Search

Background: Optimization of automated insulin delivery (AID) settings is required to achieve desirable glycemic outcomes. We evaluated safety and efficacy of a computerized system to initialize and adjust insulin delivery settings for the t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D)., Methods: After a 2-week continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) run-in period, adults with T1D using multiple daily injections (MDI) (N = 33, mean age 36.1 years, 57.6% female, diabetes duration 19.7 years) were transitioned to 13 weeks of Control-IQ technology usage. A computerized algorithm generated recommendations for initial pump settings (basal rate, insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio, and correction factor) and weekly follow-up settings to optimize glycemic outcomes. Physicians could override the automated settings changes for safety concerns., Results: Time in range 70 to 180 mg/dL improved from 45.7% during run-in to 69.1% during the last 30 days of Control-IQ use, a median improvement of 18.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.6-23.9, P < .001). This improvement was evident early in the study and was sustained over 13 weeks. Time <70 mg/dL showed a gradual decreasing trend over time. Percentage of participants achieving HbA1c <7% went from zero at baseline to 55% at study end ( P < .001). Only six of the 318 automated settings adaptations (1.9%) were overridden by study investigators., Conclusions: Computerized initiation and adaptation of Control-IQ technology settings from baseline MDI therapy was safe in adults with T1D. The use of this simplified system for onboarding and optimizing Control-IQ technology may be useful to increase uptake of AID and reduce staff and patient burden in clinical care., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: VNS has received research grants through University of Colorado from Tandem Diabetes Care, Insulet, NovoNordisk, Alexion, JDRF and NIH. He has received fees through University of Colorado for speaking or consulting work for Dexcom, Insulet, Tandem Diabetes Care, Embecta, NovoNordisk and Medscape. HKA has received research grants through University of Colorado from Tandem Diabetes Care, Medtronic, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Mannkind. He has received consulting fees through University of Colorado from Tandem Diabetes Care, Medtronic and Dexcom. AT, NP, AW, ES, KC, LM, KW, LF, RSK, LM, SH, AC, and JEP are employees of Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.

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.

Objective: Artificial pancreas (AP) systems are best positioned for optimal treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and are currently being tested in outpatient clinical trials. Our consortium developed and tested a novel adaptive AP in an outpatient, single-arm, uncontrolled multicenter clinical trial lasting 12 weeks., Research Design and Methods: Thirty adults with T1D completed a continuous glucose monitor (CGM)-augmented 1-week sensor-augmented pump (SAP) period. After the AP was started, basal insulin delivery settings used by the AP for initialization were adapted weekly, and carbohydrate ratios were adapted every 4 weeks by an algorithm running on a cloud-based server, with automatic data upload from devices. Adaptations were reviewed by expert study clinicians and patients. The primary end point was change in hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ). Outcomes are reported adhering to consensus recommendations on reporting of AP trials., Results: Twenty-nine patients completed the trial. HbA 1c , 7.0 ± 0.8% at the start of AP use, improved to 6.7 ± 0.6% after 12 weeks (-0.3, 95% CI -0.5 to -0.2, P < 0.001). Compared with the SAP run-in, CGM time spent in the hypoglycemic range improved during the day from 5.0 to 1.9% (-3.1, 95% CI -4.1 to -2.1, P < 0.001) and overnight from 4.1 to 1.1% (-3.1, 95% CI -4.2 to -1.9, P < 0.001). Whereas carbohydrate ratios were adapted to a larger extent initially with minimal changes thereafter, basal insulin was adapted throughout. Approximately 10% of adaptation recommendations were manually overridden. There were no protocol-related serious adverse events., Conclusions: Use of our novel adaptive AP yielded significant reductions in HbA 1c and hypoglycemia., (© 2017 by the American Diabetes Association.)