Search

OBJECTIVE: Artificial pancreas (AP) systems have been shown to improve glycemic control throughout the day and night in adults, adolescents, and children. However, AP testing remains limited during intense and prolonged exercise in adolescents and children. We present the performance of the Tandem Control-IQ AP system in adolescents and children during a winter ski camp study, where high altitude, low temperature, prolonged intense activity, and stress challenged glycemic control. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, 24 adolescents (ages 13-18 years) and 24 school-aged children (6-12 years) with Type 1 diabetes (T1D) participated in a 48 hours ski camp (∼5 hours skiing/day) at three sites: Wintergreen, VA; Kirkwood, and Breckenridge, CO. Study participants were randomized 1:1 at each site. The control group used remote monitored sensor-augmented pump (RM-SAP), and the experimental group used the t: slim X2 with Control-IQ Technology AP system. All subjects were remotely monitored 24 hours per day by study staff. RESULTS: The Control-IQ system improved percent time within range (70-180 mg/dL) over the entire camp duration: 66.4 ± 16.4 vs 53.9 ± 24.8%; P = .01 in both children and adolescents. The AP system was associated with a significantly lower average glucose based on continuous glucose monitor data: 161 ± 29.9 vs 176.8 ± 36.5 mg/dL; P = .023. There were no differences between groups for hypoglycemia exposure or carbohydrate interventions. There were no adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Control-IQ AP improved glycemic control and safely reduced exposure to hyperglycemia relative to RM-SAP in pediatric patients with T1D during prolonged intensive winter sport activities.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) is now integral to the clinical practice of type 1 diabetes (T1D). The objective of this pilot-feasibility study was to introduce a new regulatory and clinical paradigm—a Neural-Net Artificial Pancreas (NAP)—an encoding of an AID algorithm into a neural network that approximates its action and assess NAP versus the original AID algorithm. Methods: The University of Virginia Model-Predictive Control (UMPC) algorithm was encoded into a neural network, creating its NAP approximation. Seventeen AID users with T1D were recruited and 15 participated in two consecutive 20-h hotel sessions, receiving in random order either NAP or UMPC. Their demographic characteristics were ages 22–68 years old, duration of diabetes 7–58 years, gender 10/5 female/male, White Non-Hispanic/Black 13/2, and baseline glycated hemoglobin 5.4%–8.1%. Results: The time-in-range (TIR) difference between NAP and UMPC, adjusted for entry glucose level, was 1 percentage point, with absolute TIR values of 86% (NAP) and 87% (UMPC). The two algorithms achieved similar times <70 mg/dL of 2.0% versus 1.8% and coefficients of variation of 29.3% (NAP) versus 29.1 (UMPC)%. Under identical inputs, the average absolute insulin-recommendation difference was 0.031 U/h. There were no serious adverse events on either controller. NAP had sixfold lower computational demands than UMPC. Conclusion: In a randomized crossover study, a neural-network encoding of a complex model-predictive control algorithm demonstrated similar performance, at a fraction of the computational demands. Regulatory and clinical doors are therefore open for contemporary machine-learning methods to enter the AID field. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT05876273. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundThe relationship between daily psychological stress and BG fluctuations in type 1 diabetes (T1DM) is unclear. More research is needed to determine if stress-related BG changes should be considered in glucose control algorithms. This study in the usual free-living environment examined relationships among routine daily stressors and BG profile measures generated from CGM readings.MethodsA total of 33 participants with T1DM on insulin pumps wore a CGM device for 1 week and recorded daily ratings of psychological stress, carbohydrates, and insulin boluses.ResultsWithin-subjects ANCOVAs found a significant relationship between daily stress and indices of BG variability/instability (r = .172 to .185, P = .011 to .018, r(2) = 2.97% to 3.43%), increased % time in hypoglycemia (r = .153, P = .036, r(2) = 2.33%) and decreased carbohydrate consumption (r = -.157, P = .031, r(2) = 2.47%). Models accounted for more variance for individuals reporting the highest daily stress. There was no relationship between stress and mean daily glucose or low/high glucose risk indices.ConclusionsThese preliminary findings suggest that naturally occurring daily stressors can be associated with increased glucose instability and hypoglycemia, as well as decreased food consumption. In addition, findings support the hypothesis that some individuals are more metabolically reactive to stress. More rigorous studies using CGM technology are needed to understand whether the impact of daily stress on BG is clinically meaningful and if it is a behavioral factor that should be considered in glucose control systems for some individuals.

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

Background: The adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) results in vast amounts of data, but their interpretation is still more art than exact science. The International Consensus on Time in Range (TIR) proposed the widely accepted TIR system of metrics, which we now take forward by introducing a finite and fixed set of clinically similar clusters (CSCs), such that the TIR metrics of daily CGM profiles within a cluster are homogeneous. Methods: CSC definition and validation used 204,710 daily CGM profiles in health, and types 1 and 2 diabetes (T1D and T2D) on different treatments. The CSCs were defined using 23,916 daily CGM profiles (Training set), and the final fixed set of CSCs was obtained using another 37,758 profiles (Validation set). The Testing set (143,036 profiles) was used to establish the robustness and generalizability of CSCs. Results: The final set of CSCs contains 32 clusters. Any daily CGM profile was classifiable to a single CSC, which approximated common glycemic metrics of the daily CGM profile, as evidenced by regression analyses with 0 intercept (R-squares ≥0.83, e.g., correlation ≥0.91), for all TIR and several other metrics. The CSCs distinguished CGM profiles in health, T2D, and T1D on different treatments, and allowed tracking of daily changes in a person's glycemic control over time. Conclusion: Daily CGM profiles can be classified into one of 32 prefixed CSCs, which enables a host of applications, for example, tabulated data interpretation and algorithmic approaches to treatment, database indexing, pattern recognition, and tracking disease progression. Clinical Trial Registration: N/A—not a clinical trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To document glycemic and user-initiated bolus changes following transition from predictive low glucose suspend (PLGS) system to automated insulin delivery (AID) system during real-life use.Research Design and Methods: We conducted analysis of 2,329,166 days (6,381 patient-years) of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin therapy data for 19,354 individuals with type 1 Diabetes, during 1-month PLGS use (Basal-IQ technology) followed by 3-month AID use (Control-IQ technology). Baseline characteristics are as follows: 55.4% female, age (median/quartiles/range) 39/19-58/1-92 years, mean ± SD glucose management indicator (GMI) 7.5 ± 0.8. Primary outcome was time in target range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes included CGM-based glycemic control metrics and frequency of user-initiated boluses.Results: Compared with PLGS, AID increased TIR on average from 58.4 to 70.5%. GMI and percent time above and below target range improved as well: from 7.5 to 7.1, 39.9 to 28.1%, and 1.66 to 1.46%, respectively; all P values <0.0001. Stratification of outcomes by age and baseline GMI revealed clinically significant differences. Glycemic improvements were most pronounced in those <18 years old (TIR improvement 14.0 percentage points) and those with baseline GMI >8.0 (TIR improvement 13.2 percentage points). User-initiated correction boluses decreased from 2.7 to 1.8 per day, while user-initiated meal boluses remained stable at 3.6 to 3.8 per day.Conclusions: Observed in real life of >19,000 individuals with type 1 diabetes, transitions from PLGS to AID resulted in improvement of all glycemic parameters, equivalent to improvements observed in randomized clinical trials, and reduced user-initiated boluses. However, glycemic and behavioral changes with AID use may differ greatly across different demographic and clinical groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the World Health Organization, about 422 million people worldwide have type 1 or type 2 diabetes (T1D, T2D), with the latter accounting for 90–95% of cases. Safe and effective treatment of patients with diabetes requires accurate and frequent monitoring of their blood sugar levels. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is a monitoring technology developed to address this need, and its use among U.S. T1D patients has increased from 6% in 2011 to 38% in 2018 and continues to increase worldwide in both T1D and T2D. This paper presents a data-driven approach to determine $\Omega$ , a finite set of representative daily profiles (motifs) such that almost any daily CGM profile generated by a patient can be matched to one of the motifs in $\Omega$. The training data set (9741 profiles) was used to identify 8 candidate sets of motifs, while the validation data set (14 175 profiles) was used to select the final set $\Omega$. The robustness of $\Omega$ was established by using it to successfully classify (match against a representative daily profile in $\Omega$) 99.0% of 42 595 daily CGM profiles in the testing data set. All data sets contained daily CGM profiles from six studies involving T1D and T2D patients using a variety of treatment modes, including daily insulin injections, insulin pumps, or artificial pancreas (AP). The classified profiles can be used in predictive modeling, decision support, and automated control systems (e.g., AP). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The t:slim X2™ insulin pump with Control-IQ® technology from Tandem Diabetes Care is an advanced hybrid closed-loop system that was first commercialized in the United States in January 2020. Longitudinal glycemic outcomes associated with real-world use of this system have yet to be reported. Methods: A retrospective analysis of Control-IQ technology users who uploaded data to Tandem's t:connect® web application as of February 11, 2021 was performed. Users age ≥6 years, with >2 weeks of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data pre- and >12 months post-Control-IQ technology initiation were included in the analysis. Results: In total 9451 users met the inclusion criteria, 83% had type 1 diabetes, and the rest had type 2 or other forms of diabetes. The mean age was 42.6 ± 20.8 years, and 52% were female. Median percent time in automation was 94.2% [interquartile range, IQR: 90.1%-96.4%] for the entire 12-month duration of observation, with no significant changes over time. Of these users, 9010 (96.8%) had ≥75% of their CGM data available, that is, sufficient data for reliable computation of CGM-based glycemic outcomes. At baseline, median percent time in range (70-180 mg/dL) was 63.6 (IQR: 49.9%-75.6%) and increased to 73.6% (IQR: 64.4%-81.8%) for the 12 months of Control-IQ technology use with no significant changes over time. Median percent time <70 mg/dL remained consistent at ∼1% (IQR: 0.5%-1.9%). Conclusion: In this real-world use analysis, Control-IQ technology retained, and to some extent exceeded, the results obtained in randomized controlled trials, showing glycemic improvements in a broad age range of people with different types of diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing prevalence of diabetes, combined with a growing global shortage of health care professionals (HCP), necessitates the need to develop new approaches to diabetes care delivery to expand access to care, lessen the burden on people with diabetes, improve efficiencies, and reduce the unsustainable financial liability on health systems and payers. Use of digital diabetes technologies and telehealth protocols within a digital/virtual diabetes clinic has the potential to address these challenges. However, several issues must be resolved to move forward. In February 2020, organizers of the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes Annual Conference convened an international panel of HCP, researchers, patient advocates, and industry representatives to review the status of digital diabetes technologies, characterize deficits in current technologies, and identify issues for consideration. Since that meeting, the importance of using telehealth and digital diabetes technologies has been demonstrated amid the global coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. This article summarizes the panel's discussion of the opportunities, obstacles, and requisites for advancing the use of these technologies as a standard of care for the management of diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

All individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and many of those who have type 2 diabetes (T2D) rely on exogenous insulin injections to maintain their blood glucose levels within a target range, typically of 70-180 mg/dL. THE CLINICAL OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM OF DIABETES Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is an autoimmune condition resulting in near-absolute insulin deficiency and a lifelong need for insulin replacement.[1] Type 2 diabetes (T2D) results from increased insulin resistance accompanied by insufficient -cell response. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016; 10: 1169 - 73. 7 The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2007; 1: 164 - 70. 46 The Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) Study Group. [Extracted from the article]

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

Arguably, diabetes mellitus is one of the best-quantified human conditions: elaborate in silico models describe the action of the human metabolic system; real-time signals such as continuous glucose monitoring are readily available; insulin delivery is being automated; and control algorithms are capable of optimizing blood glucose fluctuation in patients' natural environments. The transition of the artificial pancreas (AP) to everyday clinical use is happening now, and is contingent upon seamless concerted work of devices encompassing the patient in a digital treatment ecosystem. This review recounts briefly the story of diabetes technology, which began a century ago with the discovery of insulin, progressed through glucose monitoring and subcutaneous insulin delivery, and is now rapidly advancing towards fully automated clinically viable AP systems. Classic studies have shown that the complications of diabetes can be reduced by strict glycemic control. However, the risk of hypoglycemia remains the primary barrier to intensive therapy; thus, people with diabetes face a life-long optimization problem: reduce their HbA 1c while simultaneously avoiding hypoglycemia. Contemporary technologies, such as CGM and CLC (known as the AP), offer the best solution to this optimization problem, particularly in type 1 diabetes. The advancement of these technologies is enabled by decades of studies aiming to develop elaborate in silico models describing the action of the human metabolic system, process CGM data and other metabolic signals, and automate insulin delivery. As a result, 100 years after the discovery of insulin, the technology is entering the stage of fully automated portable AP systems providing real-time, long-term optimal control of diabetes in patients' natural environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Intense exercise is a major challenge to the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D). Closed-loop control (CLC) systems (artificial pancreas) improve glycemic control during limited intensity and short duration of physical activity (PA). However, CLC has not been tested during extended vigorous outdoor exercise common among adolescents.Research Design and Methods: Skiing presents unique metabolic challenges: intense prolonged PA, cold, altitude, and stress/fear/excitement. In a randomized controlled trial, 32 adolescents with T1D (ages 10-16 years) participated in a 5-day ski camp (∼5 h skiing/day) at two sites: Wintergreen, VA, and Breckenridge, CO. Participants were randomized to the University of Virginia CLC system or remotely monitored sensor-augmented pump (RM-SAP). The CLC and RM-SAP groups were coarsely paired by age and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). All subjects were remotely monitored 24 h per day by the study physicians and clinical team.Results: Compared with physician-monitored open loop, percent time in range (70-180 mg/dL) improved using CLC: 71.3 vs. 64.7% (+6.6% [95% CI 1-12]; P = 0.005), with maximum effect late at night. Hypoglycemia exposure and carbohydrate treatments were improved overall (P = 0.001 and P = 0.007) and during the daytime with strong ski level effects (P = 0.0001 and P = 0.006); ski/snowboard proficiency was balanced between groups but with a very strong site effect: naive in Virginia and experienced in Colorado. There was no adverse event associated with CLC; the participants' feedback was overwhelmingly positive.Conclusions: CLC in adolescents with T1D improved glycemic control and reduced exposure to hypoglycemia during prolonged intensive winter sport activities, despite the added challenges of cold and altitude. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To evaluate the safety and performance of using a heart rate ( HR) monitor to inform an artificial pancreas ( AP) system during exercise among adolescents with type 1 diabetes ( T1D). Materials and Methods In a randomized, cross-over trial, adolescents with T1D age 13 - 18 years were enrolled to receive on separate days either the unmodified UVa AP ( stdAP) or an AP system connected to a portable HR monitor ( AP-HR) that triggered an exercise algorithm for blood glucose ( BG) control. During admissions participants underwent a structured exercise regimen. Hypoglycemic events and CGM tracings were compared between the two admissions, during exercise and for the full 24-hour period. Results Eighteen participants completed the trial. While number of hypoglycemic events during exercise and rest was not different between visits (0.39 AP-HR vs 0.50 stdAP), time below 70 mg dL−1 was lower on AP-HR compared to stdAP, 0.5±2.1% vs 7.4±12.5% ( P = 0.028). Time with BG within 70-180 mg dL−1 was higher for the AP-HR admission vs stdAP during the exercise portion and overall (96% vs 87%, and 77% vs 74%), but these did not reach statistical significance ( P = 0.075 and P = 0.366). Conclusions Heart rate signals can safely and efficaciously be integrated in a wireless AP system to inform of physical activity. While exercise contributes to hypoglycemia among adolescents, even when using an AP system, informing the system of exercise via a HR monitor improved time <70 mg dL−1. Nonetheless, it did not significantly reduce the total number of hypoglycemic events, which were low in both groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In silico clinical trials, defined as "The use of individualized computer simulation in the development or regulatory evaluation of a medicinal product, medical device, or medical intervention," have been proposed as a possible strategy to reduce the regulatory costs of innovation and the time to market for biomedical products. We review some of the the literature on this topic, focusing in particular on those applications where the current practice is recognized as inadequate, as for example, the detection of unexpected severe adverse events too rare to be detected in a clinical trial, but still likely enough to be of concern. We then describe with more details two case studies, two successful applications of in silico clinical trial approaches, one relative to the University of Virginia/Padova simulator that the Food and Drug Administration has accepted as possible replacement for animal testing in the preclinical assessment of artificial pancreas technologies, and the second, an investigation of the probability of cardiac lead fracture, where a Bayesian network was used to combine in vivo and in silico observations, suggesting a whole new strategy of in silico-augmented clinical trials, to be used to increase the numerosity where recruitment is impossible, or to explore patients' phenotypes that are unlikely to appear in the trial cohort, but are still frequent enough to be of concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the past few years, the artificial pancreas-the commonly accepted term for closed-loop control (CLC) of blood glucose in diabetes-has become a hot topic in research and technology development. In the summer of 2014, we initiated a 6-month trial evaluating the safety of 24/7 CLC during free-living conditions.Research Design and Methods: Following an initial 1-month Phase 1, 14 individuals (10 males/4 females) with type 1 diabetes at three clinical centers in the United States and one in Italy continued with a 5-month Phase 2, which included 24/7 CLC using the wireless portable Diabetes Assistant (DiAs) developed at the University of Virginia Center for Diabetes Technology. Median subject characteristics were age 45 years, duration of diabetes 27 years, total daily insulin 0.53 U/kg/day, and baseline HbA1c 7.2% (55 mmol/mol).Results: Compared with the baseline observation period, the frequency of hypoglycemia below 3.9 mmol/L during the last 3 months of CLC was lower: 4.1% versus 1.3%, P < 0.001. This was accompanied by a downward trend in HbA1c from 7.2% (55 mmol/mol) to 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) at 6 months. HbA1c improvement was correlated with system use (Spearman r = 0.55). The user experience was favorable with identified benefit particularly at night and overall trust in the system. There were no serious adverse events, severe hypoglycemia, or diabetic ketoacidosis.Conclusion: We conclude that CLC technology has matured and is safe for prolonged use in patients' natural environment. Based on these promising results, a large randomized trial is warranted to assess long-term CLC efficacy and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To pilot test a new closed-loop control technology to validate it for a further large clinical trial.Research Design and Methods: The t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ Technology (Tandem Diabetes Care) includes a Dexcom G6 sensor and a closed-loop algorithm implemented in the pump that 1) automates insulin correction boluses, 2) has a dedicated hypoglycemia safety system, and 3) gradually intensifies control overnight, aiming for blood glucose levels of approximately 100-120 mg/dL every morning.Results: Five patients with type 1 diabetes (mean age 52.8 years, 2/3 male/female, mean A1C 6.5%) used Control-IQ in an outpatient setting (hotel) for approximately 37 h. During the closed loop, mean glucose was 129 mg/dL (135/121 mg/dL during the day/night), time within target range 70-180 mg/dL was 87% (82%/94% during the day/night), and time <60 mg/dL was 1.1% (2.0%/0.0% during the day/night).Conclusions: Following this pilot trial, Control-IQ was deployed in several studies, including the large-scale National Institutes of Health International Diabetes Closed-Loop (iDCL) Trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: After testing of a wearable artificial pancreas (AP) during evening and night (E/N-AP) under free-living conditions in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), we investigated AP during day and night (D/N-AP) for 1 month.Research Design and Methods: Twenty adult patients with T1D who completed a previous randomized crossover study comparing 2-month E/N-AP versus 2-month sensor augmented pump (SAP) volunteered for 1-month D/N-AP nonrandomized extension. AP was executed by a model predictive control algorithm run by a modified smartphone wirelessly connected to a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and insulin pump. CGM data were analyzed by intention-to-treat with percentage time-in-target (3.9-10 mmol/L) over 24 h as the primary end point.Results: Time-in-target (mean ± SD, %) was similar over 24 h with D/N-AP versus E/N-AP: 64.7 ± 7.6 vs. 63.6 ± 9.9 (P = 0.79), and both were higher than with SAP: 59.7 ± 9.6 (P = 0.01 and P = 0.06, respectively). Time below 3.9 mmol/L was similarly and significantly reduced by D/N-AP and E/N-AP versus SAP (both P < 0.001). SD of blood glucose concentration (mmol/L) was lower with D/N-AP versus E/N-AP during whole daytime: 3.2 ± 0.6 vs. 3.4 ± 0.7 (P = 0.003), morning: 2.7 ± 0.5 vs. 3.1 ± 0.5 (P = 0.02), and afternoon: 3.3 ± 0.6 vs. 3.5 ± 0.8 (P = 0.07), and was lower with D/N-AP versus SAP over 24 h: 3.1 ± 0.5 vs. 3.3 ± 0.6 (P = 0.049). Insulin delivery (IU) over 24 h was higher with D/N-AP and SAP than with E/N-AP: 40.6 ± 15.5 and 42.3 ± 15.5 vs. 36.6 ± 11.6 (P = 0.03 and P = 0.0004, respectively).Conclusions: D/N-AP and E/N-AP both achieved better glucose control than SAP under free-living conditions. Although time in the different glycemic ranges was similar between D/N-AP and E/N-AP, D/N-AP further reduces glucose variability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on and commercial development of the artificial pancreas (AP) continue to progress rapidly, and the AP promises to become a part of clinical care. In this report, members of the JDRF Artificial Pancreas Project Consortium in collaboration with the wider AP community 1) advocate for the use of continuous glucose monitoring glucose metrics as outcome measures in AP trials, in addition to HbA1c, and 2) identify a short set of basic, easily interpreted outcome measures to be reported in AP studies whenever feasible. Consensus on a broader range of measures remains challenging; therefore, reporting of additional metrics is encouraged as appropriate for individual AP studies or study groups. Greater consistency in reporting of basic outcome measures may facilitate the interpretation of study results by investigators, regulatory bodies, health care providers, payers, and patients themselves, thereby accelerating the widespread adoption of AP technology to improve the lives of people with type 1 diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Glucose control, glucose variability (GV), and risk for hypoglycemia are intimately related, and it is now evident that GV is important in both the physiology and pathophysiology of diabetes. However, its quantitative assessment is complex because blood glucose (BG) fluctuations are characterized by both amplitude and timing. Additional numerical complications arise from the asymmetry of the BG scale. In this Perspective, we focus on the acute manifestations of GV, particularly on hypoglycemia, and review measures assessing the amplitude of GV from routine self-monitored BG data, as well as its timing from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data. With availability of CGM, the latter is not only possible but also a requirement-we can now assess rapid glucose fluctuations in real time and relate their speed and magnitude to clinically relevant outcomes. Our primary message is that diabetes control is all about optimization and balance between two key markers-frequency of hypoglycemia and HbA1c reflecting average BG and primarily driven by the extent of hyperglycemia. GV is a primary barrier to this optimization, including to automated technologies such as the "artificial pancreas." Thus, it is time to standardize GV measurement and thereby streamline the assessment of its two most important components-amplitude and timing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and performance of the artificial pancreas ( AP) in adolescents with type 1 diabetes ( T1D) following insulin omission for food. Research design and methods In a randomized, cross-over trial, adolescents with T1D aged 13-18 yr were enrolled in a randomized, cross-over trial. On separate days, received either usual care ( UC) through their home insulin pump or used an AP system (Diabetes Assistant platform, continuous glucose monitor, and insulin pump). Approximately 1 h after admission, participants in both groups received an unannounced snack of 30 g carbohydrate, and 4 h later they received an 80 g lunch, for which both groups only received 75% of the calculated insulin dose to cover carbohydrates. On the UC day (but not the AP day), they received their full high blood glucose ( BG) correction factor at lunch. Each admission lasted approximately 8 h. Results A total of 16 participants completed the trial. On the AP day (compared to UC), mean BG was lower (197 ± 10 vs. 235 ± 14 mg/ dL) and time in range 70-180 mg/ dL was higher (43% ± 7 vs. 19% ± 7) (both p < 0.05) overall; these results held in the time following the snack and meal (also p < 0.05). During the trial, there were no differences between groups in the rate of hypoglycemia <70 mg/ dL. Conclusions The AP provided improvements in short-term glycemic control without increases in hypoglycemia following missed insulin for food in adolescents. Thus, the AP partly compensates for missed insulin boluses for food, a common occurrence in adolescent diabetes care. Further testing is needed in longer-term settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author comments on the article "Evaluation of the Average Daily Risk Range as a measure of glycemic variability in youths with type 1 diabetes," by S. R. Patton and colleagues, which discusses the predictive ability of glucose variability (GV) metric Average Daily Risk Range (ADRR). Topics include the lifelong optimization problem of diabetic patients to reduce glycemic levels, the introduction of blood glucose (BG) risk function in 1997, and the scale transformation formula used in 1997. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Automated Insulin Delivery systems, a.k.a. artificial pancreas, are rapidly becoming available to many patients with type 1 diabetes around the world. As the transition from controlled clinical trials to real-life use continues, data from observational studies are being published and inform on actual system performances in clinical care. While comparisons between these two different type of studies is fraught with methodological issues and should be generally avoided, one legitimate comparison may be verifying if a system's performances degraded from clinical-trial to real-life environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies of closed-loop control (CLC) systems have improved glucose levels in patients with type 1 diabetes. In this study we test a new CLC concept aiming to 'reset' the patient overnight to near-normoglycemia each morning, for several consecutive nights. Subjects and Methods: Ten insulin pump users with type 1 diabetes (mean age, 46.4±8.5 years) were enrolled in a two-center (in the United States and Italy) randomized crossover trial comparing 5 consecutive nights of CLC (23:00-07:00 h) in an outpatient setting versus sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy of the same duration at home. Primary end points included time spent in 80-140 mg/dL as measured by continuous glucose monitoring overnight and fasting blood glucose distribution at 7:00 h. Results: Compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy, CLC improved significantly time spent between 80 and 140 mg/dL (54.5% vs. 32.2%; P<0.001) and between 70 and 180 mg/dL (85.4% vs. 59.1%; P<0.001); CLC reduced the mean glucose level at 07:00 h (119.3 vs. 152.9 mg/dL; P<0.001) and overnight mean glucose level (139.0 vs. 170.3 mg/dL; P<0.001) using a marginally lower amount of insulin (6.1 vs. 6.8 units; P=0.1). Tighter overnight control led to improved daytime control on the next day: the overnight/next-day control correlation was r=0.52, P<0.01. Conclusions: Multinight CLC of insulin delivery (artificial pancreas) results in significant improvement in morning and overnight glucose levels and time in target range, with the potential to improve daytime control when glucose levels were 'reset' to near-normoglycemia each morning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Automated Insulin Delivery with SGLT2i Combination Therapy in Type 1 Diabetes I Garcia-Tirado J SP 1 sp , Farhy L SP 1,2 sp , Nass R SP 2 sp , Kollar L SP 1 sp , Clancy-Oliveri M SP 1 sp , Basu R SP 1,2 sp , Kovatchev B SP 1 sp , Basu A SP 1,2 sp i I SP 1 sp Center for Diabetes Technology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA; SP 2 sp Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA i I Diabetes Technol Ther 2022; i B I 24 i b I : 461-470 i Background Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) as adjunct therapy to insulin in type 1 diabetes (T1D) has been previously studied. Empagliflozin add-on therapy to closed-loop insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes: a 2 × 2 factorial randomized crossover trial. Closed-loop (CL) control of diabetes, known as the "artificial pancreas", or automated insulin delivery (AID), is no longer a strictly research subject. Closed-loop therapy plus empagliflozin improved time in target range compared to SAP therapy plus empagliflozin by 6.1% but by 17.5% for the combination of closed-loop therapy and empagliflozin compared to SAP therapy plus placebo. [Extracted from the article]

N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors examine the meal detection algorithm developed by researcher James Weimer and colleagues based on a minimal glucose-insulin metabolism model that is invariant to patient-specific metabolism variations. They present an in silico study to expand the topic about meal detection's importance to closed-loop control. Also discussed are the challenges faced by type 1 diabetes patients on the use of artificial pancreas systems and the behavioral aspects of the said medical condition.

Background: While it is well recognized that an automated insulin delivery (AID) algorithm should adapt to changes in physiology, it is less understood that the individual would also have to adapt to the AID system. The adaptive biobehavioral control (ABC) method presented here attempts to compensate for this deficiency by including AID into an information cloud-based ecosystem. Methods: The Web Information Tool (WIT) implements the ABC concept via the following: (1) a Physiological Adaptation Module (PAM) that tracks metabolic changes and adapts AID parameters accordingly and (2) a Behavioral Adaptation Module (BAM) that provides information feedback. The safety of WIT (primary outcome) was assessed in an 8-week randomized, two-arm parallel pilot study. All participants used the Control-IQ® AID system enhanced with PAM, but only those in the Experimental group had access to BAM. Secondary glycemic outcomes were computed using the 2-week baseline period and the last 2 weeks of treatment. Results: Thirty participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D) completed all study procedures (17 female/13 male; age: 40 ± 14 years; HbA1c: 6.6% ± 0.5%). No severe hypoglycemia, DKA, or other serious adverse events were reported. Comparing the Experimental and Control groups, no significant difference was observed in time in range (70–180 mg/dL): 74.6% vs 73.8%, adjusted mean difference: 2.65%, 95% CI (−1.12%,6.41%), P = 0.161. Time in 70–140 mg/dL was significantly higher in the Experimental group: 50.7% vs 49.2%, 5.71% (0.44%,10.97%), P = 0.035, without increased time below range: 0.54% (−0.09%,1.17%), P = 0.089. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that it is safe to integrate an AID system into the WIT ecosystem. Validation in a full-scale study is ongoing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Methods During a 16-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial, the authors assigned children aged 6 to 13 who had type 1 diabetes, in a 3:1 ratio, to receive treatment with the use of either a closed-loop system of insulin delivery (closed-loop group) or a sensor-augmented insulin pump (control group). In a 76-h, randomized, crossover, outpatient study, 23 participants used three modes of the Oregon Artificial Pancreas system: (1) DH closed-loop control, (2) insulin-only single-hormone (SH) closed-loop control, and (3) PLGS system. The APEX closed-loop use was capable of detecting anticipated exercise and reduced rates of hypoglycemia compared to state-of-the-art closed-loop. Therefore, ability to detect ahead physical exercise will enable the closed-loop insulin delivery to be automatically modified in advance in order to avoid hypoglycemia (or exercise-induced hyperglycemia as the glucose response to exercise is individual and also depends on type of exercise). [Extracted from the article]

The article presents a response by Boris Kovatchev and Claudio Cobelli to a comment about their paper which examined the timing, risk analysis and relationship of glucose variability with hypoglycemia in diabetes patients. Kovatchev and Cobelli explains their use of the mean amplitude of glucose excursions (MAGE) including the correctness of its blood glucose calculation, its application in glucose variability (GV), and its adoption of 7-point profiles.

Background: Predicting the risk for type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a significant challenge. We use a 1-week continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) home test to characterize differences in glycemia in at-risk healthy individuals based on autoantibody presence and develop a machine-learning technology for CGM-based islet autoantibody classification. Methods: Sixty healthy relatives of people with T1D with mean ± standard deviation age of 23.7 ± 10.7 years, HbA1c of 5.3% ± 0.3%, and body mass index of 23.8 ± 5.6 kg/m2 with zero (n = 21), one (n = 18), and ≥2 (n = 21) autoantibodies were enrolled in an National Institutes of Health TrialNet ancillary study. Participants wore a CGM for a week and consumed three standardized liquid mixed meals (SLMM) instead of three breakfasts. Glycemic outcomes were computed from weekly, overnight (12:00–06:00), and post-SLMM CGM traces, compared across groups, and used in four supervised machine-learning autoantibody status classifiers. Classifiers were evaluated through 10-fold cross-validation using the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC-ROC) to select the best classification model. Results: Among all computed glycemia metrics, only three were different across the autoantibodies groups: percent time >180 mg/dL (T180) weekly (P = 0.04), overnight CGM incremental AUC (P = 0.005), and T180 for 75 min post-SLMM CGM traces (P = 0.004). Once overnight and post-SLMM features are incorporated in machine-learning classifiers, a linear support vector machine model achieved the best performance of classifying autoantibody positive versus autoantibody negative participants with AUC-ROC ≥0.81. Conclusion: A new technology combining machine learning with a potentially self-administered 1-week CGM home test can help improve T1D risk detection without the need to visit a hospital or use a medical laboratory. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT02663661. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the effect of hybrid-closed loop Control-IQ technology (Control-IQ) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in subgroups based on baseline characteristics such as race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), prestudy insulin delivery modality (pump or multiple daily injections), and baseline glycemic control. Methods: Data were pooled and analyzed from 3 RCTs comparing Control-IQ to a Control group using continuous glucose monitoring in 369 participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D) from age 2 to 72 years old. Results: Time in range 70–180 mg/dL (TIR) in the Control-IQ group (n = 256) increased from 57% ± 17% at baseline to 70% ± 11% during follow-up, and in the Control group (n = 113) was 56% ± 15% and 57% ± 14%, respectively (adjusted treatment group difference = 11.5%, 95% confidence interval +9.7% to +13.2%, P < 0.001), an increase of 2.8 h/day on average. Significant reductions in mean glucose, hyperglycemia metrics, hypoglycemic metrics, and HbA1c were also observed. A statistically similar beneficial treatment effect on time in range 70–180 mg/dL was observed across the full age range irrespective of race-ethnicity, household income, prestudy continuous glucose monitor use, or prestudy insulin delivery method. Participants with the highest baseline HbA1c levels showed the greatest improvements in TIR and HbA1c. Conclusion: This pooled analysis of Control-IQ RCTs demonstrates the beneficial effect of Control-IQ in T1D across a broad spectrum of participant characteristics, including racial-ethnic minority, lower SES, lack of prestudy insulin pump experience, and high HbA1c levels. The greatest benefit was observed in participants with the worst baseline glycemic control in whom the auto-bolus feature of the Control-IQ algorithm appears to have substantial impact. Since no subgroups were identified that did not benefit from Control-IQ, hybrid-closed loop technology should be strongly considered for all youth and adults with T1D. Clinical Trials Registry: clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03563313, NCT03844789, and NCT 04796779. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advances in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) have brought on a paradigm shift in the management of type 1 diabetes. These advances have enabled the automation of insulin delivery, where an algorithm determines the insulin delivery rate in response to the CGM values. There are multiple automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in development. A system that automates basal insulin delivery has already received Food and Drug Administration approval, and more systems are likely to follow. As the field of AID matures, future systems may incorporate additional hormones and/or multiple inputs, such as activity level. All AID systems are impacted by CGM accuracy and future CGM devices must be shown to be sufficiently accurate to be safely incorporated into AID. In this article, we summarize recent achievements in AID development, with a special emphasis on CGM sensor performance, and discuss the future of AID systems from the point of view of their input-output characteristics, form factor, and adaptability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) as adjunct therapy to insulin in type 1 diabetes (T1D) has been previously studied. In this study, we present data from the first free-living trial combining low-dose SGLT2i with commercial automated insulin delivery (AID) or predictive low glucose suspend (PLGS) systems. Methods: In an 8-week, randomized, controlled crossover trial, adults with T1D received 5 mg/day empagliflozin (EMPA) or no drug (NOEMPA) as adjunct to insulin therapy. Participants were also randomized to sequential orders of AID (Control-IQ) and PLGS (Basal-IQ) systems for 4 and 2 weeks, respectively. The primary endpoint was percent time-in-range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL during daytime (7:00-23:00 h) while on AID (NCT04201496). Findings: A total of 39 subjects were enrolled, 35 were randomized, 34 (EMPA; n = 18 and NOEMPA n = 16) were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle, and 32 (EMPA; n = 16 and NOEMPA n = 16) completed the trial. On AID, EMPA versus NOEMPA had higher daytime TIR 81% versus 71% with a mean estimated difference of +9.9% (confidence interval [95% CI] 0.6-19.1); p = 0.04. On PLGS, the EMPA versus NOEMPA daytime TIR was 80% versus 63%, mean estimated difference of +16.5% (95% CI 7.3-25.7); p < 0.001. One subject on SGLT2i and AID had one episode of diabetic ketoacidosis with nonfunctioning insulin pump infusion site occlusion contributory. Interpretation: In an 8-week outpatient study, addition of 5 mg daily empagliflozin to commercially available AID or PLGS systems significantly improved daytime glucose control in individuals with T1D, without increased hypoglycemia risk. However, the risk of ketosis and ketoacidosis remains. Therefore, future studies with SGLT2i will need modifications to closed-loop control algorithms to enhance safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyze insulin delivery and glycemic metrics throughout the menstrual cycle for women with type 1 diabetes using closed loop control (CLC) insulin delivery. Methods: Menstruating women using a CLC system in a clinical trial were invited to record their menstrual cycles through a cycle-tracking application. Sixteen participants provided data for this secondary analysis over three or more complete cycles. Insulin delivery and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data were analyzed in relation to reported cycle phases. Results: Insulin delivery and CGM metrics remained consistent during cycle phases. Intraparticipant variability of CGM metrics and weight-based insulin delivery did not change through cycle phases. Conclusions: For this sample of menstruating women with type 1 diabetes using a CLC system, insulin delivery and glycemic metrics remained stable throughout menstrual cycle phases. Additional studies in this population are needed, particularly among women who report variable glycemic control during their cycles. Trial Registration: NCT03591354. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Control to Range Study was a multinational artificial pancreas study designed to assess the time spent in the hypo- and hyperglycemic ranges in adults and adolescents with type 1 diabetes while under closed-loop control. The controller attempted to keep the glucose ranges between 70 and 180 mg/dL. A set of prespecified metrics was used to measure safety. Research Design and Methods: We studied 53 individuals for approximately 22 h each during clinical research center admissions. Plasma glucose level was measured every 15-30 min (YSI clinical laboratory analyzer instrument [YSI, Inc., Yellow Springs, OH]). During the admission, subjects received three mixed meals (1 g of carbohydrate/kg of body weight; 100 g maximum) with meal announcement and automated insulin dosing by the controller. Results: For adults, the mean of subjects' mean glucose levels was 159 mg/dL, and mean percentage of values 71-180 mg/dL was 66% overall (59% daytime and 82% overnight). For adolescents, the mean of subjects' mean glucose levels was 166 mg/dL, and mean percentage of values in range was 62% overall (53% daytime and 82% overnight). Whereas prespecified criteria for safety were satisfied by both groups, they were met at the individual level in adults only for combined daytime/nighttime and for isolated nighttime. Two adults and six adolescents failed to meet the daytime criterion, largely because of postmeal hyperglycemia, and another adolescent failed to meet the nighttime criterion. Conclusions: The control-to-range system performed as expected: faring better overnight than during the day and performing with variability between patients even after individualization based on patients' prior settings. The system had difficulty preventing postmeal excursions above target range. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2008, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accepted our type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) simulator (S2008), equipped with 100 in silico adults, 100 adolescents, and 100 children, as a substitute for preclinical trials for certain insulin treatments, including closed-loop algorithms. Hypoglycemia was well described in the simulator, but recent closed-loop trials showed a much larger frequency of hypoglycemia events in patients compared with the in silico ones. In order to better describe the distribution of glucose concentration observed in clinical trials, the simulator has recently been updated, and modifications have been accepted by the FDA (S2013). The aim of this study is to assess the validity of the S2013 simulator against clinical data and compare its performance with that of the S2008. Subjects and Methods: The database consists of 24 T1DM subjects who received dinner (70.7±3.3 g of carbohydrate) and breakfast (52.9±0.1 g of carbohydrate) in two occasions (open- and closed-loop), for a total of 96 postmeal glucose profiles. Measured plasma glucose profiles were compared with those simulated in 100 in silico adults, and the continuous glucose error grid analysis (CG-EGA) was used to assess the validity of the simulated traces. Moreover, the most common outcome metrics have been compared. Results: The frequency of hypoglycemia episodes predicted by the S2013 well reproduces that observed during clinical trials as proven by the CG-EGA. In addition, the outcome metrics provided by the S2013 are similar to those observed in clinical trials in a set of T1DM subjects. Conclusions: We demonstrated that the virtual subjects of the S2013 are representative of the T1DM population observed in a clinical trial. We conclude that the S2013 is a valid tool usable to test the robustness of closed-loop control algorithms for artificial pancreas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To bridge the gap between laboratory-measured hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived time in target range (TIR), introducing TIR-driven estimated A1c (eA1c). Methods: Data from Protocol 1 (training data set) and Protocol 3 (testing data set) of the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial were used. Training data included 3 months of CGM recordings from 125 individuals with type 1 diabetes, and HbA1c at 3 months; testing data included 9 months of CGM recordings from 168 individuals, and HbA1c at 3, 6, and 9 months. Hemoglobin glycation was modeled by a first-order differential equation driven by TIR. Three model parameters were estimated in the training data set and fixed thereafter. A fourth parameter was estimated in the testing data set, to individualize the model by calibration with month 3 HbA1c. The accuracy of eA1c was assessed on months 6 and 9 HbA1c. Results: eA1c was tracked for each individual in the testing data set for 6 months after calibration. Mean absolute differences between HbA1c and eA1c 3- and 6-month postcalibration were 0.25% and 0.24%; Pearson's correlation coefficients were 0.93 and 0.93; percentages of eA1c within 10% from reference HbA1c were 97.6% and 96.3%, respectively. Conclusions: HbA1c and TIR are reflections of the same underlying process of glycemic fluctuation. Using a model individualized with one HbA1c measurement, TIR provides an accurate approximation of HbA1c for at least 6 months, reflecting blood glucose fluctuations and nonglycemic biological factors. Thus, eA1c is an intermediate metric that mathematically adjusts a CGM-based assessment of glycemic control to individual glycation rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Typically, closed-loop control (CLC) studies excluded patients with significant hypoglycemia. We evaluated the effectiveness of hybrid CLC (HCLC) versus sensor-augmented pump (SAP) in reducing hypoglycemia in this high-risk population. Methods: Forty-four subjects with type 1 diabetes, 25 women, 37 ± 2 years old, HbA1c 7.4% ± 0.2% (57 ± 1.5 mmol/mol), diabetes duration 19 ± 2 years, on insulin pump, were enrolled at the University of Virginia (N = 33) and Stanford University (N = 11). Eligibility: increased risk of hypoglycemia confirmed by 1 week of blinded continuous glucose monitor (CGM); randomized to 4 weeks of home use of either HCLC or SAP. Primary/secondary outcomes: risk for hypoglycemia measured by the low blood glucose index (LBGI)/CGM-based time in ranges. Results: Values reported: mean ± standard deviation. From baseline to the final week of study: LBGI decreased more on HCLC (2.51 ± 1.17 to 1.28 ± 0.5) than on SAP (2.1 ± 1.05 to 1.79 ± 0.98), P < 0.001; percent time below 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) decreased on HCLC (7.2% ± 5.3% to 2.0% ± 1.4%) but not on SAP (5.8% ± 4.7% to 4.8% ± 4.5%), P = 0.001; percent time within the target range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10 mmol/L) increased on HCLC (67.8% ± 13.5% to 78.2% ± 10%) but decreased on SAP (65.6% ± 12.9% to 59.6% ± 16.5%), P < 0.001; percent time above 180 mg/dL (10 mmol/L) decreased on HCLC (25.1% ± 15.3% to 19.8% ± 10.1%) but increased on SAP (28.6% ± 14.6% to 35.6% ± 17.6%), P = 0.009. Mean glucose did not change significantly on HCLC (144.9 ± 27.9 to 143.8 ± 14.4 mg/dL [8.1 ± 1.6 to 8.0 ± 0.8 mmol/L]) or SAP (152.5 ± 24.3 to 162.4 ± 28.2 [8.5 ± 1.4 to 9.0 ± 1.6]), P = ns. Conclusions: Compared with SAP therapy, HCLC reduced the risk and frequency of hypoglycemia, while improving time in target range and reducing hyperglycemia in people at moderate to high risk of hypoglycemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Glucose variability (GV) remains a key limiting factor in the success of diabetes management. While new technologies, for example, accurate continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and connected insulin delivery devices, are now available, current treatment standards fail to leverage the wealth of information generated. Expert systems, from automated insulin delivery to advisory systems, are a key missing element to richer, more personalized, glucose management in diabetes.Methods: Twenty four subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), 15 women, 37 ± 11 years of age, hemoglobin A1c 7.2% ± 1%, total daily insulin (TDI) 46.7 ± 22.3 U, using either an insulin pump or multiple daily injections with carbohydrate counting, completed two randomized crossover 48-h visits at the University of Virginia, wearing Dexcom G4 CGM, and using either usual care or the UVA decision support system (DSS). DSS consisted of a combination of automated insulin titration, bolus calculation, and CHO treatment advice. During each admission, participants were exposed to a variety of meal sizes and contents and two 45-min bouts of exercise. GV and glucose control were assessed using CGM.Results: The use of DSS significantly reduced GV (coefficient of variation: 0.36 ± 08. vs. 0.33 ± 0.06, P = 0.045) while maintaining glycemic control (average CGM: 155.2 ± 27.1 mg/dL vs. 155.2 ± 23.2 mg/dL), by reducing hypoglycemia exposure (%<70 mg/dL: 3.8% ± 4.6% vs. 1.8% ± 2%, P = 0.018), with nonsignificant trends toward reduction of significant hyperglycemia overnight (%>250 mg/dL: 5.3% ± 9.5% vs. 1.9% ± 4.6%) and at mealtime (11.3% ± 14.8% vs. 5.8% ± 9.1%).Conclusions: A CGM/insulin informed advisory system proved to be safe and feasible in a cohort of 24 T1DM subjects. Use of the system may result in reduced GV and improved protection against hypoglycemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To evaluate the efficacy of a run-to-run (R2R) adaptive wearable artificial pancreas (AP) after 1 month of closed-loop glucose control in subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1D) under free-living conditions. Methods: Eighteen adults, who had previously completed a 1-month closed-loop study with a non-adaptive artificial pancreas (NA-AP), volunteered for an additional 1-month extension study in which the AP was equipped with an adaptive model predictive control algorithm (R2R-AP). Continuous glucose monitoring data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis by comparing the last week of R2R-AP versus the last week of NA-AP. The primary endpoint was the time in target range (3.9-10 mmol/L) over 24 h. Results: Time in target with R2R-AP is higher than with the NA-AP, although the increase was not significant: mean 66.90% (standard deviation: 13.34) versus 61.82% (11.12), P = 0.10. The increase was significant during the night: 74.01% (14.61) versus 64.31% (15.71), P = 0.03, and at wake-up time: median 92.43% (25th; 75th percentiles: 78.22; 99.53) versus 84.54% (57.14; 88.52), P = 0.02. Time above target (>10 mmol/L) during the whole day was 30.98% (13.22) versus 36.17% (11.53), P = 0.10. The decrease was significant during the night: 24.23% (15.03) versus 34.49% (16.25), P = 0.03, and at wake-up time: 7.57% (0.00; 14.29) versus 14.29% (8.25; 42.86), P = 0.05. Time spent below target (<3.9 mmol/L) was low and similar to the two treatments. Conclusions: R2R-AP improves glucose control over NA-AP in subjects with T1D during the night, and it maintains equivalent control performance during the day in a 1-month trial under free-living conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Young children 5-8 years old with type 1 diabetes (T1D) exhibit clear needs for improved glycemic control but may be limited in their ability to safely interact with an artificial pancreas system. Our goal was to evaluate the safety and performance of an artificial pancreas (AP) system among young children with T1D.Research Design and Methods: In a randomized, crossover trial, children with T1D age 5-8 years were enrolled to receive on separate study periods (in random order) either the UVa AP using the DiAs Control Platform software with child-resistant lock-out screens (followed as an out-patient admission) or their usual insulin pump+continuous glucose monitor (CGM) care at home. Hypoglycemic events and CGM tracings were compared between the two 68-h study periods. All analyses were adjusted for level of physical activity as tracked using Fitbit devices.Results: Twelve participants (median age 7 years, n = 6 males) completed the trial. Compared to home care, the AP admission resulted in increased time with blood glucose (BG) 70-180 mg/dL (73% vs. 47%) and lower mean BG (152 mg/dL vs. 190 mg/dL), both P < 0.001 after adjustment for activity. Occurrence of hypoglycemia was similar between sessions without differences in time <70 mg/dL (AP 1.1% ± 1.1%; home 1.6% ± 1.2%). There were no adverse events during the AP or home study periods.Conclusions: Use of an AP in young children was safe and resulted in improved mean BG without increased hypoglycemia. This suggests that AP use in young children is safe and improves overall diabetes control. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT02750267. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We present a clinical trial establishing the feasibility of a control-to-range (CTR) closed-loop system informed by heart rate (HR) and assess the effect of HR information added to CTR on the risk for hypoglycemia during and after exercise. Subjects and Methods: Twelve subjects with type 1 diabetes (five men, seven women; weight, 68.9±3.1 kg; age, 38±3.3 years; glycated hemoglobin, 6.9±0.2%) participated in a randomized crossover clinical trial comparing CTR versus CTR+HR in two 26-h admissions, each including 30 min of mild exercise. The CTR algorithm was implemented in the DiAs portable artificial pancreas platform based on an Android® (Google, Mountainview, CA) smartphone. We assessed blood glucose (BG) decline during exercise, the Low BG Index (LBGI) (a measure of hypoglycemic risk), number of hypoglycemic episodes (BG <70 mg/dL) and overall glucose control (percentage time within the target range 70 mg/dL≤BG≤180 mg/dL). Results: Using HR to inform the CTR algorithm reduced significantly the BG decline during exercise ( P=0.022), indicated marginally lower LBGI ( P=0.3) and fewer hypoglycemic events during exercise (none vs. two events; P=0.16), and resulted in overall higher percentage time within the target range (81% vs. 75%; P=0.2). LBGI and average BG remained unchanged overall, during recovery, and overnight. Conclusions: HR-informed closed-loop control can be implemented in a portable artificial pancreas. Although closed loop has been shown to reduce hypoglycemia, adding HR signal may further limit the risk for hypoglycemia during and immediately after exercise. The most prominent effect of adding HR information is reduced BG decline during exercise, without deterioration of overall glycemic control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The ability to simulate in silico experiments is crucial for fast and cost-effective preliminary studies prior to clinical trials. We present an in silico approach to the design of optimal pramlintide-to-insulin (P/I) ratios, using our computer simulator of the human metabolic system, with a population of virtual adult type 1 diabetes mellitus patients and with individual parameters modified to account for the dynamic effects of pramlintide. Materials and Methods: A model of pramlintide action on gastric emptying was built using data of 15 type 1 diabetes mellitus subjects studied twice with a standardized dual-tracer meal on placebo and pramlintide, which was incorporated in our type 1 diabetes simulator. Extensive in silico experiments on 100 virtual subjects were performed to optimize the co-administration of pramlintide and insulin prior to its submission to clinical trials; several P/I ratios were tested in terms of efficacy, in attenuating postprandial hyperglycemia, and in hypoglycemia safety. Results: In silico experiments estimated the optimal P/I ratio to be 9 μg of pramlintide per unit (U) of insulin. Additional simulations narrowing the investigated range indicated that P/I ratios of 8 and 10 μg/U would achieve similar performance. Moreover, simulation results suggested that in clinical trials, insulin boluses should be reduced by approximately 21% at a P/I ratio of 9 μg/U to account for the effects of pramlintide and avoid postprandial hypoglycemia. Conclusions: We can assert that a valid simulation model of pramlintide action was developed, leading to in silico estimation of optimal pramlintide:insulin co-administration ratio. Clinical trials will confirm (or adjust) this initial estimation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Safety measures to prevent or mitigate hypoglycemia are an important component of open loop, closed loop, and advisory mode insulin therapy control settings in type 1 diabetes. In recent work, we introduce a method for the automatic, gradual attenuation of the insulin pump delivery rate when a risk of hypoglycemia is detected, a method that we refer to as brakes. In the methods presented here, we demonstrate the use of historical glucose measurement data to inform and enhance the ability of the brakes to prevent hypoglycemia in real-time. The updated brakes are based on a patient-specific, time-varying model that reflects the typical trajectory of glycemic fluctuations throughout the day. Historical heightened risk of hypoglycemia throughout the day prompts an increase in the aggressiveness of insulin attenuation as compared to the original brakes that are based on real-time data alone. Through the use of available real-time data supplemented with historical glucose information to assess hypoglycemic risk, we are able to better anticipate and prevent hypoglycemia. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In recent years the Dexcom G5 and G6 sensors and the Abbott Libre have received regulatory approval to be used as a replacement for blood glucose meter (BGM) measurements for insulin dosing by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the CE Mark; and more recently the Senseonics Eversense received similar FDA approval. These results were obtained using sensor glucose values to determine mealtime insulin bolus amounts without requiring a BGM confirmation in both the CLC and SAP groups. There was no degradation of glycemic control with CGM used nonadjunctively as time 70-180 mg/dL; other CGM metrics of glucose control for mean glucose, hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glycemic variability; and HbA1c all were similar between groups. [Extracted from the article]