglycemia reduction. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration Identifier NCT02733991.

Background: Hypoglycaemia unawareness and severe hypoglycaemia can increase fear of hypoglycaemia and the risk of subsequent hypoglycaemic events. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of insulin pump therapy with integrated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and a suspend-before-low feature (Medtronic MiniMed 640G with SmartGuard) in hypoglycaemia-prone adults with type 1 diabetes., Methods: SMILE was an open-label randomised controlled trial done in people aged 24-75 years with type 1 diabetes for 10 years or longer, HbA 1c values of 5·8-10·0% (40-86 mmol/mol), and at high risk of hypoglycaemia (recent severe hypoglycaemia or hypoglycaemia unawareness defined by a Clarke or Gold score ≥4). Participants were enrolled from 16 centres (eg, clinics, hospitals, or university medical centres) in Canada, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and the UK. After baseline run-in phase (2 weeks), participants were randomly assigned to the MiniMed 640G pump (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion) with self-monitoring of blood glucose (control group) or to the MiniMed 640G system with the suspend-before-low feature enabled (intervention group), for 6 months. The study statistician analysing the data was masked to group assignment until final database lock; because of the nature of the intervention, participants and treating clinicians could not be masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was the mean number of sensor hypoglycaemic events, defined as 55 mg/dL (3·1 mmol/L) or lower, and was analysed on an intention-to-treat basis in all randomly assigned participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02733991, and is completed., Findings: Between Dec 7, 2016, and March 27, 2018, 153 participants with a mean age 48·2 [12·4] years were randomly assigned: 77 to the control group (mean age 47·4 [12·5] years) and 76 to the intervention group (mean age 49·0 [12·2] years). After 6 months, the intervention group had significantly fewer hypoglycaemic events per participant per week (1·1 [SD 1·2] vs 4·1 [3·4] mean events, model-based treatment effect -2·9 [95% CI -3·5 to -2·3]; p<0·0001) and fewer severe hypoglycaemic events (instances requiring third-party assistance with carbohydrate or glucagon administration, or other resuscitative actions) overall (three vs 18; p=0·0036). The most common adverse events were hypoglycaemia (observed in ten [13%] of 77 participants in the control group vs four [5%] of 76 in the intervention group) and hyperglycaemia (observed in seven [9%] of 77 vs seven [9%] of 76). No serious adverse device effects or episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis were reported., Interpretation: Insulin pump therapy with integrated CGM and a suspend-before-low feature reduced the frequency of sensor hypoglycaemic and severe hypoglycaemic events in hypoglycaemia-prone adults compared with use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion without real-time CGM. These results suggest that this technology could be beneficial in this high-risk population., Funding: Medtronic International Trading Sàrl and Medtronic Canada., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Closed-loop insulin delivery systems are expected to become a standard treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes. We aimed to assess whether the Diabeloop Generation 1 (DBLG1) hybrid closed-loop artificial pancreas system improved glucose control compared with sensor-assisted pump therapy., Methods: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, crossover trial, we recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with at least a 2 year history of type 1 diabetes, who had been treated with external insulin pump therapy for at least 6 months, had glycated haemoglobin (HbA 1c ) of 10% or less (86 mmol/mol), and preserved hypoglycaemia awareness. After a 2-week run-in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a web-based system in randomly permuted blocks of two, to receive insulin via the hybrid closed-loop system (DBLG1; using a machine-learning-based algorithm) or sensor-assisted pump therapy over 12 weeks of free living, followed by an 8-week washout period and then the other intervention for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of time that the sensor glucose concentration was within the target range (3·9-10·0 mmol/L) during the 12 week study period. Efficacy analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned patients who completed both 12 week treatment periods. Safety analyses were done in all patients who were exposed to either of the two treatments at least once during the study. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02987556., Findings: Between March 3, 2017, and June 19, 2017, 71 patients were screened, and 68 eligible patients were randomly assigned to the DBLG1 group (n=33) or the sensor-assisted pump therapy group (n=35), of whom five dropped out in the washout period (n=1 pregnancy; n=4 withdrew consent). 63 patients completed both 12 week treatment periods and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The proportion of time that the glucose concentration was within the target range was significantly higher in the DBLG1 group (68·5% [SD 9·4] than the sensor-assisted pump group (59·4% [10·2]; mean difference 9·2% [95% CI 6·4 to 11·9]; p<0·0001). Five severe hypoglycaemic episodes occurred in the DBLG1 group and three episodes occurred in the sensor-assisted pump therapy group, which were associated with hardware malfunctions or human error., Interpretation: The DBLG1 system improves glucose control compared with sensor-assisted insulin pumps. This finding supports the use of closed-loop technology combined with appropriate health care organisation in adults with type 1 diabetes., Funding: French Innovation Fund, Diabeloop., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Islet transplantation is indicated for patients with type 1 diabetes with severe hypoglycaemia or after kidney transplantation. We did a randomised trial to assess the efficacy and safety of islet transplantation compared with insulin therapy in these patients., Methods: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients with type 1 diabetes at 15 university hospitals to receive immediate islet transplantation or intensive insulin therapy (followed by delayed islet transplantation). Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years and had severe hypoglycaemia or hypoglycaemia unawareness, or kidney grafts with poor glycaemic control. We used computer-generated randomisation, stratified by centre and type of patient. Islet recipients were scheduled to receive 11 000 islet equivalents per kg bodyweight in one to three infusions. The primary outcome was proportion of patients with a modified β-score (in which an overall score of 0 was not allocated when stimulated C-peptide was negative) of 6 or higher at 6 months after first islet infusion in the immediate transplantation group or 6 months after randomisation in the insulin group. The primary analysis included all patients who received the allocated intervention; safety was assessed in all patients who received islet infusions. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01148680, and is completed., Findings: Between July 8, 2010, and July 29, 2013, 50 patients were randomly assigned to immediate islet transplantation (n=26) or insulin treatment (n=24), of whom three (one in the immediate islet transplantation group and two in the insulin therapy group) did not receive the allocated intervention. Median follow-up was 184 days (IQR 181-186) in the immediate transplantation group and 185 days (172-201) in the insulin therapy group. At 6 months, 16 (64% [95% CI 43-82]) of 25 patients in the immediate islet transplantation group had a modified β-score of 6 or higher versus none (0% [0-15]) of the 22 patients in the insulin group (p<0·0001). At 12 months after first infusion, bleeding complications had occurred in four (7% [2-18]) of 55 infusions, and a decrease in median glomerular filtration rate from 90·5 mL/min (IQR 76·6-94·0) to 71·8 mL/min (59·0-89·0) was observed in islet recipients who had not previously received a kidney graft and from 63·0 mL/min (55·0-71·0) to 57·0 mL/min (45·5-65·1) in islet recipients who had previously received a kidney graft., Interpretation: For the indications assessed in this study, islet transplantation effectively improves metabolic outcomes. Although studies with longer-term follow-up are needed, islet transplantation seems to be a valid option for patients with severe, unstable type 1 diabetes who are not responding to intensive medical treatments. However, immunosuppression can affect kidney function, necessitating careful selection of patients., Funding: Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique grant from the French Government., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aims: HbA1c only partially predicts vascular risk in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), and a role for blood glucose variability (BGV) is a matter of debate. For this reason, this study investigated the impact of an educational programme of flexible insulin therapy (FIT) on BGV and oxidative stress., Methods: Tests were conducted on 30 adult T1D patients in a prospective, single-centre trial at baseline (M0), and at 3 and 6 months (M3 and M6, respectively) of the FIT programme to determine BGV, as reflected by mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions (MAGE), low blood glucose index (LBGI), lability index (LI), average daily risk range (ADRR), glycaemic lability (scored by two diabetologists), urinary leukotriene E4 (LTE4), 11-dehydro-thromboxane B2 (TXB2) and 8-iso-prostaglandin F2α (PGF2)., Results: HbA1c (7.7 ± 0.9%), ADRR, MAGE, LBGI and LI did not change from M0 to M3 and M6, although ADRR and LBGI significantly improved at M3 and M6 in patients with the highest baseline indices (≥ 40 and ≥ 5, respectively). TXB2 declined at M6 (832 ± 625 vs. 633 ± 972 pg/mg; P=0.048), whereas LTE4 and PGF2 remained stable. ADRR showed the strongest correlation with glycaemic lability scores at all visits (r≥0.84, P<0.0001)., Conclusion: A FIT educational programme improved BGV only in patients with the highest baseline variability, and led to no changes in HbA1c, while ADRR closely correlated with glycaemic lability score. Our data do not support a relationship between BGV and oxidative stress in T1D patients, although the impact of variability on TXB2 deserves further investigation (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00973492)., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)