Closed-loop control (CLC) for the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a novel method for optimizing glucose control, and strategies for individualized implementation are being developed. To analyze glycemic control in an overnight CLC system designed to "reset" the patient to near-normal glycemic targets every morning. Randomized, crossover, multicenter clinical trial. Forty-four subjects with T1D requiring insulin pump therapy. Sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAP) at home vs 5 nights of CLC (active from 23:00 to 07:00) in a supervised outpatient setting (research house or hotel), with a substudy of 5 nights of CLC subsequently at home. The percentage of time spent in the target range (70 to 180 mg/dL measured using a continuous glucose monitor). Forty subjects (age, 45.5 ± 9.5 years; hemoglobin A1c, 7.4% ± 0.8%) completed the study. The time in the target range (70 to 180 mg/dL) significantly improved in CLC vs SAP over 24 hours (78.3% vs 71.4%; P = 0.003) and overnight (85.7% vs 67.6%; P < 0.001). The time spent in a hypoglycemic range (<70 mg/dL) decreased significantly in the CLC vs SAP group over 24 hours (2.5% vs 4.3%; P = 0.002) and overnight (0.9% vs 3.2%; P < 0.001). The mean glucose level at 07:00 was lower with CLC than with SAP (123.7 vs 145.3 mg/dL; P < 0.001). The substudy at home, involving 10 T1D subjects, showed similar trends with an increased time in target (70 to 180 mg/dL) overnight (75.2% vs 62.2%; P = 0.07) and decreased time spent in the hypoglycemic range (<70 mg/dL) overnight in CLC vs SAP (0.6% vs 3.7%; P = 0.03). Overnight-only CLC increased the time in the target range over 24 hours and decreased the time in hypoglycemic range over 24 hours in a supervised outpatient setting. A pilot extension study at home showed a similar nonsignificant trend.
Use of artificial pancreas (AP) requires seamless interaction of device components, such as continuous glucose monitor (CGM), insulin pump, and control algorithm. Mobile AP configurations also include a smartphone as computational hub and gateway to cloud applications (e.g., remote monitoring and data review and analysis). This International Diabetes Closed-Loop study was designed to demonstrate and evaluate the operation of the inControl AP using different CGMs and pump modalities without changes to the user interface, user experience, and underlying controller.Forty-three patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) were enrolled at 10 clinical centers (7 United States, 3 Europe) and 41 were included in the analyses (39% female, >95% non-Hispanic white, median T1D duration 16 years, median HbA1c 7.4%). Two CGMs and two insulin pumps were tested by different study participants/sites using the same system hub (a smartphone) during 2 weeks of in-home use.The major difference between the system components was the stability of their wireless connections with the smartphone. The two sensors achieved similar rates of connectivity as measured by percentage time in closed loop (75% and 75%); however, the two pumps had markedly different closed-loop adherence (66% vs. 87%). When connected, all system configurations achieved similar glycemic outcomes on AP control (73% [mean] time in range: 70-180 mg/dL, and 1.7% [median] time <70 mg/dL).CGMs and insulin pumps can be interchangeable in the same Mobile AP system, as long as these devices achieve certain levels of reliability and wireless connection stability.
Background: Data are limited on the need for and benefits of pump setting optimization with automated insulin delivery. We examined clinical management of a closed-loop control (CLC) system and its relationship to glycemic outcomes. Materials and Methods: We analyzed personal parameter adjustments in 168 participants in a 6-month multicenter trial of CLC with Control-IQ versus sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. Preset parameters (BR = basal rates, CF = correction factors, CR = carbohydrate ratios) were optimized at randomization, 2 and 13 weeks, for safety issues, participant concerns, or initiation by participants' usual diabetes care team. Time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was compared in the week before and after parameter changes. Results: In 607 encounters for parameter changes, there were fewer adjustments for CLC than SAP (3.4 vs. 4.1/participant). Adjustments involved BR (CLC 69%, SAP 80%), CR (CLC 68%, SAP 50%), CF (CLC 44%, SAP 41%), and overnight parameters (CLC 62%, SAP 75%). TIR before and after adjustments was 71.2% and 71.3% for CLC and 61.0% and 62.9% for SAP. The highest baseline HbA1c CLC subgroup had the largest TIR improvement (51.2% vs. 57.7%). When a CR was made more aggressive in the CLC group, postprandial time >180 mg/dL was 43.1% before the change and 36.0% after the change. The median postprandial time <70 mg/dL before making CR less aggressive was 1.8%, and after the change was 0.7%. Conclusions: No difference in TIR was detected with parameter changes overall, but they may have an effect in higher HbA1c subgroups or following user-directed boluses, suggesting that changes may matter more in suboptimal control or during discrete periods of the day. Clinical Trials Registration number: NCT03563313.
OBJECTIVE Limited information is available about glycemic outcomes with a closed-loop control (CLC) system compared with a predictive low-glucose suspend (PLGS) system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS After 6 months of use of a CLC system in a randomized trial, 109 participants with type 1 diabetes (age range, 14–72 years; mean HbA1c, 7.1% [54 mmol/mol]) were randomly assigned to CLC (N = 54, Control-IQ) or PLGS (N = 55, Basal-IQ) groups for 3 months. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitor (CGM)-measured time in range (TIR) for 70–180 mg/dL. Baseline CGM metrics were computed from the last 3 months of the preceding study. RESULTS All 109 participants completed the study. Mean ± SD TIR was 71.1 ± 11.2% at baseline and 67.6 ± 12.6% using intention-to-treat analysis (69.1 ± 12.2% using per-protocol analysis excluding periods of study-wide suspension of device use) over 13 weeks on CLC vs. 70.0 ± 13.6% and 60.4 ± 17.1% on PLGS (difference = 5.9%; 95% CI 3.6%, 8.3%; P < 0.001). Time >180 mg/dL was lower in the CLC group than PLGS group (difference = −6.0%; 95% CI −8.4%, −3.7%; P < 0.001) while time <54 mg/dL was similar (0.04%; 95% CI −0.05%, 0.13%; P = 0.41). HbA1c after 13 weeks was lower on CLC than PLGS (7.2% [55 mmol/mol] vs. 7.5% [56 mmol/mol], difference −0.34% [−3.7 mmol/mol]; 95% CI −0.57% [−6.2 mmol/mol], −0.11% [1.2 mmol/mol]; P = 0.0035). CONCLUSIONS Following 6 months of CLC, switching to PLGS reduced TIR and increased HbA1c toward their pre-CLC values, while hypoglycemia remained similarly reduced with both CLC and PLGS.
<p dir="ltr">Objective: To examine the efficacy and safety of the tubeless Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System compared with pump therapy with a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) in adults with type 1 diabetes with suboptimal glycemic outcomes. Research Design and Methods: In this 13-week multicenter, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial in the United States and France, adults aged 18-70 years with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c 7-11% (53-97mmol/mol) were randomly assigned (2:1) to intervention (tubeless AID) or control (pump therapy with CGM) following a two-week standard therapy period. The primary outcome was a treatment group comparison of time in range (TIR; 70-180mg/dL) during the trial period. Results: A total of 194 participants were randomized; 132 to intervention and 62 to control. TIR during the trial was (mean difference (95% CI)) 17.5% (14.0%, 21.1%) (4.2 hours per day) higher in the intervention compared with the control arm (P<0.0001). The intervention arm had a greater reduction in HbA1c from baseline compared with control (mean±SD) (-1.24±0.75% [-13.6±8.2mmol/mol] vs. -0.68±0.93% [-7.4±10.2mmol/mol], respectively) (P<0.0001), accompanied by significantly lower time <70mg/dL (1.18±0.86% vs. 1.75±1.68%, P=0·005) and >180mg/dL (37.6±11.4% vs. 54.5±15.4%, P<0.0001). All primary and secondary outcomes were met. No instances of diabetes-related ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred in the intervention arm. Conclusions: Use of the tubeless AID system led to improved glycemic outcomes compared with pump therapy with CGM among adults with type 1 diabetes, underscoring the clinical benefit of AID and bolstering recommendations to establish AID systems as preferred therapy for this population.</p>
Using a closed loop system significantly improves time in range (TIR) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). In a 6-month RCT, 112 subjects were assigned to closed-loop control (Tandem Control-IQ) after obtaining two weeks of baseline CGM data from sensor-augmented pump therapy. We compared glycemic outcomes from baseline to end of study among subgroups classified by baseline HbA1C level. Participants’ mean age was 33±16 (range 14-71 yrs) and mean baseline HbA1C was 7.4±1.0 (range 5.4% to 10.6%). All HbA1c subgroups showed an improvement in TIR due to reduction of both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia (Table). Those with HbA1c <6.5% improved mostly by reducing nocturnal (MN to 6 AM) hypoglycemia. Those with HbA1c ≥8.5% improved mostly by reducing daytime and nocturnal hyperglycemia. Participants with lower HbA1c at baseline reduced their overnight hypoglycemia the most, likely due to the system’s automated basal insulin adjustment. For those with higher HbA1c at baseline, increased TIR came mostly from hyperglycemia reduction, likely due to automated basal insulin adjustment in day and night. These participants likely also benefitted from hourly automatic correction boluses during the day. All HbA1c subgroups benefitted from automated insulin delivery. Disclosure L. Ekhlaspour: None. D. Raghinaru: None. J. Lum: None. S.A. Brown: Research Support; Self; Dexcom, Inc., Insulet Corporation, Roche Diabetes Care, Tandem Diabetes Care, Tolerion, Inc. B.A. Buckingham: Advisory Panel; Self; ConvaTec Inc., Medtronic. Research Support; Self; Beta Bionics, Inc., Dexcom, Inc., Insulet Corporation, Medtronic, Tandem Diabetes Care. Funding National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (UC4108483); University of Virginia; Tandem Diabetes Care
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.
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.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.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.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.
The Omnipod 5 System is a novel hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system with full on-body operation. A tubeless insulin pump containing a personalized MPC algorithm communicates directly with a Dexcom G6 CGM to automate insulin delivery. Following demonstration of positive safety and efficacy in older children (≥6y) and adults, we evaluated the system in very young children (2-5.9y) with T1D. Preschoolers with T1D often have erratic eating behaviors and may dislike being tethered to devices, and parental concern may lead to permissive hyperglycemia. This HCL system may be ideal for young children, given its customizable glucose targets from 110-150mg/dL, wireless system interaction through a mobile application, and bolus calculator that incorporates CGM trend information. Also, the system has no minimum weight or total daily dose (TDD) requirement. Participants with T1D and A1C<10% used their respective standard therapies (ST) for 14d, and then transitioned to use of the HCL system for 3mo. Primary safety outcomes are the incidence of severe hypoglycemia (SH) and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Primary effectiveness outcomes are change in A1C and percent of time in target range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) with the HCL system compared with ST. Baseline characteristics of participants (N=80) were (mean±SD) age 4±1y (range 2-5y), T1D duration 2.2±1.1y, and A1C 7.4±0.9%, with mean (range) TDD 13.7 (5.3-27.1) U/day and weight 20 (12-53) kg. There have been no serious adverse events, including SH and DKA, reported in over 5,254 person-days of HCL use. During the ST phase, TIR was 57.2±15.1%, time <54mg/dL was 0.8±1.7%, <70mg/dL was 3.4±3.9%, >180mg/dL was 39.4±16.5%, and ≥250mg/dL was 14.7±12.0%. The same efficacy analysis is planned for the 3-month HCL phase upon its completion in January 2021. This multi-center pivotal study has, to date, demonstrated safety of the Omnipod 5 System in very young children with T1D. At completion, this will be the largest study of HCL in this age group reported to date. Disclosure J. Sherr: Advisory Panel; Self; Cecelia Health, Insulet Corporation, Medtronic, Consultant; Self; Insulet Corporation, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lilly Diabetes, Medtronic, Research Support; Self; Dexcom, Inc., Insulet Corporation, Medtronic, Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Lilly Diabetes. D. W. Hansen: None. T. T. Ly: Employee; Self; Insulet Corporation. Omnipod 5 in preschoolers study group: n/a. B. W. Bode: Advisory Panel; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Consultant; Self; Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc., Companion Medical, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Medtronic, Novo Nordisk Inc., Zealand Pharma A/S, Research Support; Self; Abvance Therapeutics, Dexcom, Inc., Diasome Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dompe, Eli Lilly and Company, Eyenuk, Inc., Insulet Corporation, Jaeb Center for Health Research, Medtronic, Nova Biomedical, Novo Nordisk, Provention Bio, Inc., REMD Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Senseonics, Viacyte, Inc., vTv Therapeutics, Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Speaker’s Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, MannKind Corporation, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Stock/Shareholder; Self; AgaMatrix, Aseko, Inc., Glytec, LLC. G. P. Forlenza: Advisory Panel; Self; Medtronic, Consultant; Self; Beta Bionics, Inc., Dexcom, Inc., Insulet Corporation, Tandem Diabetes Care, Research Support; Self; Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Inc., Insulet Corporation, Medtronic, Tandem Diabetes Care. L. M. Laffel: Consultant; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Dexcom, Inc., Dompe, Insulogic LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Laxmi Therapeutic Devices, LifeScan, Lilly Diabetes, Medtronic, Provention Bio, Inc. S. A. Brown: Research Support; Self; Dexcom, Inc., Insulet Corporation, Roche Diabetes Care, Tandem Diabetes Care, Tolerion, Inc. B. A. Buckingham: Advisory Panel; Self; Medtronic, Tolerion, Inc., Research Support; Self; Beta Bionics, Inc., Insulet Corporation, Medtronic, Tandem Diabetes Care. A. B. Criego: Consultant; Self; Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc., Other Relationship; Self; Sanofi, Research Support; Self; Abbott Diabetes, Eli Lilly and Company, Insulet Corporation, Medtronic. D. Desalvo: Consultant; Self; Insulet Corporation, Research Support; Self; Insulet Corporation, Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Dexcom, Inc. S. A. Macleish: Advisory Panel; Self; Insulet Corporation. Funding Insulet Corporation
