Variability of Insulin Requirements Over 12 Weeks of Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify variability of insulin requirements during closed-loop insulin delivery. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed overnight, daytime, and total daily insulin amounts delivered during a multicenter closed-loop trial involving 32 adults with type 1 diabetes. Participants applied hybrid day-and-night closed-loop insulin delivery under free-living home conditions over 12 weeks. The coefficient of variation was adopted to measure variability of insulin requirements in individual subjects. RESULTS: Data were analyzed from 1,918 nights, 1,883 daytime periods and 1,564 total days characterized by closed-loop use over 85% of time. Variability of overnight insulin requirements (mean [SD] coefficient of variation 31% [4]) was nearly twice as high as variability of total daily requirements (17% [3], P < 0.001) and was also higher than variability of daytime insulin requirements (22% [4], P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Overnight insulin requirements were significantly more variable than daytime and total daily amounts. This may explain why some people with type 1 diabetes report frustrating variability in morning glycemia.Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union (ICT FP7- 247138). Additional support for the Artificial Pancreas work by JDRF, National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre and Wellcome Strategic Award (100574/Z/12/Z). Abbott Diabetes Care supplied discounted continuous glucose monitoring devices, sensors, and communication protocol to facilitate real-time connectivity. We acknowledge support by the staff at the Addenbrooke’s Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility. Jasdip Mangat and John Lum (Jaeb Center) supported development and validation of the closed-loop system. Josephine Hayes (University of Cambridge) provided administrative support. Karen Whitehead (University of Cambridge) provided laboratory support. We acknowledge support by the staff at Profil Institut; Krisztina Schmitz-Grozs provided support as a research physician, Martina Haase supported the study as an insulin pump expert, and Maren Luebkert, Kirstin Kuschma and Elke Przetak provided administrative, coordinating and documentation support.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the American Diabetes Association via http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc15-262

Assessing the effectiveness of 3 months day and night home closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a randomised crossover study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite therapeutic advances, many people with type 1 diabetes are still unable to achieve optimal glycaemic control, limited by the occurrence of hypoglycaemia. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of day and night home closed-loop over the medium term compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycaemic control. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will adopt an open label, three-centre, multinational, randomised, two-period crossover study design comparing automated closed-loop glucose control with sensor augmented insulin pump therapy. The study will aim for 30 completed participants. Eligible participants will be adults (≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy and suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)≥7.5% (58 mmol/mmol) and ≤10% (86 mmol/mmol)). Following a 4-week optimisation period, participants will undergo a 3-month use of automated closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy, with a 4-6 week washout period in between. The order of the interventions will be random. All analysis will be conducted on an intention to treat basis. The primary outcome is the time spent in the target glucose range from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L based on continuous glucose monitoring levels during the 3 months free living phase. Secondary outcomes include HbA1c changes; mean glucose and time spent above and below target glucose levels. Further, participants will be invited at baseline, midpoint and study end to participate in semistructured interviews and complete questionnaires to explore usability and acceptance of the technology, impact on quality of life and fear of hypoglycaemia. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained at all sites. Before screening, all participants will be provided with oral and written information about the trial. The study will be disseminated by peer-review publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01961622 (ClinicalTrials.gov)

Day and night home closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes: three-center randomized crossover study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of day and night closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes under free-living conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Seventeen adults with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy (means ± SD age 34 ± 9 years, HbA1c 7.6 ± 0.8%, and duration of diabetes 19 ± 9 years) participated in an open-label multinational three-center crossover study. In a random order, participants underwent two 8-day periods (first day at the clinical research facility followed by 7 days at home) of sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy (SAP) or automated closed-loop insulin delivery. The primary end point was the time when sensor glucose was in target range between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L during the 7-day home phase. RESULTS: During the home phase, the percentage of time when glucose was in target range was significantly higher during closed-loop compared with SAP (median 75% [interquartile range 61-79] vs. 62% [53-70], P = 0.005). Mean glucose (8.1 vs. 8.8 mmol/L, P = 0.027) and time spent above target (P = 0.013) were lower during closed loop, while time spent below target was comparable (P = 0.339). Increased time in target was observed during both daytime (P = 0.017) and nighttime (P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SAP, 1 week of closed-loop insulin delivery at home reduces mean glucose and increases time in target without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia in adults with relatively well-controlled type 1 diabetes.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version can be found published here: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/37/7/1931.abstract

Day and night closed-loop control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a comparison of two closed-loop algorithms driving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus patient self-management.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two validated closed-loop (CL) algorithms versus patient self-control with CSII in terms of glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was a multicenter, randomized, three-way crossover, open-label trial in 48 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus for at least 6 months, treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Blood glucose was controlled for 23 h by the algorithm of the Universities of Pavia and Padova with a Safety Supervision Module developed at the Universities of Virginia and California at Santa Barbara (international artificial pancreas [iAP]), by the algorithm of University of Cambridge (CAM), or by patients themselves in open loop (OL) during three hospital admissions including meals and exercise. The main analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Main outcome measures included time spent in target (glucose levels between 3.9 and 8.0 mmol/L or between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L after meals). RESULTS: Time spent in the target range was similar in CL and OL: 62.6% for OL, 59.2% for iAP, and 58.3% for CAM. While mean glucose level was significantly lower in OL (7.19, 8.15, and 8.26 mmol/L, respectively) (overall P = 0.001), percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) was almost threefold reduced during CL (6.4%, 2.1%, and 2.0%) (overall P = 0.001) with less time ≤2.8 mmol/L (overall P = 0.038). There were no significant differences in outcomes between algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: Both CAM and iAP algorithms provide safe glycemic control

Patch pump versus conventional pump: postprandial glycemic excursions and the influence of wear time.

The aim of this study was to compare blood glucose and plasma insulin profiles after bolus insulin infusion by a patch pump (PP) versus a conventional pump (CP), directly after placement and after Day 3 of use. Twenty patients with type 1 diabetes came in for two blocks of visits: one block of two visits while wearing the OmniPod® (Insulet Corp., Bedford, MA) insulin pump (PP) and one block of two visits while wearing the Medtronic Diabetes (Northridge, CA) Paradigm® pump (CP). Patients administered an identical mealtime insulin bolus of at least 6 IU. For PP, maximum glucose levels were 28.7% lower on Day 3 (P=0.020), when maximum insulin levels were 30.3% higher (P=0.002). For CP, maximum glucose levels were 26.5% lower on Day 3 (P=0.015), when maximum insulin levels were 46.4% higher (P=0.003). Glucose levels (mean [interquartile range]) were significantly lower on Day 3 for PP (168.2 [145.8] mg/dL vs. 139.4 [77.8] mg/dL; P=0.013), but not significantly so for CP (159.0 [66.1] mg/dL vs. 139.5 [57.9] mg/dL; P=0.084). Mean insulin levels were significantly higher on Day 3 for CP (195 [120] pmol/L vs. 230 [90] pmol/L; P=0.01), but not significantly so for PP (178 [106] pmol/L vs. 194 [120] pmol/L; P=0.099). There were no significant differences between the two catheter lengths. Postprandial glycemic excursions were lower on Day 3 of catheter wear time, but there were no differences between PPs and CPs. These findings support the proposal that catheter wear time plays an important role in insulin absorptio

Real-Time Improvement of Continuous Glucose-Monitoring Accuracy - The smart sensor concept

OBJECTIVEdReliability of continuous glucose-monitoring (CGM) sensors is key in several applications. In this work we demonstrate that real-time algorithms can render CGM sensors smarter by reducing their uncertainty and inaccuracy and improving their ability to alert for Q:1 hypo- and hyperglycemic events. RESEARCH DESIGN ANDMETHODSdThe smart CGM (sCGM) sensor concept consists of a commercial CGM sensor whose output enters three software modules, able to work in real time, for denoising, enhancement, and prediction. These three software modules were reQ: 2 cently presented in the CGM literature and here we apply them to the Dexcom SEVEN Plus continuous glucose monitor. We assessed the performance of the sCGM on data collected in two trials, each containing 12 patients with type 1 diabetes. RESULTSdThe denoising module improves the smoothness of the CGM time series by an average of ;57%, the enhancement module reduces the mean absolute relative difference from 15.1 to 10.3%, increases by 12.6% the pairs of values falling in the A-zone of the Clarke error grid, and finally, the prediction module forecasts hypo- and hyperglycemic events an average of 14 min ahead of time. CONCLUSIONSdWe have introduced and implemented the sCGM sensor concept. Analysis of data from 24 patients demonstrates that incorporation of suitable real-time signal processing algorithms for denoising, enhancement, and prediction can significantly improve the performance of CGM applications. This can be of great clinical impact for hypo- and hyperglycemic alert generation as well in artificial pancreas device

Psychological outcomes of evening and night closed-loop insulin delivery under free living conditions in people with Type 1 diabetes: a 2-month randomized crossover trial

To assess the impact on fear of hypoglycaemia and treatment satisfaction with an artificial pancreas system used for 2 consecutive months, as well as participant acceptance of the artificial pancreas system. In a randomized crossover trial patient-related outcomes associated with an evening-and-night artificial pancreas and sensor-augmented pump therapy were compared. Both intervention periods lasted 8 weeks. The artificial pancreas acceptance questionnaire (range 0-90, higher scores better), Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey II (range 0-72, higher scores worse) and Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (range 0-36, higher scores better) were completed by 32 participants. Semi-structured interviews were conducted after study completion in a subset of six participants. Outcomes were compared using a repeated-measures anova model or paired t-test when appropriate. The total artificial pancreas acceptance questionnaire score at the end of the artificial pancreas period was 69.1 (sd 14.7; 95% CI 63.5, 74.7), indicating a positive attitude towards the artificial pancreas. No significant differences were found among the scores at baseline, end of sensor-augmented pump therapy period or end of the artificial pancreas period with regard to fear of hypoglycaemia [28.2 (sd 17.5), 23.5 (sd 16.6) and 23.5 (sd 16.7), respectively; P = 0.099] or diabetes treatment satisfaction [29.0 (sd 3.9), 28.2 (sd 5.2) and 28.0 (sd 7.1), respectively; P = 0.43]. Themes frequently mentioned in the interviews were 'positive effects at work', 'improved blood glucose', 'fewer worries about blood glucose', but also 'frequent alarms', 'technological issues' and 'demand for an all-in-one device'. The psychological outcomes of artificial pancreas and sensor-augmented pump therapy were similar. Current artificial pancreas technology is promising but user concerns should be taken into account to ensure utility of these system

Day and night closed-loop control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a comparison of two closed-loop algorithms driving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus patient self-management.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two validated closed-loop (CL) algorithms versus patient self-control with CSII in terms of glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was a multicenter, randomized, three-way crossover, open-label trial in 48 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus for at least 6 months, treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Blood glucose was controlled for 23 h by the algorithm of the Universities of Pavia and Padova with a Safety Supervision Module developed at the Universities of Virginia and California at Santa Barbara (international artificial pancreas [iAP]), by the algorithm of University of Cambridge (CAM), or by patients themselves in open loop (OL) during three hospital admissions including meals and exercise. The main analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Main outcome measures included time spent in target (glucose levels between 3.9 and 8.0 mmol/L or between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L after meals). RESULTS: Time spent in the target range was similar in CL and OL: 62.6% for OL, 59.2% for iAP, and 58.3% for CAM. While mean glucose level was significantly lower in OL (7.19, 8.15, and 8.26 mmol/L, respectively) (overall P = 0.001), percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) was almost threefold reduced during CL (6.4%, 2.1%, and 2.0%) (overall P = 0.001) with less time ≤2.8 mmol/L (overall P = 0.038). There were no significant differences in outcomes between algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: Both CAM and iAP algorithms provide safe glycemic control