Search

There is limited evidence supporting the recommendation that drivers with insulin-treated diabetes need to start journeys with glucose90 mg/dL. Glucose levels of drivers with type 1 diabetes were monitored for 3 weeks using masked continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Eighteen drivers (median [IQR] age 40 [35, 51] years; 11 men) undertook 475 trips (duration 15 [13, 21] min). Hypoglycemia did not occur in any trip starting with glucose90 mg/dL (92%

To explore the lived experience of older adults with type 1 diabetes using closed-loop automated insulin delivery, an area previously receiving minimal attention.Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults aged 60 years or older with long-duration type 1 diabetes who participated in a randomised, open-label, two-stage crossover trial comparing first-generation closed-loop therapy (MiniMed 670G) versus sensor-augmented pump therapy. Interview recordings were transcribed, thematically analysed, and assessed.Twenty-one older adults participated in interviews after using closed-loop therapy. Twenty were functionally independent, without frailty or major cognitive impairment; one was dependent on caregiver assistance, including for diabetes management. Quality of life benefits were identified, including improved sleep and reduced diabetes-related psychological burden, in the context of experiencing improved glucose levels. Gaps between expectations and reality of closed-loop therapy were also experienced, encountering disappointment among some participants. Cost was perceived as a barrier to continued closed-loop access post-trial. Usability issues were identified, such as disruptive overnight alarms and sensor inaccuracy.The lived experience of older adults without frailty or major cognitive impairment using first-generation closed-loop therapy was mainly positive, concordant with glycaemic benefits found in the trial. Older adults' lived experience using automated insulin delivery beyond trial environments requires exploration; moreover, usability needs of older adults should be considered during future device development.

Background: This prerandomization analysis from the Australian HCL-Adult trial (registration number: ACTRN12617000520336) compared masked continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics among adults using insulin pumps versus multiple daily injections (MDIs), who were all self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG). Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes, using an insulin pump or MDIs without real-time CGM (and entering a trial of closed-loop technology), were eligible. MDI users were given an insulin dosage calculator. All participants received diabetes and carbohydrate-counting education, then wore masked CGM sensors for 3 weeks. Ethics Approval: HREC-D 088/16 Results: Adults using MDIs (n = 61) versus pump (n = 59) did not differ by age, sex, diabetes duration, insulin total daily dose, or HbA1c at baseline. After education, median (interquartile range) CGM time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was 54% (47, 62) for those using MDIs and 56% (48, 66) for those using pump (P = 0.40). All CGM metrics were equivalent for 24 h/day for MDI and pump users. Overnight, those using MDIs (vs. pump) spent more time with glucose

Low insulin sensitivity (IS) increases Type 1 diabetes (T1D) complication risk and can be estimated by simple formulae developed from complex euglycemic hyperinsulinaemic clamp studies. We aimed to validate these formulae using independent clamp data.Clamps were performed in 104 T1D adults. Measured glucose disposal rate (GDR) was correlated with eGDR and eLog10 M/I calculated by five IS formulae.Correlations ranged between 0.23-0.40. Two IS formulae (by the authors), using age, sex, HDL-C, HbA1c, pulse pressure, BMI, and waist-hip-ratio had the highest correlation with measured GDR and the best performance in detecting low IS.

Context Cardiovascular disease occurs prematurely in type 1 diabetes. The additional risk of overweight is not well characterized. Objective The primary aim was to measure the impact of body mass index (BMI) in youth with type 1 diabetes on cardiovascular risk factors. The secondary aim was to identify other determinants of cardiovascular risk. Design Observational longitudinal study of 7061 youth with type 1 diabetes followed for median 7.3 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-11) years over 41 (IQR 29-56) visits until March 2019. Setting 15 tertiary care diabetes centers in the Australasian Diabetes Data Network. Participants were aged 2 to 25 years at baseline, with at least 2 measurements of BMI and blood pressure. Main Outcome Measure Standardized systolic and diastolic blood pressure scores and non–high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol were co-primary outcomes. Urinary albumin/creatinine ratio was the secondary outcome. Results BMI z-score related independently to standardized blood pressure z- scores and non-HDL cholesterol. An increase in 1 BMI z-score related to an average increase in systolic/diastolic blood pressure of 3.8/1.4 mmHg and an increase in non-HDL cholesterol (coefficient + 0.16 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-0.18; P Conclusions BMI had a modest independent effect on cardiovascular risk. Females and Indigenous Australians in particular had a more adverse risk profile.

Context Insulin autoimmune syndrome (IAS) is characterized by hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia with elevated anti-insulin antibodies. Most commonly observed in the Japanese population, elsewhere it is rare and associated with autoimmune diseases, plasma cell dyscrasias, or sulfhydryl group medications. The active metabolite of clopidogrel has a sulfhydryl group and here we report a case of clopidogrel-induced IAS. Case Description A 67-year-old man was admitted with severe hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia requiring continuous intravenous infusion of 10% dextrose to sustain euglycemia. His symptoms of hypoglycemia had started after commencing dual antiplatelet therapy (including clopidogrel) for ischemic heart disease 9 months earlier. The hypoglycemia was associated with elevated insulin, proinsulin, c-peptide, and anti-insulin antibody titers as well as the HLA-DRB1*04 haplotype. Multiple localizing studies were negative for an insulinoma. A diagnosis of IAS was thus made. Clopidogrel cessation, oral dexamethasone, and diazoxide therapy were not sufficient to safely wean the dextrose infusion. Plasma exchange was ultimately effective. Conclusions This case highlights a case of severe IAS. Given the ubiquity of clopidogrel, IAS should be remembered as a rare adverse effect.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate exercise-related glucose and counterregulatory responses (CRR) in adults with type 1 diabetes with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) using hybrid closed-loop (HCL) insulin delivery to maintain glucose homeostasis. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Twelve participants undertook 45-min high-intensity intermittent exercise (HIIE) and moderate-intensity exercise (MIE) in random order. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) time in range (70–180 mg/dL) for 24-h post–exercise commencement. RESULTS CGM time in range was similar for HIIE and MIE (median 79.5% [interquartile range 73.2, 87.6] vs. 76.1% [70.3, 83.9], P = 0.37), and time with levels CONCLUSIONS IAH adults using HCL undertaking HIIE and MIE exhibit heterogeneity in CRR. Novel findings were a preserved cortisol response and variable catecholamine responses to HIIE.

The relationship between serial changes in soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor type 1 (TNFR1) levels and an early decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline remains to be defined. We found that in patients with an early decline in renal function (n = 30), soluble TNFR1 values increased (2,595 ± 683 vs 3,596 ± 1,203 pg/mL, P

We have analysed insulin antibodies in 149 adults with type 1 diabetes and 2859 people without diabetes. We have determined that insulin antibody levels are higher in adults with, versus without, diabetes and that the levels are falling, and more patients are becoming antibody-negative post islet cell transplantation.

Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy among older adults with type 1 diabetes. Research Design and Methods This open-label randomized (1:1), crossover trial compared 4 months of closed-loop versus sensor-augmented pump therapy. Eligible adults were aged ≥60 years, with type 1 diabetes (duration ≥10 years), using an insulin pump. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) time in range (TIR; 3.9–10.0 mmol/L). Results Thirty participants (mean age 67 years [SD 5]; median type 1 diabetes duration 38 years [IQR 20–47]) were randomized, n=15 to each sequence; all completed the trial. The mean TIR was 75.2% (6.3) during the closed-loop stage and 69.0% (9.1) during the sensor-augmented pump stage (difference 6.2 percentage points [95% CI 4.4, 8.0]; P P = 0.0005) and overnight by 0.8 percentage points (0.4, 1.1; P 1c between closed-loop versus sensor-augmented pump stages (7.3% [7.1–7.5] | 56 mmol/mol [54–59] versus 7.5% [7.1–7.9] | 59 mmol/mol [54–62], respectively; P = 0.13). Three severe hypoglycemia events occurred during the closed-loop stage and two occurred during the sensor-augmented pump stage; no hypoglycemic events required hospitalization. One episode of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred during the sensor-augmented pump stage; no serious adverse events occurred during the closed-loop stage. Conclusion Closed-loop therapy is an effective treatment option for older adults with long duration type 1 diabetes and no safety issues were identified. These older adults had higher TIR accompanied by less time below range during closed-loop than sensor-augmented pump therapy. Of particular clinical importance, closed loop reduced the time spent in hypoglycemic range overnight.

Objective: To compare glucose control with hybrid closed loop (HCL) when challenged by moderate-intensity exercise (MIE), high-intensity intermittent exercise (HIE) and resistance exercise (RE) while profiling counter-regulatory hormones, lactate, ketones, and kinetic data in adults with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Open-label multisite randomized crossover trial. Adults with type 1 diabetes undertook 40 min of HIE, MIE, and RE in random order while using HCL (Medtronic 670G) with a temporary target set 2 hours prior to and during exercise and 15g carbohydrates if pre-exercise glucose was Primary outcome was median (IQR) continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) time-in-range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) for 14 hours post-exercise commencement. Accelerometer data and venous glucose, ketones, lactate, and counter-regulatory hormones were measured for 280 min post-exercise commencement. Results: Median TIR was 81% [67, 93]%, 91% [80, 94]%, and 80% [73, 89]% for 0-14 hours post-exercise commencement for HIE, MIE and RE, respectively (n=30), with no difference between exercise types (MIE v HIE; p=0.11, MIE v RE p=0.11, HIE v RE p=0.90). Time-below-range was 0% for all exercise bouts. For HIE and RE compared with MIE, there were greater increases respectively in noradrenaline (p=0.01, p=0.004), cortisol (p Conclusions: Under controlled conditions, HCL provided satisfactory glucose control with no difference between exercise type. Lactate, counter-regulatory hormones, and kinetic data differentiate type and intensity of exercise, and their measurement may help inform insulin needs during exercise. However, their potential utility as modulators of insulin dosing will be limited by the pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous insulin delivery.

Objective: To compare glucose control with hybrid closed loop (HCL) when challenged by moderate-intensity exercise (MIE), high-intensity intermittent exercise (HIE) and resistance exercise (RE) while profiling counter-regulatory hormones, lactate, ketones, and kinetic data in adults with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Open-label multisite randomized crossover trial. Adults with type 1 diabetes undertook 40 min of HIE, MIE, and RE in random order while using HCL (Medtronic 670G) with a temporary target set 2 hours prior to and during exercise and 15g carbohydrates if pre-exercise glucose was Primary outcome was median (IQR) continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) time-in-range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) for 14 hours post-exercise commencement. Accelerometer data and venous glucose, ketones, lactate, and counter-regulatory hormones were measured for 280 min post-exercise commencement. Results: Median TIR was 81% [67, 93]%, 91% [80, 94]%, and 80% [73, 89]% for 0-14 hours post-exercise commencement for HIE, MIE and RE, respectively (n=30), with no difference between exercise types (MIE v HIE; p=0.11, MIE v RE p=0.11, HIE v RE p=0.90). Time-below-range was 0% for all exercise bouts. For HIE and RE compared with MIE, there were greater increases respectively in noradrenaline (p=0.01, p=0.004), cortisol (p Conclusions: Under controlled conditions, HCL provided satisfactory glucose control with no difference between exercise type. Lactate, counter-regulatory hormones, and kinetic data differentiate type and intensity of exercise, and their measurement may help inform insulin needs during exercise. However, their potential utility as modulators of insulin dosing will be limited by the pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous insulin delivery.

OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy and safety of closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy among older adults with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This open-label, randomized (1:1), crossover trial compared 4 months of closed-loop versus sensor-augmented pump therapy. Eligible adults were aged ≥60 years, with type 1 diabetes (duration ≥10 years), using an insulin pump. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) time in range (TIR; 3.9–10.0 mmol/L). RESULTS There were 30 participants (mean age 67 [SD 5] years), with median type 1 diabetes duration of 38 years (interquartile range [IQR] 20–47), randomized (n = 15 to each sequence); all completed the trial. The mean TIR was 75.2% (SD 6.3) during the closed-loop stage and 69.0% (9.1) during the sensor-augmented pump stage (difference of 6.2 percentage points [95% CI 4.4 to 8.0]; P < 0.0001). All prespecified CGM metrics favored closed loop over the sensor-augmented pump; benefits were greatest overnight. Closed loop reduced CGM time CONCLUSIONS Closed-loop therapy is an effective treatment option for older adults with long-duration type 1 diabetes, and no safety issues were identified. These older adults had higher TIR accompanied by less time below range during closed loop than during sensor-augmented pump therapy. Of particular clinical importance, closed loop reduced the time spent in hypoglycemic range overnight.

Objective To evaluate glucose control using fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) compared with insulin aspart (IAsp) delivered by the MiniMedä Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) system in adults with type 1 diabetes. Research Design and Methods In this randomized, open-label, crossover study, participants were assigned to receive faster aspart or IAsp in random-order. Stages 1 and 2 comprised six-weeks in closed-loop; preceded by two-weeks in open-loop. This was followed by Stage 3, whereby participants changed directly back to the insulin formulation used in Stage 1 for one-week in CL. Participants chose their own meals except for two standardized meal tests; a missed and late meal bolus. Primary outcome was % sensor glucose time-in-range (TIR; 70-180mg/dL). Results Twenty-five adults (52% male) were recruited; median (IQR) age was 48 (37, 57) years, and HbA1c 7.0% (6.6, 7.2) (53 [49, 55] mmol/mol). Faster aspart demonstrated greater overall TIR compared with IAsp (82.3% [78.5, 83.7] vs. 79.6% [77.0, 83.4], respectively; mean difference 1.9% [0.5, 3.3]; p=0.007). Four-hour PPG TIR was higher using faster aspart compared with IAsp for all-meals combined (73.6% [69.4, 80.2] vs. 72.1% [64.5, 78.5], respectively; median difference 3.5% [1.0, 7.3]; p=0.003). There was no ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia. Conclusions Faster aspart safely improved glucose control compared with IAsp in a well-controlled group of adults with type 1 diabetes using AHCL. The modest improvement mainly related to mealtime glycemia. Whilst the primary outcome demonstrated statistical significance, the clinical impact may be small given an overall difference in TIR of 1.9%.

OBJECTIVE To compare glucose control with hybrid closed-loop (HCL) when challenged by high intensity exercise (HIE), moderate intensity exercise (MIE), and resistance exercise (RE) while profiling counterregulatory hormones, lactate, ketones, and kinetic data in adults with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This study was an open-label multisite randomized crossover trial. Adults with type 1 diabetes undertook 40 min of HIE, MIE, and RE in random order while using HCL (Medtronic MiniMed 670G) with a temporary target set 2 h prior to and during exercise and 15 g carbohydrates if pre-exercise glucose was RESULTS Median TIR was 81% (67, 93%), 91% (80, 94%), and 80% (73, 89%) for 0–14 h post–exercise commencement for HIE, MIE, and RE, respectively (n = 30), with no difference between exercise types (MIE vs. HIE; P = 0.11, MIE vs. RE, P = 0.11; and HIE vs. RE, P = 0.90). Time-below-range was 0% for all exercise bouts. For HIE and RE compared with MIE, there were greater increases, respectively, in noradrenaline (P = 0.01 and P = 0.004), cortisol (P < 0.001 and P = 0.001), lactate (P ≤ 0.001 and P ≤ 0.001), and heart rate (P = 0.007 and P = 0.015). During HIE compared with MIE, there were greater increases in growth hormone (P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS Under controlled conditions, HCL provided satisfactory glucose control with no difference between exercise type. Lactate, counterregulatory hormones, and kinetic data differentiate type and intensity of exercise, and their measurement may help inform insulin needs during exercise. However, their potential utility as modulators of insulin dosing will be limited by the pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous insulin delivery.

The authors’ perspective is described regarding modifications made in their clinic to glucose challenge protocols and mathematical models in order to estimate insulin secretion, insulin sensitivity and glucose effectiveness in patients living with Insulin-Requiring Diabetes and patients who received Pancreatic Islet Transplants to treat Type I diabetes (T1D) with Impaired Awareness of Hypoglycemia. The evolutions are described of protocols and models for use in T1D, and Insulin-Requiring Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) that were the basis for studies in the Islet Recipients. In each group, the need for modifications, and how the protocols and models were adapted is discussed. How the ongoing application of the adaptations is clarifying the Islet pathophysiology in the Islet Transplant Recipients is outlined.

Background: Older adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) have unique health challenges and have not been specifically studied in previous closed-loop (CL) trials. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of CL compared with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy in older adults with T1D. Methods: We conducted a two-stage randomized, crossover trial comparing 4 months of CL vs. SAP. Adults aged ≥60 years with T1D ≥10 years and using an insulin pump were eligible. SAP (with continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] alerts and optional insulin delivery suspension on low glucose) and multi-disciplinary education were provided during run-in, then CL and SAP stages were undertaken in random order. The primary outcome was CGM time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL comparing the final 3 months of each stage. Results: Thirty adults (mean±SD age 67±5 years, T1D duration 37±15 years and HbA1c 59±9 mmol/mol [7.6±0.9%]) participated. Ten participants (33%) had impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (Gold score ≥4); all were cognitively healthy, and none met the criteria for frailty. CGM TIR was 75.1±6.3% during CL and 69.0±9.1% during SAP (mean difference 6.2% [95% CI 4.3, 8.0]; p Conclusions: In this trial involving adults with T1D aged ≥60 years, CL increased TIR and reduced time below range compared with SAP, particularly overnight. The therapeutic benefit was evident even with relatively low baseline HbA1c. Further research is needed to understand the long-term clinical benefit. Disclosure S. A. Mcauley: Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Sanofi. N. A. O’regan: None. V. Sundararajan: None. G. M. Ward: None. R. Macisaac: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Novo Nordisk, Servier Laboratories, Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Novo Nordisk. S. Vogrin: None. S. Trawley: None. P. G. Colman: None. S. Fourlanos: Advisory Panel; Self; Pfizer Foundation, Speaker’s Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company. C. Grills: None. M. H. Lee: None. A. Mohammad alipoor: None. D. N. O’neal: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott Diabetes, Medtronic, Sanofi, Research Support; Self; Dexcom, Inc., GlySens Incorporated, Medtronic, Pacific Diabetes Technologies. Funding JDRF (3-SRA-2018-667-M-R); Diabetes Australia

Introduction: The “gold standard” measure of insulin sensitivity (IS), a euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp, is costly, time- and labour-intensive. Several formulae, developed using clamp data estimate insulin sensitivity, expressed as estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR) or insulin sensitivity index (eM/I or elog10M/I). Due to clamp complexity and cost these formulae often lacks independent validation. Aim: To validate several formulae estimating IS using independent euglycaemic hyperinsulinemic clamp data. Methods: Euglycemic, hyperinsulinemic clamps were performed in 108 T1D adults (age (mean±SD) 34±7 yrs, T1D duration 10±4 yrs, HbA1c 7.7±1.5%; 33 with microvascular complications). Measured GDR (last 30min of the clamp) ranged 0.5 - 9.6 mg/kg/min (median (LQ, UQ) 4.45 (3.04, 6.5 mg/kg/min) were compared with eGDR and eLog10M/I calculated using simple formulae by (1) Williams, (2) Zheng, (3) Dabelea and (4) and (5) (Australia (AU)) authors, all derived from routine clinical chemistry and demographics. eGDR formula (Duca) was not assessed as it includes adiponectin levels. Results: Results are in Table 1. Conclusion: Authors (AU) formulae to estimate IS, including age, sex, HDL-C, BMI, HbA1c, pulse pressure and WHR had highest correlation with measured GDR and better performance (AUROC) in detecting low IS than other formulae. Disclosure A. S. Januszewski: None. P. Niedzwiecki: None. N. Sachithanandan: None. G. M. Ward: None. C. Karschimkus: None. D. N. O’neal: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott Diabetes, Medtronic, Sanofi, Research Support; Self; Dexcom, Inc., GlySens Incorporated, Medtronic, Pacific Diabetes Technologies. D. Zozulinska-ziolkiewicz: None. A. Uruska: None. A. Jenkins: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott Diabetes, Sanofi-Aventis, Other Relationship; Self; Amgen Inc., Research Support; Self; Abbott, International Diabetes Federation, JDRF, Medtronic, Mylan N. V.

Background Mental health problems are highly prevalent in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), which adversely impact physical health and quality of life. This study aimed to explore the experiences of people with T1DM who had completed the Mental health IN DiabeteS Optimal Health Program (MINDS OHP), a novel intervention developed to bridge the gap between physical and mental health care. Method Participants with T1DM were invited to take part in a focus group or semi-structured interviews. Participants were recruited from outpatient and community settings. The focus group and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic content analysis was used and identified themes were cross-validated by researchers and member-checked by participants. Results Ten people with T1DM were included. Two key themes emerged: ‘MINDS OHP experiences’ and ‘lived experiences of diabetes’. MINDS OHP experiences included five sub-themes: program benefits, follow-up and timing, suggested improvements, collaborative partners, and materials suitability. Lived experiences also included five sub-themes: bridging the gap between mental and physical health, support networks, stigma and shame, management intrusiveness, and adolescence and critical life points. Conclusions The MINDS OHP for people with T1DM was generally well received, though study findings suggest a number of improvements could be made to the program, such as including family members, and consideration being given to its routine early inclusion in diabetes management, ideally in primary care.

Background: Experience from first-generation closed-loop (CL) systems informs refinements to enhance glucose control and user acceptance. A next-generation prototype enhanced-hybrid CL (E-...

OBJECTIVETo evaluate glucose control using fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) compared with insulin aspart (IAsp) delivered by the MiniMed Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) system in adults with type 1 diabetes.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSIn this randomized, open-label, crossover study, participants were assigned to receive faster aspart or IAsp in random order. Stages 1 and 2 comprised of 6 weeks in closed loop, preceded by 2 weeks in open loop. This was followed by stage 3, whereby participants changed directly back to the insulin formulation used in stage 1 for 1 week in closed loop. Participants chose their own meals except for two standardized meal tests, a missed meal bolus and late meal bolus. The primary outcome was the percentage of time sensor glucose values were from 70 to 180 mg/dL (time in range [TIR]).RESULTSTwenty-five adults (52% male) were recruited; the median (interquartile range) age was 48 (37, 57) years, and the median HbA1c was 7.0% (6.6, 7.2) (53 [49, 55] mmol/mol). Faster aspart demonstrated greater overall TIR compared with IAsp (82.3% [78.5, 83.7] vs. 79.6% [77.0, 83.4], respectively; mean difference 1.9% [0.5, 3.3]; P = 0.007). Four-hour postprandial glucose TIR was higher using faster aspart compared with IAsp for all meals combined (73.6% [69.4, 80.2] vs. 72.1% [64.5, 78.5], respectively; median difference 3.5% [1.0, 7.3]; P = 0.003). There was no ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia.CONCLUSIONSFaster aspart safely improved glucose control compared with IAsp in a group of adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes using AHCL. The modest improvement was mainly related to mealtime glycemia. While the primary outcome demonstrated statistical significance, the clinical impact may be small, given an overall difference in TIR of 1.9%.

OBJECTIVE To investigate glycemic and psychosocial outcomes with hybrid closed-loop (HCL) versus user-determined insulin dosing with multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump (i.e., standard therapy for most adults with type 1 diabetes). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Adults with type 1 diabetes using MDI or insulin pump without continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) were randomized to 26 weeks of HCL (Medtronic 670G) or continuation of current therapy. The primary outcome was masked CGM time in range (TIR; 70–180 mg/dL) during the final 3 weeks. RESULTS Participants were randomized to HCL (n = 61) or control (n = 59). Baseline mean (SD) age was 44.2 (11.7) years, HbA1c was 7.4% (0.9%) (57 [10] mmol/mol), 53% were women, and 51% used MDI. HCL TIR increased from (baseline) 55% (13%) to (26 weeks) 70% (10%) with the control group unchanged: (baseline) 55% (12%) and (26 weeks) 55% (13%) (difference 15% [95% CI 11, 19]; P < 0.0001). For HCL, HbA1c was lower (median [95% CI] difference −0.4% [−0.6, −0.2]; −4 mmol/mol [−7, −2]; P < 0.0001) and diabetes-specific positive well-being was higher (difference 1.2 [95% CI 0.4, 1.9]; P < 0.0048) without a deterioration in diabetes distress, perceived sleep quality, or cognition. Seventeen (9 device-related) versus 13 serious adverse events occurred in the HCL and control groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In adults with type 1 diabetes, 26 weeks of HCL improved TIR, HbA1c, and their sense of satisfaction from managing their diabetes compared with those continuing with user-determined insulin dosing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. For most people living with type 1 diabetes globally, this trial demonstrates that HCL is feasible, acceptable, and advantageous.

Despite advancements in pharmacotherapies, glycemia is poorly controlled in type 2 diabetic patients. As the vagus nerve regulates energy metabolism, here we evaluated the effect various electrical vagus nerve stimulation strategies have on glycemia and glucose‐regulating hormones, as a first step to developing a novel therapy of type 2 diabetes. Sprague–Dawley rats were anesthetized, the abdominal (anterior) vagus nerve implanted, and various stimulation strategies applied to the nerve: (a) 15 Hz; (b) 4 kHz, or 40 kHz and; (c) a combination of 15 Hz and 40 kHz to directionally activate afferent or efferent vagal fibers. Following a glucose bolus (500 mg/kg, I.V.), stimulation strategies were applied (60 min) and serial blood samples taken. No stimulation was used as a crossover control sequence. Applying 15 Hz stimulation significantly increased glucose (+2.9 ± 0.2 mM·hr, p = .015) and glucagon (+17.1 ± 8.0 pg·hr/ml, p = .022), compared to no stimulation. Application of 4 kHz stimulation also significantly increased glucose levels (+1.5 ± 0.5 mM·hr, p = .049), while 40 kHz frequency stimulation resulted in no changes to glucose levels but did significantly lower glucagon (−12.3 ± 1.1 pg·hr/ml, p = .0009). Directional afferent stimulation increased glucose (+2.4 ± 1.5 mM·hr) and glucagon levels (+39.5 ± 15.0 pg·hr/ml). Despite hyperglycemia resulting when VNS, aVNS, and 4 kHz stimulation strategies were applied, the changes in insulin levels were not significant (p ≥ .05). In summary, vagus nerve stimulation modulates glycemia by effecting glucagon and insulin secretions, and high‐frequency 40 kHz stimulation may have potential application for the treatment of type 2 diabetes., Blood glucose can be controlled by electrically stimulating the vagus nerve. This approach could be a promising therapy of type 2 diabetes.

Insulin resistance in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is associated with increased risk of chronic complications and death. The gold standard to quantify insulin sensitivity, a euglycaemic hyperinsulinaemic clamp, is not applicable to clinical practice. We have employed clamp studies to develop a panel of formulae to estimate insulin sensitivity in adults with T1D for use in clinical practice and trials.Clamps were conducted in 28 adults with T1D, who were also characterised with 38 clinical and research biomarkers. Exhaustive search analysis was used to derive equations correlating with clamp-quantified glucose disposal rate (GDR), GDR/plasma insulin (M/I) and logMeasured insulin sensitivity correlated with BMI, WHR, HDL-C, adipokines and inflammation markers on univariate analysis. Exhaustive search analysis derived three formulae correlating with clamp-derived GDR and logM/I (p 0.0001), accounting for ≈62% of their variability. A formula using gender, age, HDL-C, pulse pressure and WHR performed as well as those containing inflammation and adipokine measures.The performance of formulae using routinely available parameters with/without research biomarkers in clinical studies and trials, particularly related to future complications, relevant lifestyle interventions, insulin delivery modes and insulin sensitisers is merited.

BACKGROUND: In people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), nocturnal hypoglycaemia (NH) can be slept through and can cause seizures, arrhythmias and death. Hypoglycaemia avoidance can induce hyperglycaemia and ketosis. Patient behaviour impacts clinical outcomes and may be changed by education. AIM: To develop and utilise a survey to evaluate patient self-management of overnight glycaemia in adults with T1D. METHODS: Adults with T1D attending two Australian tertiary referral diabetes clinics completed a survey about their diabetes self-management and glycaemic control, including responses to hypothetical pre-bed blood glucose (BG) levels (4-20 mmol/L). Statistical analyses included t-tests, Chi square tests and ANOVA with significance considered at P < 0.05. RESULTS: There were 205 participants (103 females), with a mean (SD) age of 41 (17) years, T1D duration of 20 (16) years, HbA1c of 7.8(1.4)%, (61.3(8.2) mmol/mol), 38% on insulin pump therapy (CSII) and 36% with impaired hypoglycaemia awareness (IHA). Mean (SD) number of BG tests/day was 5.4 (2.7). Patients set higher BG target levels at bedtime and overnight: 7.5(1.4) and 7.1(1.3) mmol/L, respectively, compared to daytime (6.9(1.0); P < 0.0001 and P = 0.002 respectively). Only 36% of participants reported treating nocturnal hypoglycaemia (NH) with the recommended refined, then complex, carbohydrate. Only 28% of patients made safe choices in all bedtime BG scenarios, with higher rates for CSII users, P = 0.0005. Further education was desired by 32% of respondents, with higher rates in those with (44%) versus without IHA (25%), P = 0.006. CONCLUSIONS: Many adults with T1D have suboptimal knowledge and behaviour regarding overnight BG self-management. A survey, piloted herein, may facilitate the identification of patients who could benefit from further education.

We documented temporal changes in the use of lipid-lowering medications and achievement of cholesterol targets in an Australian diabetes clinic. The number of patients using lipid-lowering therapy for primary or secondary cardiovascular prevention increased from 6 to 69% between 1993-1995 and 2014-2016, which corresponded to a decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels from 3.7 to 2.4 mmol/L (P < 0.01).

Hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin delivery with the Medtronic Minimed 670G system is effective and safe in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). This study compared glucose control, closed loop (CL) exits, and alarm frequency with the standard HCL (s-HCL) versus enhanced HCL (e-HCL) Medtronic system. Pump-experienced T1D adults (n = 11; 9 female; mean [SD] age: 51 years [15 years]; HbA1c 7.5% [1.0%] or 58 mmol/mol [7.7 mmol/mol]) were assigned, in random order, s-HCL or e-HCL for 1 week each in a supervised live-in setting. e-HCL incorporated enhanced bolus reminders and iterative changes, broadening glucose and insulin delivery parameters permitting persistence in CL. For both s-HCL and e-HCL, insulin delivery was by a Medtronic pump with identical interventions (missed bolus, exercise, high-glycemic index, and high-fat meals), insulin action times, and insulin-carbohydrate ratios implemented. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitoring time in target range. Analysis was by paired t-test for normally distributed data and Wilcoxon-signed rank test otherwise. e-HCL resulted in significantly fewer CL alerts and exits. Time in target and mean glucose favored e-HCL but did not reach statistical significance. No episodes of severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred. Relative to s-HCL, e-HCL use significantly decreases CL exits and alerts, and tended to improve glycemia without compromising safety, despite multiple food and exercise challenges during the study. Longer term studies at home are merited.

Aims To compare meal-time glycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) managed with multiple daily injections (MDI) vs. insulin pump therapy (IPT), using self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG), following diabetes education. Methods Adults with T1D received carbohydrate-counting education and a bolus calculator: MDI (Roche Aviva Expert) and IPT (pump bolus calculator). All then wore 3-weeks of masked-CGM (Enlite, Medtronic). Meal-times were assessed by two approaches: 1) Set time-blocks (breakfast 06:00–10:00hrs; lunch 11:00–15:00hrs; dinner 17:00–21:00hrs) and 2) Bolus-calculator carbohydrate entries signalling meal commencement. Post-meal masked-CGM time-in-range (TIR) 3.9–10.0 mmol/L was the primary outcome. Results MDI(n = 61) and IPT (n = 59) participants were equivalent in age, sex, diabetes duration and HbA1c. Median (IQR) education time provided did not differ (MDI: 1.1 h (0.75, 1.5) vs. IPT: 1.1 h (1.0, 2.0); p = 0.86). Overall, daytime (06:00–24:00hrs), lunch and dinner TIR did not differ for MDI vs. IPT participants but was greater for breakfast with IPT in both analyses with a mean difference of 12.8%, (95 CI 4.8, 20.9); p = 0.002 (time-block analysis). Conclusion After diabetes education, MDI and IPT use were associated with similar day-time glycemia, though IPT users had significantly greater TIR during the breakfast period. With education, meal-time glucose levels are comparable with use of MDI vs. pumps.

We aimed to compare closed-loop glucose control for people with type 1 diabetes undertaking high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE) versus moderate-intensity exercise (MIE).Adults with type 1 diabetes established on insulin pumps undertook HIIE and MIE stages in random order during automated insulin delivery via a closed-loop system (Medtronic). Frequent venous sampling for glucose, lactate, ketones, insulin, catecholamines, cortisol, growth hormone, and glucagon levels was performed. The primary outcome was plasma glucose4.0 mmol/L for ≥15 min, from exercise commencement to 120 min postexercise. Secondary outcomes included continuous glucose monitoring and biochemical parameters.Twelve adults (age mean ± standard deviation 40 ± 13 years) were recruited; all completed the study. Plasma glucose of one participant fell to 3.4 mmol/L following MIE completion; no glucose levels were4.0 mmol/L for HIIE (primary outcome). There were no glucose excursions15.0 mmol/L for either stage. Mean (±standard error) plasma glucose did not differ between stages pre-exercise; was higher during exercise in HIIE than MIE (11.3 ± 0.5 mmol/L vs. 9.7 ± 0.6 mmol/L, respectively; P 0.001); and remained higher until 60 min postexercise. There were no differences in circulating free insulin before, during, or postexercise. During HIIE compared with MIE, there were greater increases in lactate (P 0.001), catecholamines (all P 0.05), and cortisol (P 0.001). Ketones increased more with HIIE than MIE postexercise (P = 0.031).Preliminary findings suggest that closed-loop glucose control is safe for people undertaking HIIE and MIE. However, the management of the postexercise rise in ketones secondary to counter-regulatory hormone-induced insulin resistance observed with HIIE may represent a challenge for closed-loop systems.

Aims To investigate circulating insulin profiles after a clinically relevant insulin pump basal rate increase vs a reduction, and the associated glucose responses. Methods A cohort of 12 adults with Type 1 diabetes undertook this two-stage university hospital study using Accu-Chek pumps (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) and insulin aspart. An insulin basal rate change of 0.2 unit/h (increase in first stage, reduction in second stage) was implemented at ~09:30 h, after a single overnight basal rate (without bolus insulin), while fasting participants rested. Frequent venous samples for the assessment of plasma free insulin, glucose and cortisol were collected from 60 min before until 300 min after rate change. The primary outcome was time to steady-state insulin. Results The 0.2-unit/h rate change represented a mean ± sd alteration of 23 ± 6%. After the rate increase, the median (interquartile range) times to 80% and 90% steady-state insulin were 170 (45) min and 197 (87) min, respectively. By contrast, after rate reduction, 80% steady-state insulin was not achieved. After the rate increase, mean ± se insulin levels increased by 4.3 ± 3.1%, 12.0 ± 2.9% and 25.6 ± 2.6% at 60, 120 and 300 min, respectively (with no significant difference until 180 min). After the rate reduction, insulin decreased by 8.3 ± 3.0% at 300 min (with no significant difference until 300 min). After rate reduction, glucose levels paradoxically declined by 17.4 ± 3.7% after 300 min; cortisol levels also fell during observation (P=0.0003). Conclusions The time to circulating insulin change after a 0.2-unit/h basal rate change was substantial, and was greater after a reduction than after an increase. Counter-regulatory hormone circadian variation may affect glycaemia when implementing minor changes at low basal rates. Both direction of basal rate change, and time of day, warrant consideration when anticipating the clinical effects of basal rate changes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

We compared glycemia, treatment satisfaction, sleep quality, and cognition using a nighttime Android-based hybrid closed-loop system (Android-HCLS) with sensor-augmented pump with low-glucose suspend function (SAP-LGS) in people with type 1 diabetes.An open-label, prospective, randomized crossover study of 16 adults (mean [SD] age 42.1 [9.6] years) and 12 adolescents (15.2 [1.6] years) was conducted. All participants completed four consecutive nights at home with Android-HCLS (proportional integral derivative with insulin feedback algorithm; Medtronic) and SAP-LGS.percent continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) time (00:00-08:00 h) within target range (72-144 mg/dL). Secondary endpoints: percent CGM time above target (144 mg/dL); below target (72 mg/dL); glycemic variability (SD); symptomatic hypoglycemia; adult treatment satisfaction; sleep quality; and cognitive function.The primary outcome for all participants was not statistically different between Android-HCLS and SAP-LGS (mean [SD] 59.4 [17.9]% vs. 53.1 [18]%; p = 0.14). Adults had greater percent time within target range (57.7 [18.6]% vs. 44.5 [14.5]%; p 0.006); less time above target (42.0 [18.7]% vs. 52.6 [16.5]%; p = 0.034); lower glycemic variability (35 [10.7] mg/dL vs. 46 [10.7] mg/dL; p = 0.003); and less (median [IQR]) time below target (0.0 [0.0-0.4]% vs. 0.80 [0.0-3.9]%; p = 0.025). In adolescents, time below target was lower with Android-HCLS vs. SAP-LGS (0.0 [0.0-0.0]% vs. 1.8 [0.1-7.9]%; p = 0.011). Nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia was less (1 vs. 10; p = 0.007) in adolescents, but not adults (5 vs. 13; p = 0.059). In adults, treatment satisfaction increased by 10 points (p 0.02). Sleep quality and cognition did not differ.Android-HCLS in both adults and adolescents reduced nocturnal hypoglycemia and, in adults, improved overnight time in target range and treatment satisfaction compared with SAP-LGS.

AIM: To compare the characteristics of and outcomes for people with malignancies with and without a co-diagnosis of diabetes. METHODS: Emergency department and hospital discharge data from a single centre for the period between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2017 were used to identify people with a diagnosis of a malignancy and diabetes. Multivariate Cox regression models were used to estimate the effect of diabetes on all-cause mortality. A truncated negative binomial regression model was used to assess the impact of diabetes on length of hospital inpatient stay. Prentice-Williams-Peterson total time models were used to assess the effect of diabetes on number of emergency department re-presentations and inpatient re-admissions. RESULTS: Of 7004 people identified with malignancies, 1195 (17.1%) were also diagnosed with diabetes. A diagnosis of diabetes was associated with a greater number of inpatient re-admissions [adjusted hazard ratio 1.13 (95% CI 1.03, 1.24)], a greater number of emergency department re-presentations [adjusted hazard ratio 1.13 (95% CI 1.05, 1.22)] and longer length of stay [adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.14 (95% CI 1.04, 1.25)]. A co-diagnosis of diabetes was also associated with a 48% increased risk of all-cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio 1.48 (95% CI 1.22-1.76)]. CONCLUSIONS: People with malignancies and diabetes had significantly more emergency department presentations, more inpatient admissions, longer length of hospital stay and higher rates of all-cause mortality compared to people with a malignancy without diabetes.

Objective: To document the characteristics and outcomes for patients with malignancies with or without diabetes at a tertiary referral hospital. Research Design and Methods: Emergency department and hospital discharge data between 1 Jan 2015 and 31 Dec 2017 were used to identify patients with a diagnosis of a malignancy and diabetes. Multivariate Cox-regression models were used to estimate the effect of diabetes on all-cause mortality. A truncated negative binomial regression model was used to assess the impact of diabetes on length of hospital inpatient stay. Prentice, Williams and Peterson Total Time (PWP-TT) models were used to assess the effect of diabetes on number of Emergency Department presentations and inpatient admissions. Results are presented as incidence-rate ratios (IRR) or hazard ratios (HR). These models were adjusted for age, gender, type of malignancy and Charlson comorbidities. Results: For 7,058 patients identified with malignancies, 1,230(17.4%) were also diagnosed with diabetes. During the three-year study period a diagnosis of diabetes was associated with an increased number of inpatient admissions (adjusted Hazard Ratio (adjHR): 1.14, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.25), increased number of emergency department presentations (adjHR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.28) and length of stay for patients with diabetes (adjIRR: 1.16, 95% C.I: 1.06, 1.28). A co-diagnosis of diabetes was also associated with a 48% increased risk of all-cause mortality (adjHR 1.48, 95% CI: 1.23-1.77). Conclusions: Patients with diabetes had significantly higher numbers of emergency department presentations, inpatient admissions, length of hospital stay and higher rates of all-cause mortality compared to cancer patients without diabetes. This adverse link between diabetes and health outcomes in patients with malignancies requires further exploration. Disclosure K.V. Kiburg: None. G. Ward: None. K.M. Steele: None. E.M. Mulrooney: None. M.M. Loh: None. S. McLachlan: None. V. Sundararajan: None. R. MacIsaac: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk Inc. Other Relationship; Self; AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk Inc. Funding Australian Government Research Training Program (to K.V.K.)

Background: A missed or late meal insulin bolus can impact glycemia in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Aim: To study glucose control after missed and late meal boluses in T1D adults using a prototype enhanced hybrid closed-loop (E-HCL) system (Medtronic) providing automated basal insulin and correction boluses. Methods: Twelve T1D adults (median HbA1c 6.8% [IQR 6.2-7.2] | 51mmol/mol [44-55] participated. After 1-week run-in at home in Open Loop, E-HCL was activated during 1-week supervised hotel phase followed by 3 weeks free-living at-home. Participants consumed a standardized 40g carbohydrate dinner in the supervised phase. Four hours of post-prandial glucose data following a standard bolus pre-meal in E-HCL at home were compared in a pairwise manner to 1) Pre-meal bolus in Open Loop Run-In; 2) 20minute Late bolus in E-HCL supervised; 3) Missed bolus in E-HCL supervised using Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. Results: Late bolus was associated with mild hypoglycemia and higher glucose variability; missed bolus was associated with hyperglycemia (Table). Overall time in CL was 99.98%. E-HCL at home vs. Open Loop (run-in) had greater time-in-70-180mg/dL range (85.3 vs. 75.0%, p=0.003). There was no severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis. Conclusions: While glucose excursions were modest, the administration and timing of meal boluses influenced post-meal glycemia in well-controlled T1D adults using E-HCL. Disclosure M.H. Lee: Research Support; Self; Medtronic. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca. S. Vogrin: None. B. Paldus: Other Relationship; Self; Australian Diabetes Society, JDRF, Medtronic. H. Jones: None. V.R. Obeyesekere: None. C.M. Sims: Stock/Shareholder; Self; Medtronic. S.A. Wyatt: Other Relationship; Self; Animas Corporation, Medtronic. G.M. Ward: None. S.A. McAuley: Research Support; Self; JDRF, Medtronic. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Australian Diabetes Society, Eli Lilly and Company. R. MacIsaac: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk Inc. Other Relationship; Self; AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk Inc. B. Krishnamurthy: None. V. Sundararajan: None. A. Jenkins: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott, Australian Diabetes Society, Medtronic. Research Support; Self; Abbott, GlySens Incorporated, Medtronic, Mylan. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc. D.N. O'Neal: None.

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of empagliflozin 10- and 25-mg doses plus a unique lower dose (2.5 mg) as adjunct to intensified insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).The EASE (Empagliflozin as Adjunctive to inSulin thErapy) program (The observed largest mean placebo-subtracted glycated hemoglobin reductions were -0.28% (95% CI -0.42, -0.15) for 2.5 mg, -0.54% (-0.65, -0.42) for 10 mg, and -0.53% (-0.65, -0.42) for 25 mg (allEmpagliflozin improved glycemic control and weight in T1D without increasing hypoglycemia. Ketoacidosis rate was comparable between empagliflozin 2.5 mg and placebo but increased with 10 mg and 25 mg. Ketone monitoring for early ketoacidosis detection and intervention and lower empagliflozin doses may help to reduce this risk.

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of exercise, vs rest, on circulating insulin and glucose, following pre-exercise insulin pump basal rate reduction. This was an open-label, two-stage randomised crossover study of 14 adults (seven women, seven men) with type 1 diabetes established on insulin pump therapy. In each stage, participants fasted and insulin delivery was halved following a single insulin basal rate overnight. Exercise (30 min moderate-intensity stationary bicycle exercise, starting 60 min post-basal reduction) and rest stages were undertaken in random order at a university hospital. Randomisation was computer-generated, and allocation concealed via sequentially numbered sealed opaque envelopes. Venous blood was collected at 15 min intervals from 60 min pre- until 210 min post-basal rate reduction. Changes in plasma free insulin (the primary outcome), and changes in plasma glucose, with exercise were compared with changes when resting. Outcomes were assessed blinded to group assignment. Following basal rate reduction when rested, mean (± SE) free insulin decreased by 4.9 ± 2.9%, 16.2 ± 2.6% and 18.6 ± 3.2% at 1, 2 and 3 h, respectively (p

Background: Orthogonal redundancy for glucose sensing (multiple sensing elements utilizing distinct methodologies) may enhance performance compared to nonredundant sensors, and to sensors with multiple elements utilizing the same technology (simple redundancy). We compared the performance of a prototype orthogonal redundant sensor (ORS) combining optical fluorescence and redundant electrochemical sensing via a single insertion platform to an electrochemical simple redundant sensor (SRS). Methods: Twenty-one adults with type 1 diabetes wore an ORS and an SRS concurrently for 7 days. Following sensor insertion, and on Day 4 with a standardized meal, frequent venous samples were collected for reference glucose measurement (laboratory [YSI] and meter) over 3 and 4 hours, respectively. Between study visits reference capillary blood glucose testing was undertaken. Sensor data were processed prospectively. Results: ORS mean absolute relative difference (MARD) was (mean ± SD) 10.5 ± 13.2% versus SRS 11.0 ± 10.4% ( P = .34). ORS values in Clarke error grid zones A and A+B were 88.1% and 97.6%, respectively, versus SRS 86.4% and 97.8%, respectively ( P = .23 and P = .84). ORS Day 1 MARD (10.7 ± 10.7%) was superior to SRS (16.5 ± 13.4%; P < .0001), and comparable to ORS MARD for the week. ORS sensor survival (time-averaged mean) was 92.1% versus SRS 74.4% ( P = .10). ORS display time (96.0 ± 5.8%) was equivalent to SRS (95.6 ± 8.9%; P = .87). Conclusions: Combining simple and orthogonal sensor redundancy via a single insertion is feasible, with accuracy comparing favorably to current generation nonredundant sensors. Addition of an optical component potentially improves sensor reliability compared to electrochemical sensing alone. Further improvement in optical sensing performance is required prior to clinical application.

Background: Hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin delivery with the Medtronic MiniMed 670G system is safe and effective in improving glycemia for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Aims: To compare glucose control, CL exits and alarm frequency with standard HCL vs. enhanced HCL (eHCL) systems. Methods: Pump experienced adults with T1D (n=11; 9 women; mean[SD] age: 51[15]Y; HbA1c 7.5[1.0]%) were assigned in random order HCL and eHCL for 1 week each in a supervised live-in setting. eHCL incorporated enhanced bolus reminders and iterative changes broadening glucose and insulin delivery parameters permitting persistence in CL. For both HCL and eHCL insulin delivery was by a Medtronic pump with identical interventions (missed bolus, exercise, high GI and high fat meals), insulin action times and insulin-carbohydrate ratios implemented. The primary outcome was CGM time in target range. Results: eHCL resulted in fewer CL alerts and exits. Time in target and mean glucose favored eHCL but did not reach significance (Table). No episodes of severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred. Conclusions: Iterative changes to the Medtronic HCL system resulted in trends towards improved glycemia, fewer CL exits and alerts without compromising safety, despite multiple food and exercise challenges during the study periods. Longer term studies at home are required to confirm these findings. Table: All results are Mean (SD); *NS= Not Significant.HCL (n=11)eHCL (n=11)pInsulin DeliveryTotal daily insulin (units/day)44 (18)47 (24)NS*Daily basal (%)55 (8)55 (7)NS*Daily bolus (%)45 (8)45 (7)NS*Daily insulin to carbohydrate ratio9.6 (3.1)9.6 (3.1)NS*Insulin action time (hrs)3.7 (0.6)3.7 (0.6)NS*Glucose Metrics% time in 70-180mg/dL69 (11)74 (10)0.16Mean sensor glucose (mg/dL)160 (13)151 (11)0.091Time 180mg/dL (%)29 (11)24 (9)0.37Time >250mg/dL (%)7.3 (5.6)6.1 (4.7)0.48Algorithm related Alerts and Dropout Alerts (n/week)8.6 (5.8)3.9 (2.8)0.01CL exits (n/week)3.5 (3.1)0 (0)0.004 Disclosure B. Paldus: None. M.H. Lee: None. H. Jones: None. S.A. McAuley: Research Support; Self; JDRF. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc., Australian Diabetes Society. J.C. Horsburgh: None. K.L. Roem: None. G. Ward: None. R. MacIsaac: None. N. Cohen: None. P.G. Colman: None. A. Jenkins: Research Support; Self; Medtronic, Mylan, Sanofi-Aventis. D.N. O'Neal: Research Support; Self; Medtronic MiniMed, Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Medtronic MiniMed, Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Medtronic MiniMed, Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Research Support; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Sanofi. Research Support; Self; Sanofi.

IntroductionManual determination of insulin dosing largely fails to optimise glucose control in type 1 diabetes. Automated insulin delivery via closed-loop systems has improved glucose control in short-term studies. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of 6 months’ closed-loop compared with manually determined insulin dosing on time-in-target glucose range in adults with type 1 diabetes.Methods and analysisThis open-label, seven-centre, randomised controlled parallel group clinical trial will compare home-based hybrid closed-loop versus standard diabetes therapy in Australia. Adults aged ≥25 years with type 1 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy (via multiple daily injections or insulin pump, total enrolment target n=120) will undertake a run-in period including diabetes and carbohydrate-counting education, clinical optimisation and baseline data collection. Participants will then be randomised 1:1 either to 26 weeks of MiniMed 670G hybrid closed-loop system therapy (Medtronic, Northridge, CA, USA) or continuation of their current diabetes therapy. The hybrid closed-loop system delivers insulin automatically to address basal requirements and correct to target glucose level, while bolus doses for meals require user initiation and carbohydrate estimation. Analysis will be intention to treat, with the primary outcome time in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) target range (3.9–10.0 mmol/L) during the final 3 weeks of intervention. Secondary outcomes include: other CGM parameters, HbA1c, severe hypoglycaemia, psychosocial well-being, sleep, cognition, electrocardiography, costs, quality of life, biomarkers of vascular health and hybrid closed-loop system performance. Semistructured interviews will assess the expectations and experiences of a subgroup of hybrid closed-loop users.Ethics and disseminationThe study has Human Research Ethics Committee approval. The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Results will be disseminated at scientific conferences and via peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberNCT12617000520336.

Background This study assesses the autonomic function of patients who have regained awareness of hypoglycaemia following islet cell or whole pancreas transplant. Methods Five patients with type 1 diabetes and either islet cell (four patients) or whole pancreas (one patient) transplant were assessed. These patients were age-matched and gender-matched to five patients with type 1 diabetes without transplant and preserved hypoglycaemia awareness and five healthy control participants without diabetes. All participants underwent (i) a battery of five cardiovascular autonomic function tests, (ii) quantitative sudomotor axonal reflex testing, and (iii) sympathetic skin response testing. Results Total recorded hypoglycaemia episodes per month fell from 76 pre-transplant to 13 at 0- to 3-month post-transplant (83% reduction). The percentage of hypoglycaemia episodes that patients were unaware of decreased from 97 to 69% at 0–3 months (p