Search

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effect of long-term intensive metabolic control with hybrid closed-loop (CL) on residual C-peptide secretion and glucose control compared with standard insulin therapy in youth with type 1 diabetes over 48 months. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Following the 24-month primary phase of a multicenter, randomized, parallel trial of 96 newly diagnosed youth aged 10 to 16.9 years, participants were invited to an extension phase using treatment allocated at randomization. They continued with hybrid CL using the Cambridge algorithm or standard insulin therapy (control) until 48 months after diagnosis. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: At 24 months after diagnosis, 81 participants (mean ± SD age 14 ± 2 years) continued in the extension phase (47 CL, 34 control). There was no difference in fasting C-peptide corrected for fasting glucose at 48 months between groups (CL: 5 ± 9 vs. control: 6 ± 14 pmol/L per mmol/L; mean adjusted difference −2 [95% CI −7, 4; P = 0.54]). Central laboratory HbA1c remained lower in the CL group by 0.9% (10 mmol/mol [95% CI 0.2, 1.5; 3, 17 mmol/mol); P = 0.009). Time in target range of 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L was 12 percentage points (95% CI 3, 20; P = 0.008) higher in the CL group compared with control. There were 11 severe hypoglycemic events (6 CL, 5 control) and 7 diabetic ketoacidosis events (3 CL, 4 control) during the extension phase. CONCLUSIONS: Improved glycemic control was sustained over 48 months after diagnosis with CL insulin delivery compared with standard therapy in youth with type 1 diabetes. This did not appear to confer a protective effect on residual C-peptide secretion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Closing the Loop in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes (CLEAR) randomized crossover study compared a novel fully closed-loop insulin delivery system with no carbohydrate entry or mealtime bolusing (CamAPS HX), with standard insulin pump therapy and glucose sensor in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic outcomes. This qualitative substudy aimed to understand the psychosocial impact of using the fully automated system. Materials and Methods: Adults participating in the CLEAR study were invited to take part in a virtual semistructured interview after they had completed 8 weeks using the fully closed-loop system. Recruitment continued until there was adequate representation and data saturation occurred. Interviews were anonymized and transcribed for in-depth thematic analysis using an inductive-deductive approach. Study participants were also asked to complete questionnaires assessing diabetes distress, hypoglycemia confidence, and closed-loop treatment satisfaction. Results: Eleven participants (eight male and three female; age range 26–66 years) were interviewed. After an initial adjustment period, interviewees reported enjoying a reduction in diabetes burden, freed-up mental capacity, and improved mood. All were happy with overnight glycemic outcomes, with the majority reporting benefits on sleep. Although experiences of postprandial glucose outcomes varied, all found mealtimes easier and less stressful, particularly when eating out. Negatives raised by participants predominantly related to the insulin pump hardware, but some also reported increased snacking and challenges around resuming carbohydrate counting at trial closeout. Conclusions: In adults with type 1 diabetes, use of a fully closed-loop insulin delivery system had significant quality-of-life benefits and provided a welcome break from the day-to-day demands of living with diabetes. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04977908. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This best practice guide is written with the aim of providing an overview of current hybrid closed‐loop (HCL) systems in use within the United Kingdom's (UK) National Health Service (NHS) and to provide education and advice for their management on both an individual and clinical service level. The environment of diabetes technology, and particularly HCL systems, is rapidly evolving. The past decade has seen unprecedented advances in the development of HCL systems. These systems improve glycaemic outcomes and reduce the burden of treatment for people with type 1 diabetes (pwT1D). It is anticipated that access to these systems will increase in England as a result of updates in National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance providing broader support for the use of real‐time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for pwT1D. NICE is currently undertaking multiple‐technology appraisal into HCL systems. Based on experience from centres involved in supporting advanced technologies as well as from the recent NHS England HCL pilot, this guide is intended to provide healthcare professionals with UK expert consensus on the best practice for initiation, optimisation and ongoing management of HCL therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes strive for tight glucose targets (3.5-7.8 mmol/L) to minimise the risks of obstetric and neonatal complications. Despite using diabetes technologies including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), insulin pumps and contemporary insulin analogues, most women struggle to achieve and maintain the recommended pregnancy glucose targets. This study aims to evaluate whether the use of automated closed-loop insulin delivery improves antenatal glucose levels in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes.Methods/design: A multicentre, open label, randomized, controlled trial of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and a HbA1c of ≥48 mmol/mol (6.5%) at pregnancy confirmation and ≤ 86 mmol/mol (10%) at randomization. Participants who provide written informed consent before 13 weeks 6 days gestation will be entered into a run-in phase to collect 96 h (24 h overnight) of CGM glucose values. Eligible participants will be randomized on a 1:1 basis to CGM (Dexcom G6) with usual insulin delivery (control) or closed-loop (intervention). The closed-loop system includes a model predictive control algorithm (CamAPS FX application), hosted on an android smartphone that communicates wirelessly with the insulin pump (Dana Diabecare RS) and CGM transmitter. Research visits and device training will be provided virtually or face-to-face in conjunction with 4-weekly antenatal clinic visits where possible. Randomization will stratify for clinic site. One hundred twenty-four participants will be recruited. This takes into account 10% attrition and 10% who experience miscarriage or pregnancy loss. Analyses will be performed according to intention to treat. The primary analysis will evaluate the change in the time spent in the target glucose range (3.5-7.8 mmol/l) between the intervention and control group from 16 weeks gestation until delivery. Secondary outcomes include overnight time in target, time above target (> 7.8 mmol/l), standard CGM metrics, HbA1c and psychosocial functioning and health economic measures. Safety outcomes include the number and severity of ketoacidosis, severe hypoglycaemia and adverse device events.Discussion: This will be the largest randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of closed-loop insulin delivery during type 1 diabetes pregnancy.Trial Registration: ISRCTN 56898625 Registration Date: 10 April, 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The management of type 1 diabetes in infancy presents significant challenges. Hybrid closed loop systems have been shown to be effective in a research setting and are now available for clinical use. There are relatively little reported data regarding their safety and efficacy in a real world clinical setting. We report two cases of very young children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at ages 18 (Case 1) and 7 months (Case 2), who were commenced on hybrid closed‐loop insulin delivery using the CamAPS FX™ system from diagnosis. At diagnosis, total daily dose (TDD) was 6 and 3.3 units for Case 1 and 2, respectively. Closed loop was started during the inpatient stay and weekly follow up was provided via video call on discharge. Seven months from diagnosis, Case 1 has an HbA1C of 49 mmol/mol, 61% time in range (TIR, 3.9–10 mmol/L) with 2% time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) with no incidents of very low blood glucose (BG; <3 mmol/L, 54 mg/dL) over 6 months. Given the extremely small TDD of insulin in Case 2, we elected to use diluted insulin (insulin aspart injection, NovoLog, Novo Nordisk Inc., Plainsboro, NJ, Diluting Medium for NovoLog®). Six months from diagnosis, the estimated HbA1c is 50 mmol/mol, TIR 76% with 1% hypoglycemia and no incidents of very low BG (<3 mmol/L, 54 mg/dL) over 6 months. We conclude that the use hybrid closed‐loop can be safe and effective from diagnosis in children under 2 years of age with type 1 diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Despite advances in technology, optimal glucose control remains elusive and neonatal complications remain ubiquitous in type 1 diabetes (T1D) pregnancy. Our aim was to examine the safety, efficacy, and longer-term feasibility of day-and-night closed-loop insulin delivery.Research Design and Methods: We recruited 16 pregnant women (mean [SD]: age 32.8 [5.0] years, T1D duration 19.4 [10.2] years, HbA1c 8.0% [1.1], and BMI 26.6 [4.4] kg/m2) to an open-label, randomized, crossover trial. Participants completed 28 days of closed-loop and sensor-augmented pump (SAP) insulin delivery separated by a washout period. Afterward, participants could continue to use the closed-loop system up to 6 weeks postpartum. The primary end point was the proportion of time with glucose levels within the target range (63-140 mg/dL).Results: The proportion of time with glucose levels within target was comparable during closed-loop and SAP insulin delivery (62.3 vs. 60.1% [95% CI -4.1 to 8.3]; P = 0.47). Mean glucose and time spent hyperglycemic >140 mg/dL also did not differ (131.4 vs. 131.4 mg/dL [P = 0.85] and 36.6 vs. 36.1% [P = 0.86], respectively). During closed-loop, fewer hypoglycemic episodes occurred (median 8 [range 1-17] vs. 12.5 [1-53] over 28 days; P = 0.04) and less time at <63 mg/dL (1.6 vs. 2.7%; P = 0.02). Hypoglycemia <50 mg/dL (0.24 vs. 0.47%; P = 0.03) and low blood glucose index (1.0 vs. 1.4; P = 0.01) were lower. Less nocturnal hypoglycemia (2300-0700 h) during closed-loop therapy (1.1 vs. 2.7%; P = 0.008) and a trend toward higher overnight time in target (67.7 vs. 60.6%; P = 0.06) were found.Conclusions: Closed-loop insulin delivery was associated with comparable glucose control and significantly less hypoglycemia than SAP therapy. Larger, longer-duration multicenter trials are now indicated to determine clinical efficacy of closed-loop insulin delivery in T1D pregnancy and the impact on neonatal outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To evaluate hybrid closed-loop with ultra-rapid insulin lispro (Lyumjev) compared with hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes. Materials and Methods: In a single-center, double-blind, randomized, crossover study, 28 adults with type 1 diabetes (mean ± standard deviation [SD]: age 44.5 ± 10.7 years, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.1 ± 0.9% [54 ± 10 mmol/mol]) underwent two 8-week periods comparing hybrid closed-loop with ultra-rapid insulin lispro and hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin lispro in random order. The same CamAPS FX closed-loop algorithm was used in both periods. Results: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time sensor glucose was in target range (3.9–10 mmol/L [70–180 mg/dL]; primary endpoint) was greater with ultra-rapid lispro compared with standard insulin lispro (mean ± SD: 78.7 ± 9.8% vs. 76.2 ± 9.6%; mean difference 2.5 percentage points [95% confidence interval 0.8 to 4.2]; P = 0.005). Mean sensor glucose was lower with ultra-rapid lispro compared with standard insulin lispro (7.9 ± 0.8 mmol/L [142 ± 14 mg/dL] vs. 8.1 ± 0.9 mmol/L [146 ± 16 mg/dL]; P = 0.048). The proportion of time with sensor glucose <3.9 mmol/L [70 mg/dL] was similar between interventions (median [interquartile range] ultra-rapid lispro 2.3% [1.3%–2.7%] vs. standard insulin lispro 2.1% [1.4%–3.3%]; P = 0.33). No severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred. Conclusions: The use of ultra-rapid lispro with CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop increases time in range and reduces mean glucose with no difference in hypoglycemia compared with standard insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes. ClinicalTrials.gov: Trial registration number NCT05257460. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To quantify variability of insulin requirements during closed-loop insulin delivery.Research Design and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed overnight, daytime, and total daily insulin amounts delivered during a multicenter closed-loop trial involving 32 adults with type 1 diabetes. Participants applied hybrid day-and-night closed-loop insulin delivery under free-living home conditions over 12 weeks. The coefficient of variation was adopted to measure variability of insulin requirements in individual subjects.Results: Data were analyzed from 1,918 nights, 1,883 daytime periods and 1,564 total days characterized by closed-loop use over 85% of time. Variability of overnight insulin requirements (mean [SD] coefficient of variation 31% [4]) was nearly twice as high as variability of total daily requirements (17% [3], P < 0.001) and was also higher than variability of daytime insulin requirements (22% [4], P < 0.001).Conclusions: Overnight insulin requirements were significantly more variable than daytime and total daily amounts. This may explain why some people with type 1 diabetes report frustrating variability in morning glycemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate postprandial glucose control when applying (1) faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) compared to insulin aspart and (2) ultra-rapid insulin lispro (Lyumjev) compared to insulin lispro using the CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop algorithm. Research Design and Methods: We undertook a secondary analysis of postprandial glucose excursions from two double-blind, randomized, crossover hybrid closed-loop studies contrasting Fiasp to standard insulin aspart, and Lyumjev to standard insulin lispro. Endpoints included incremental area under curve (iAUC)-2h, iAUC-4h, 4 h postprandial time in target range, time above range, and time below range. It was approved by independent research ethics committees. Results: Two trials with 8 weeks of data from 51 adults with type 1 diabetes were analyzed and 7137 eligible meals were included. During Lyumjev compared with insulin lispro, iAUC-2h and iAUC-4h were significantly decreased following breakfast (mean difference 92 mmol/L per 2 h (95% confidence interval [CI]: 56 to 127); P < 0.001 and 151 mmol/L per 4 h (95% CI: 74 to 229); P < 0.001, respectively) and the evening meal (P < 0.001 and P = 0.011, respectively). Mean time in target range (3.9–10.0 mmol/L) for 4 h postprandially significantly increased during Lyumjev with a mean difference of 6.7 percentage points (95% CI: 3.3 to 10) and 5.7 percentage points (95% CI: 1.4 to 9.9) for breakfast and evening meal, respectively. In contrast, there were no significant differences in iAUC-2h, iAUC-4h, and the other measures of postprandial glucose control between insulin aspart and Fiasp during breakfast, lunch, and evening meal (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The use of Lyumjev with CamAPS FX closed-loop system improved postprandial glucose excursions compared with insulin lispro, while the use of Fiasp did not provide any advantage compared with insulin aspart. Clinical Trial Registration numbers: NCT04055480, NCT05257460. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The presence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes (T1D) is associated with higher glycated hemoglobin levels over time. We evaluated whether hybrid-closed loop (HCL) therapy from onset of T1D could prevent the adverse impact of DKA at diagnosis on long-term glycemic outcomes. This was a posthoc analysis from 51 adolescents using HCL from diagnosis of T1D as part of the CLOuD trial (NCT02871089). We compared glycemic and insulin metrics between adolescents with (n = 17) and without (n = 34) DKA at diagnosis. Participants with and without DKA at diagnosis had similar time in target glucose range 3.9–10.0 mmol/L (70–180 mg/dL), time below range (<3.9 mmol/L, <70 mg/dL) and HbA1c at 6, 12, and 24 months. While insulin requirements at 6 months were higher in those with DKA at diagnosis, this was not statistically significant after adjusting for bodyweight. Residual C-peptide secretion was similar between groups. We conclude that HCL therapy may mitigate against the negative glycemic effects of DKA at T1D diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Recent high-profile calls have emphasized that women's experiences should be considered in maternity care provisioning. We explored women's experiences of using closed-loop during type 1 diabetes (T1D) pregnancy to inform decision-making about antenatal rollout and guidance and support given to future users. Methods: We interviewed 23 closed-loop participants in the Automated insulin Delivery Among Pregnant women with T1D (AiDAPT) trial after randomization to closed-loop and ∼20 weeks later. Data were analyzed thematically. Results: Women described how closed-loop lessened the physical and mental demands of diabetes management, enabling them to feel more normal and sleep better. By virtue of spending increased time-in-range, women also worried less about risks to their baby and being judged negatively by health care professionals. Most noted that intensive input and support during early pregnancy had been crucial to adjusting to, and developing confidence in, the technology. Women emphasized that attaining pregnancy glucose targets still required ongoing effort from themselves and the health care team. Women described needing education to help them determine when, and how, to intervene and when to allow the closed-loop to operate without interference. All women reported more enjoyable pregnancy experiences as a result of using closed-loop; some also noted being able to remain longer in paid employment. Conclusions: Study findings endorse closed-loop use in T1D pregnancy by highlighting how the technology can facilitate positive pregnancy experiences. To realize fully the benefits of closed-loop, pregnant women would benefit from initial intensive oversight and support together with closed-loop specific education and training. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04938557. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We aimed to evaluate the relationship between insulin pharmacodynamics and glycaemic outcomes during closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy. We retrospectively analysed data from a multicentre randomized control trial involving 32 adults with type 1 diabetes receiving day-and-night closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy over 12 weeks. We estimated time-to-peak insulin action ( tmax, IA ) and insulin sensitivity ( S I ) during both interventions, and correlated these with demographic factors and glycaemic outcomes. During both interventions, tmax, IA was positively correlated with pre- and post-intervention HbA1c ( r = 0.50-0.52, P < .01) and mean glucose ( r = 0.45-0.62, P < .05), and inversely correlated with time sensor glucose, which was in target range 3.9 to 10 mmol/L ( r = −0.64 to −0.47, P < .05). Increased body mass index was associated with higher tmax, I and lower S I (both P < .05). During closed-loop insulin delivery, tmax, IA was positively correlated with glucose variability ( P < .05). Faster insulin action is associated with improved glycaemic control during closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Hybrid closed-loop insulin therapy has shown promise for management of type 1 diabetes during pregnancy; however, its efficacy is unclear. METHODS In this multicenter, controlled trial, we randomly assigned pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and a glycated hemoglobin level of at least 6.5% at nine sites in the United Kingdom to receive standard insulin therapy or hybrid closed-loop therapy, with both groups using continuous glucose monitoring. The primary outcome was the percentage of time in the pregnancy-specific target glucose range (63 to 140 mg per deciliter [3.5 to 7.8 mmol per liter]) as measured by continuous glucose monitoring from 16 weeks' gestation until delivery. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary outcomes were the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state (glucose level >140 mg per deciliter), overnight time in the target range, the glycated hemoglobin level, and safety events. RESULTS A total of 124 participants with a mean (±SD) age of 31.1±5.3 years and a mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level of 7.7±1.2% underwent randomization. The mean percentage of time that the maternal glucose level was in the target range was 68.2±10.5% in the closed-loop group and 55.6±12.5% in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference, 10.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.0 to 14.0; PcO.OOl). Results for the secondary outcomes were consistent with those of the primary outcome; participants in the closed-loop group spent less time in a hyperglycemic state than those in the standard-care group (difference, -10.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -13.8 to -6.6); had more overnight time in the target range (difference, 12.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 8.3 to 16.2), and had lower glycated hemoglobin levels (difference, -0.31 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.50 to -0.12). Little time was spent in a hypoglycemic state. No unanticipated safety problems associated with the use of closed-loop therapy during pregnancy occurred (6 instances of severe hypoglycemia, vs. 5 in the standard-care group; 1 instance of diabetic ketoacidosis in each group; and 12 device-related adverse events in the closed-loop group, 7 related to closed-loop therapy). CONCLUSIONS Hybrid closed-loop therapy significantly improved maternal glycemic control during pregnancy complicated by type 1 diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To explore healthcare professionals' views about the training and support needed to rollout closed-loop technology to pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. Methods: We interviewed (n = 19) healthcare professionals who supported pregnant women using CamAPS FX closed-loop during the Automated insulin Delivery Amongst Pregnant women with Type 1 diabetes (AiDAPT) trial. Data were analyzed descriptively. An online workshop involving (n = 15) trial team members was used to inform recommendations. Ethics approvals were obtained in conjunction with those for the wider trial. Results: Interviewees expressed enthusiasm for a national rollout of closed-loop, but anticipated various challenges, some specific to use during pregnancy. These included variations in insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring expertise and difficulties embedding and retaining key skills, due to the relatively small numbers of pregnant women using closed-loop. Inexperienced staff also highlighted difficulties interpreting data downloads. To support rollout, interviewees recommended providing expert initial advice training, delivered by device manufacturers together with online training resources and specific checklists for different systems. They also highlighted a need for 24 h technical support, especially when supporting technology naive women after first transitioning onto closed-loop in early pregnancy. They further recommended providing case-based meetings and mentorship for inexperienced colleagues, including support interpreting data downloads. Interviewees were optimistic that if healthcare professionals received training and support, their long-term workloads could be reduced because closed-loop lessened women's need for glycemic management input, especially in later pregnancy. Conclusions: Interviewees identified challenges and opportunities to rolling-out closed-loop and provided practical suggestions to upskill inexperienced staff supporting pregnant women using closed-loop. A key priority will be to determine how best to develop mentorship services to support inexperienced staff delivering closed-loop. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04938557. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In patients with type 1 diabetes who are not pregnant, closed-loop (automated) insulin delivery can provide better glycemic control than sensor-augmented pump therapy, but data are lacking on the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of closed-loop therapy during pregnancy.Methods: We performed an open-label, randomized, crossover study comparing overnight closed-loop therapy with sensor-augmented pump therapy, followed by a continuation phase in which the closed-loop system was used day and night. Sixteen pregnant women with type 1 diabetes completed 4 weeks of closed-loop pump therapy (intervention) and sensor-augmented pump therapy (control) in random order. During the continuation phase, 14 of the participants used the closed-loop system day and night until delivery. The primary outcome was the percentage of time that overnight glucose levels were within the target range (63 to 140 mg per deciliter [3.5 to 7.8 mmol per liter]).Results: The percentage of time that overnight glucose levels were in the target range was higher during closed-loop therapy than during control therapy (74.7% vs. 59.5%; absolute difference, 15.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 6.1 to 24.2; P=0.002). The overnight mean glucose level was lower during closed-loop therapy than during control therapy (119 vs. 133 mg per deciliter [6.6 vs. 7.4 mmol per liter], P=0.009). There were no significant differences between closed-loop and control therapy in the percentage of time in which glucose levels were below the target range (1.3% and 1.9%, respectively; P=0.28), in insulin doses, or in adverse-event rates. During the continuation phase (up to 14.6 additional weeks, including antenatal hospitalizations, labor, and delivery), glucose levels were in the target range 68.7% of the time; the mean glucose level was 126 mg per deciliter (7.0 mmol per liter). No episodes of severe hypoglycemia requiring third-party assistance occurred during either phase.Conclusions: Overnight closed-loop therapy resulted in better glucose control than sensor-augmented pump therapy in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. Women receiving day-and-night closed-loop therapy maintained glycemic control during a high proportion of the time in a period that encompassed antenatal hospital admission, labor, and delivery. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN71510001.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whether improved glucose control with hybrid closed-loop therapy can preserve C-peptide secretion as compared with standard insulin therapy in persons with new-onset type 1 diabetes is unclear.Methods: In a multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized trial, we assigned youths 10.0 to 16.9 years of age within 21 days after a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes to receive hybrid closed-loop therapy or standard insulin therapy (control) for 24 months. The primary end point was the area under the curve (AUC) for the plasma C-peptide level (after a mixed-meal tolerance test) at 12 months after diagnosis. The analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.Results: A total of 97 participants (mean [±SD] age, 12±2 years) underwent randomization: 51 were assigned to receive closed-loop therapy and 46 to receive control therapy. The AUC for the C-peptide level at 12 months (primary end point) did not differ significantly between the two groups (geometric mean, 0.35 pmol per milliliter [interquartile range, 0.16 to 0.49] with closed-loop therapy and 0.46 pmol per milliliter [interquartile range, 0.22 to 0.69] with control therapy; mean adjusted difference, -0.06 pmol per milliliter [95% confidence interval {CI}, -0.14 to 0.03]). There was not a substantial between-group difference in the AUC for the C-peptide level at 24 months (geometric mean, 0.18 pmol per milliliter [interquartile range, 0.06 to 0.22] with closed-loop therapy and 0.24 pmol per milliliter [interquartile range, 0.05 to 0.30] with control therapy; mean adjusted difference, -0.04 pmol per milliliter [95% CI, -0.14 to 0.06]). The arithmetic mean glycated hemoglobin level was lower in the closed-loop group than in the control group by 4 mmol per mole (0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 0 to 8 mmol per mole [0.0 to 0.7 percentage points]) at 12 months and by 11 mmol per mole (1.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 7 to 15 mmol per mole [0.5 to 1.5 percentage points]) at 24 months. Five cases of severe hypoglycemia occurred in the closed-loop group (in 3 participants), and one occurred in the control group; one case of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group.Conclusions: In youths with new-onset type 1 diabetes, intensive glucose control for 24 months did not appear to prevent the decline in residual C-peptide secretion. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and others; CLOuD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02871089.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To the Editor, Two randomized controlled trials investigating closed-loop from diagnosis of type 1 diabetes (T1D) in children and young people have been published recently.[1],[2] Although these studies consistently refute the hypothesis that improving glucose control soon after diagnosis preserves endogenous insulin secretion, clinically important improvements in glucose control are observed with closed-loop technology. In the Closed-Loop From Onset in Type 1 Diabetes (CLOuD) study, HbA1c at 12 months in the control group was 7.3% [56 mmol/mol] compared with 6.9% [52 mmol/mol] in the closed-loop group (time in range 64% vs. 54%) and continued to deteriorate further by 24 months (HbA1c in the control group 8.0% [63 mmol/mol] compared with 6.9% [52 mmol/mol] in the closed-loop group) (time in range 64% vs. 49%).[1] Conversely, glycemic control in the closed-loop group remained stable over 24 months post-diagnosis. Closed-loop therapy and preservation of c-peptide secretion in type 1 diabetes. [Extracted from the article]

Background: The achievement of glycaemic control remains challenging for patients with type 1 diabetes. We assessed the effectiveness of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in people with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older.Methods: In this open-label, multicentre, multinational, single-period, parallel randomised controlled trial, participants were recruited from diabetes outpatient clinics at four hospitals in the UK and two centres in the USA. We randomly assigned participants with type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older treated with insulin pump and with suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·5-10·0%) to receive either hybrid closed-loop therapy or sensor-augmented pump therapy over 12 weeks of free living. Training on study insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring took place over a 4-week run-in period. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned using central randomisation software. Allocation to the two study groups was unblinded, and randomisation was stratified within centre by low (<8·5%) or high (≥8·5%) HbA1c. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range of 3·9-10·0 mmol/L at 12 weeks post randomisation. Analyses of primary outcome and safety measures were done in all randomised patients. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02523131, and is closed to accrual.Findings: From May 12, 2016, to Nov 17, 2017, 114 individuals were screened, and 86 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive hybrid closed-loop therapy (n=46) or sensor-augmented pump therapy (n=40; control group). The proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range was significantly higher in the closed-loop group (65%, SD 8) compared with the control group (54%, SD 9; mean difference in change 10·8 percentage points, 95% CI 8·2 to 13·5; p<0·0001). In the closed-loop group, HbA1c was reduced from a screening value of 8·3% (SD 0·6) to 8·0% (SD 0·6) after the 4-week run-in, and to 7·4% (SD 0·6) after the 12-week intervention period. In the control group, the HbA1c values were 8·2% (SD 0·5) at screening, 7·8% (SD 0·6) after run-in, and 7·7% (SD 0·5) after intervention; reductions in HbA1c percentages were significantly greater in the closed-loop group compared with the control group (mean difference in change 0·36%, 95% CI 0·19 to 0·53; p<0·0001). The time spent with glucose concentrations below 3·9 mmol/L (mean difference in change -0·83 percentage points, -1·40 to -0·16; p=0·0013) and above 10·0 mmol/L (mean difference in change -10·3 percentage points, -13·2 to -7·5; p<0·0001) was shorter in the closed-loop group than the control group. The coefficient of variation of sensor-measured glucose was not different between interventions (mean difference in change -0·4%, 95% CI -1·4% to 0·7%; p=0·50). Similarly, total daily insulin dose was not different (mean difference in change 0·031 U/kg per day, 95% CI -0·005 to 0·067; p=0·09) and bodyweight did not differ (mean difference in change 0·68 kg, 95% CI -0·34 to 1·69; p=0·19). No severe hypoglycaemia occurred. One diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group due to infusion set failure. Two participants in each study group had significant hyperglycaemia, and there were 13 other adverse events in the closed-loop group and three in the control group.Interpretation: Hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery improves glucose control while reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia across a wide age range in patients with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes.Funding: JDRF, NIHR, and Wellcome Trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: We evaluated patterns of meal intake, insulin bolus delivery, and fingerstick glucose measurements during hybrid closed-loop and sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy, including associations with glucose control.Methods: Data were retrospectively analyzed from pump-treated adults with type 1 diabetes who underwent, in random order, 12 weeks free-living closed-loop (n = 32) and 12 weeks SAP (n = 33) periods. We quantified daily patterns of main meals, snacks, prandial insulin boluses, correction boluses, and fingerstick glucose measurements by analyzing data recorded on the study glucometer and on study insulin pump.Results: We analyzed 1942 closed-loop days and 2530 SAP days. The total number of insulin boluses was reduced during closed-loop versus SAP periods by mean 1.0 per day (95% confidence interval 0.6-1.4, P < 0.001) mainly because of a reduced number of correction boluses by mean 0.7 per day (0.4-1.0, P < 0.001). Other behavioral patterns were unchanged. The carbohydrate content of snacks but not the number of snacks was positively correlated with (1) glycemic variability as measured by standard deviation of sensor glucose (closed-loop P < 0.05; SAP P < 0.01), (2) mean sensor glucose (P < 0.05), and (3) postintervention HbA1c (P < 0.05). Behavioral patterns explained 47% of between-subject variance in glucose variability during SAP period and 30%-33% of variance of means sensor glucose and postintervention HbA1c.Conclusion: Fewer correction boluses are delivered during closed-loop period. The size of snacks appears to worsen glucose control possibly because of carbohydrate-rich content of snacks. Modifiable behavioral patterns may be important determinants of glucose control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Post-prandial hyperglycaemia is a particular problem for some patients with diabetes despite administering continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) to deliver insulin flexibly. We describe two cases of patients on CSII with persistent post-prandial hyperglycaemia despite varying insulin doses and timing. Treatment with acarbose improved their glycaemic control. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]