A Randomized Closed-loop Trial in Very Young Children with Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND The possible advantage of hybrid closed-loop therapy (i.e., artificial pancreas) over sensor-augmented pump therapy in very young children with type 1 diabetes is unclear. METHODS In this multicenter, randomized, crossover trial, we recruited children 1 to 7 years of age with type 1 diabetes who were receiving insulin-pump therapy at seven centers across Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom. Participants received treatment in two 16-week periods, in random order, in which the closed-loop system was compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy (control). The primary end point was the between-treatment difference in the percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was in the target range (70 to 180 mg per deciliter) during each 16-week period. The analysis was conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary end points included the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state (glucose level, &gt;180 mg per deciliter), the glycated hemoglobin level, the mean sensor glucose level, and the percentage of time spent in a hypoglycemic state (glucose level, &lt;70 mg per deciliter). Safety was assessed. RESULTS A total of 74 participants underwent randomization. The mean (±SD) age of the participants was 5.6±1.6 years, and the baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 7.3±0.7%. The percentage of time with the glucose level in the target range was 8.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.4 to 9.9) higher during the closed-loop period than during the control period (P&lt;0.001). The mean adjusted difference (closed-loop minus control) in the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state was −8.5 percentage points (95% CI, −9.9 to −7.1), the difference in the glycated hemoglobin level was −0.4 percentage points (95% CI, −0.5 to −0.3), and the difference in the mean sensor glucose level was −12.3 mg per deciliter (95% CI, −14.8 to −9.8) (P&lt;0.001 for all comparisons). The time spent in a hypoglycemic state was similar with the two treatments (P=0.74). The median time spent in the closed-loop mode was 95% (interquartile range, 92 to 97) over the 16-week closed-loop period. One serious adverse event of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the closed-loop period. One serious adverse event that was deemed to be unrelated to treatment occurred. CONCLUSIONS A hybrid closed-loop system significantly improved glycemic control in very young children with type 1 diabetes, without increasing the time spent in hypoglycemia. (Funded by the European Commission and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03784027.)</p

Time spent in hypoglycemia according to age and time-of-day: Observations during closed-loop insulin delivery.

OBJECTIVE We aimed to assess whether percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia during closed-loop insulin delivery differs by age-group and time-of-day. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed data from hybrid closed-loop studies involving young children (2-7 years), children and adolescents (8-18 years), adults (19-59 years), and older adults (≥60 years) with type 1 diabetes. Main outcome was time spent in hypoglycemia <3.9mmol/l. Eight weeks of data for 88 participants were analyzed. RESULTS Median time spent in hypoglycemia over the 24-hour period was highest in children and adolescents (4.4%; [IQR 2.4-5.0]) and very young children (4.0% [3.4-5.2]), followed by adults (2.7% [1.7-4.0]), and older adults (1.8% [1.2-2.2]); p<0.001 for difference between age-groups. Time spent in hypoglycemia during nighttime (midnight-05:59) was lower than during daytime (06:00-23:59) across all age-groups. CONCLUSION Time in hypoglycemia was highest in the pediatric age-group during closed-loop insulin delivery. Hypoglycemia burden was lowest overnight across all age-groups

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Evaluating the Impact of Applying Personal Glucose Targets in a Closed-Loop System for People With Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: CamAPS FX is a hybrid closed-loop smartphone app used to manage type one diabetes. The closed-loop algorithm has a default target glucose of 5.8 mmol/L (104.5 mg/dL), but users can select personal glucose targets (adjustable between 4.4 mmol/L and 11.0 mmol/L [79 mg/dL and 198 mg/dL, respectively]). METHOD: In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of personal glucose targets on glycemic control using data from participants in five randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: Personal glucose targets were widely used, with 20.3% of all days in the data set having a target outside the default target bin (5.5-6.0 mmol/L [99-108 mg/dL]). Personal glucose targets >6.5 mmol/L (117 mg/dL) were associated with significantly less time in target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]; 6.5-7.0 mmol/L [117-126 mg/dL]: mean difference = -3.2 percentage points [95% CI: -5.3 to -1.2; P 6.5 mmol/L (117 mg/dL) were associated with significantly lower time (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]; 6.5-7.0 mmol/L [117-126 mg/dL]: -1.85 percentage points [95% CI: -2.37 to -1.34; P < .001]; 7.0-7.5 mmol/L [126-135 mg/dL]: -2.68 percentage points [95% CI: -3.49 to -1.86; P < .001]). CONCLUSIONS: Discrete study populations showed differences in glucose control when applying similar personal targets

Evaluating the Impact of Applying Personal Glucose Targets in a Closed-Loop System for People With Type 1 Diabetes

Background CamAPS FX is a hybrid closed-loop smartphone app used to manage type one diabetes. The closed-loop algorithm has a default target glucose of 5.8 mmol/L (104.5 mg/dL), but users can select personal glucose targets (adjustable between 4.4 mmol/L and 11.0 mmol/L [79 mg/dL and 198 mg/dL, respectively]). Method In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of personal glucose targets on glycemic control using data from participants in five randomized controlled trials. Results Personal glucose targets were widely used, with 20.3% of all days in the data set having a target outside the default target bin (5.5-6.0 mmol/L [99-108 mg/dL]). Personal glucose targets &gt;6.5 mmol/L (117 mg/dL) were associated with significantly less time in target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]; 6.5-7.0 mmol/L [117-126 mg/dL]: mean difference = −3.2 percentage points [95% CI: −5.3 to −1.2; P &lt; .001]; 7.0-7.5 mmol/L [126-135 mg/dL]: −10.8 percentage points [95% CI: −14.1 to −7.6; P &lt; .001]). Personal targets &gt;6.5 mmol/L (117 mg/dL) were associated with significantly lower time (&lt;3.9 mmol/L [&lt;70 mg/dL]; 6.5-7.0 mmol/L [117-126 mg/dL]: −1.85 percentage points [95% CI: −2.37 to −1.34; P &lt; .001]; 7.0-7.5 mmol/L [126-135 mg/dL]: −2.68 percentage points [95% CI: −3.49 to −1.86; P &lt; .001]). Conclusions Discrete study populations showed differences in glucose control when applying similar personal targets. </jats:sec

Time Spent in Hypoglycemia According to Age and Time of Day: Observations During Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery.

Objective: We aimed to assess whether percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia during closed-loop insulin delivery differs by age group and time of day. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from hybrid closed-loop studies involving young children (2-7 years), children and adolescents (8-18 years), adults (19-59 years), and older adults (≥60 years) with type 1 diabetes. Main outcome was time spent in hypoglycemia <3.9 mmol/L (<70 mg/dL). Eight weeks of data for 88 participants were analyzed. Results: Median time spent in hypoglycemia over the 24-h period was highest in children and adolescents (4.4% [interquartile range 2.4-5.0]) and very young children (4.0% [3.4-5.2]), followed by adults (2.7% [1.7-4.0]), and older adults (1.8% [1.2-2.2]); P < 0.001 for difference between age groups. Time spent in hypoglycemia during nighttime (midnight-05:59) was lower than during daytime (06:00-23:59) across all age groups. Conclusion: Time in hypoglycemia was highest in the pediatric age group during closed-loop insulin delivery. Hypoglycemia burden was lowest overnight across all age groups

Evaluating the Impact of Applying Personal Glucose Targets in a Closed-Loop System for People With Type 1 Diabetes

Peer reviewed: TrueFunder: JDRF; FundRef: https://doi.org/10.13039/100008871Funder: National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreBackground: CamAPS FX is a hybrid closed-loop smartphone app used to manage type one diabetes. The closed-loop algorithm has a default target glucose of 5.8 mmol/L (104.5 mg/dL), but users can select personal glucose targets (adjustable between 4.4 mmol/L and 11.0 mmol/L [79 mg/dL and 198 mg/dL, respectively]). Method: In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of personal glucose targets on glycemic control using data from participants in five randomized controlled trials. Results: Personal glucose targets were widely used, with 20.3% of all days in the data set having a target outside the default target bin (5.5-6.0 mmol/L [99-108 mg/dL]). Personal glucose targets >6.5 mmol/L (117 mg/dL) were associated with significantly less time in target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]; 6.5-7.0 mmol/L [117-126 mg/dL]: mean difference = −3.2 percentage points [95% CI: −5.3 to −1.2; P 6.5 mmol/L (117 mg/dL) were associated with significantly lower time (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]; 6.5-7.0 mmol/L [117-126 mg/dL]: −1.85 percentage points [95% CI: −2.37 to −1.34; P < .001]; 7.0-7.5 mmol/L [126-135 mg/dL]: −2.68 percentage points [95% CI: −3.49 to −1.86; P < .001]). Conclusions: Discrete study populations showed differences in glucose control when applying similar personal targets

Safety of User-Initiated Intensification of Insulin Delivery Using Cambridge Hybrid Closed-Loop Algorithm.

OBJECTIVE: Many hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems struggle to manage unusually high glucose levels as experienced with intercurrent illness or pre-menstrually. Manual correction boluses may be needed, increasing hypoglycemia risk with overcorrection. The Cambridge HCL system includes a user-initiated algorithm intensification mode ("Boost"), activation of which increases automated insulin delivery by approximately 35%, while remaining glucose-responsive. In this analysis, we assessed the safety of "Boost" mode. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from closed-loop studies involving young children (1-7 years, n = 24), children and adolescents (10-17 years, n = 19), adults (≥24 years, n = 13), and older adults (≥60 years, n = 20) with type 1 diabetes. Outcomes were calculated per participant for days with ≥30 minutes of "Boost" use versus days with no "Boost" use. Participants with 300 mg/dL was 1.39 percentage points (1.01 to 1.77; P < .001) higher on "Boost" days, with higher mean glucose and lower time in target range (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of an algorithm intensification mode in HCL therapy is safe across all age groups with type 1 diabetes. The higher time in hyperglycemia observed on "Boost" days suggests that users are more likely to use algorithm intensification on days with extreme hyperglycemic excursions