Switching from flash glucose monitoring to continuous glucose monitoring on hypoglycemia in adults with type 1 diabetes at high hypoglycemia risk: the extension phase of the I HART CGM study

Background: The I HART CGM study showed that real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) has greater beneficial impact on hypoglycemia than intermittent flash glucose monitoring (flash) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) at high risk. The impact of continuing RT-CGM or switching from flash to RT-CGM for another 8 weeks was then evaluated. Methods: Prospective randomized parallel group study with an extension phase. After a 2-week run-in with blinded CGM, participants were randomized to either RT-CGM or flash for 8 weeks. All participants were then given the option to continue with RT-CGM for another 8 weeks. Glycemic outcomes at 8 weeks are compared with the 16-week endpoint. Results: Forty adults with T1D on intensified multiple daily insulin injections and with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia or a recent episode of severe hypoglycemia were included (40% female, median [IQR] age 49.5 [37.5–63.5] years, diabetes duration 30.0 [21.0–36.5] years, HbA1c 56 [48–63] mmol/mol, and Gold Score 5 [4–5]), of whom 36 completed the final 16-week extension. There was a significant reduction in percentage time in hypoglycemia (<3.0 mmol/L) in the group switching from flash to RT-CGM (from 5.0 [3.7–8.6]% to 0.8 [0.4–1.9]%, P = 0.0001), whereas no change was observed in the RT-CGM group continuing with the additional 8 weeks of RT-CGM (1.3 [0.4–2.8] vs. 1.3 [0.8–2.5], P = 0.82). Time in target (3.9–10 mmol/L) increased in the flash group after switching to RT-CGM (60.0 [54.5–67.8] vs. 67.4 [56.3–72.4], P = 0.02) and remained the same in the RT-CGM group that continued with RT-CGM (65.9 [54.1–74.8] vs. 64.9 [49.2–73.9], P = 0.64). Conclusions: Our data suggest that switching from flash to RT-CGM has a significant beneficial impact on hypoglycemia outcomes and that continued use of RT-CGM maintains hypoglycemia risk benefit in this high-risk population

The bio-inspired artificial pancreas for type 1 diabetes control in the home: System architecture and preliminary results

BACKGROUND: Artificial pancreas (AP) technology has been proven to improve glucose and patient-centered outcomes for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Several approaches to implement the AP have been described, clinically evaluated, and in one case, commercialized. However, none of these approaches has shown a clear superiority with respect to others. In addition, several challenges still need to be solved before achieving a fully automated AP that fulfills the users' expectations. We have introduced the Bio-inspired Artificial Pancreas (BiAP), a hybrid adaptive closed-loop control system based on beta-cell physiology and implemented directly in hardware to provide an embedded low-power solution in a dedicated handheld device. In coordination with the closed-loop controller, the BiAP system incorporates a novel adaptive bolus calculator which aims at improving postprandial glycemic control. This paper focuses on the latest developments of the BiAP system for its utilization in the home environment. METHODS: The hardware and software architectures of the BiAP system designed to be used in the home environment are described. Then, the clinical trial design proposed to evaluate the BiAP system in an ambulatory setting is introduced. Finally, preliminary results corresponding to two participants enrolled in the trial are presented. RESULTS: Apart from minor technical issues, mainly due to wireless communications between devices, the BiAP system performed well (~88% of the time in closed-loop) during the clinical trials conducted so far. Preliminary results show that the BiAP system might achieve comparable glycemic outcomes to the existing AP systems (~73% time in target range 70-180 mg/dL). CONCLUSION: The BiAP system is a viable platform to conduct ambulatory clinical trials and a potential solution for people with T1D to control their glucose control in a home environment

Safety and efficacy of an adaptive bolus calculator for Type 1 diabetes: a randomised control cross over study

Background The Advanced Bolus Calculator for Type 1 Diabetes (ABC4D) is a decision support system employing the artificial intelligence technique of case-based reasoning to adapt and personalise insulin bolus doses. The integrated system comprises a smartphone application and clinical web portal. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of the ABC4D (intervention) compared to a non-adaptive bolus calculator (control). Methods This was a prospective randomised controlled crossover study. Following a 2-week run-in period, participants were randomised to ABC4D or control for 12 weeks. After a 6-week washout period, participants crossed over for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was difference in percentage (%) time in range (TIR) (3.9-10.0 mmol/L (70-180mg/dL)) change during the daytime (07:00-22:00) between groups. Results 37 adults with type 1 diabetes on multiple daily injections of insulin were randomised, median (IQR) age 44.7 (28.2-55.2) years, diabetes duration 15.0 (9.5-29.0) years, HbA1C 61.0 (58.0-67.0) mmol/mol (7.7 (7.5-8.3)%). Data from 33 participants were analysed. There was no significant difference in daytime %TIR change with ABC4D compared to control (median (IQR) +0.1 (-2.6 to + 4.0)% versus +1.9 (-3.8 to + 10.1)%; p = 0.53). Participants accepted fewer meal dose recommendations in the intervention compared to control (78.7 (55.8-97.6)% versus 93.5 (73.8-100)%; p = 0.009) with a greater reduction in insulin dosage from that recommended. Conclusion The ABC4D is safe for adapting insulin bolus doses and provided the same level of glycaemic control as the non-adaptive bolus calculator. Results suggest that participants did not follow ABC4D recommendations as frequently as control, impacting its effectiveness

A pilot study in humans of microneedle sensor arrays for continuous glucose monitoring

Although subcutaneously implanted continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices have been shown to support diabetes self-management, their uptake remains low due to a combination of high manufacturing cost and limited accuracy and precision arising from their invasiveness. To address these points, minimally invasive, a solid microneedle array-based sensor for continuous glucose monitoring is reported here. These intradermal solid microneedle CGM sensors are designed for low cost manufacturing. The tolerability and performance of these devices is demonstrated through clinical studies, both in healthy volunteers and participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D). The geometry of these solid microneedles allows them to penetrate dermal tissue without the need for an applicator. The outer surface of these solid microneedles are modified as glucose biosensors. The microneedles sit in the interstitial fluid of the skin compartment and monitor real-time changes in glucose concentration. Optical coherence tomography measurements revealed no major axial movement of the microneedles in the tissue. No significant adverse events were observed and low pain scores were reported when compared to catheter insertion, deeming it safe for clinical studies in T1D. These amperometric sensors also yielded currents that tracked venous blood glucose concentrations, showing a clinically acceptable correlation. Studies in people with T1D gave a mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of 9% (with respect to venous blood glucose) with over 94% of the data points in the A and B zones of the Clarke error grid. These findings provide baseline data for further device development and a larger clinical efficacy and acceptability study of this microneedle intradermal glucose sensor in T1D

Trust and contextual engagement with the PEPPER system: The qualitative findings of a clinical feasibility study

Background and aims. PEPPER (Patient Empowerment through Predictive PERsonalised decision support) is an EU-funded research project which aims to improve self-management of type 1 diabetes (T1D). The system comprises an AI insulin bolus recommender, coupled with a safety system. The aim of the qualitative arm of this clinical feasibility study was to examine the context of participants’ interaction with the PEPPER system and identify incidents where bolus recommendations were trusted and accepted. Methods. This was a multicentre (UK and Spain) non-randomised open-labelled 6-week pilot study. Thirteen adults with T1D participated in weekly telephone interviews to explore the context of their interactions and responses to PEPPER. Data was thematically analysed through conceptual frameworks for engagement with healthcare digital behaviour change interventions. Results. Participants reported their key interactions as responding to PEPPER bolus recommendations, inputting carbohydrate values, interpreting continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) values through visualization of personal data and dealing with safety alarms. Two themes were associated with trust and engagement with the system; ‘feeling monitored’ and ‘feeling in control’. The incidents where participants trusted PEPPER also enhanced personal expertise of T1D through insights provided by the safety system such as low glucose basal insulin for pump users. Benefits were balanced against technical challenges of the system, which were used to improve the PEPPER application and enhance user experience. Conclusion. Some participants suggested that even access to PEPPER for a temporary period could positively influence self-management strategies. Contextual interviewing is a valuable tool in mobile application development for diabetes decision support systems

Glycemic variability and hypoglycemic excursions with continuous glucose monitoring compared to intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults With highest risk type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND: The I-HART CGM study has shown that real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) has greater beneficial impact on hypoglycemia than intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (iscCGM) in adults with type 1 diabetes at high risk (Gold score ≥4 or recent severe hypoglycemia using insulin injections). In this subanalysis, we present the impact of rtCGM and iscCGM on glycemic variability (GV). METHODS: Forty participants were recruited to this parallel group study. Following two weeks of blinded rtCGM (DexcomG4), participants were randomized to rtCGM (Dexcom G5; n = 20) or iscCGM (Freestyle Libre; n = 20) for eight weeks. An open-extension phase enabled participants on rtCGM to continue for a further eight weeks and those on iscCGM to switch to rtCGM over this period. Glycemic variability measures at baseline, 8- and 16-week endpoints were compared between groups. RESULTS: At the eight-week endpoint, between-group differences demonstrated significant reduction in several GV measures with rtCGM compared to iscCGM (GRADE%hypoglycemia, index of glycemic control [IGC], and average daily risk range [ADRR]; P < .05). Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring reduced mean average glucose and glycemic variability percentage and GRADE%hyperglycemia compared with rtCGM (P < .05). At 16 weeks, the iscCGM group switching to rtCGM showed significant improvement in GRADE%hypoglycemia, personal glycemic status, IGC, and ADRR. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest most, but not all, GV measures improve with rtCGM compared with iscCGM, particularly those measures associated with the risk of hypoglycemia. Selecting appropriate glucose monitoring technology to address GV in this high-risk cohort is important to minimize the risk of glucose extremes and severe hypoglycemia. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03028220

Safety and feasibility of the PEPPER adaptive bolus advisor and safety system; a randomized control study

Background: The Patient Empowerment through Predictive Personalized Decision Support (PEPPER) system provides personalized bolus advice for people with type 1 diabetes. The system incorporates an adaptive insulin recommender system (based on case-based reasoning, an artificial intelligence methodology), coupled with a safety system, which includes predictive glucose alerts and alarms, predictive low-glucose suspend, personalized carbohydrate recommendations, and dynamic bolus insulin constraint. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the PEPPER system compared to a standard bolus calculator. Methods: This was an open-labeled multicenter randomized controlled crossover study. Following 4-week run-in, participants were randomized to PEPPER/Control or Control/PEPPER in a 1:1 ratio for 12 weeks. Participants then crossed over after a washout period. The primary end-point was percentage time in range (TIR, 3.9–10.0 mmol/L [70–180 mg/dL]). Secondary outcomes included glycemic variability, quality of life, and outcomes on the safety system and insulin recommender. Results: Fifty-four participants on multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump completed the run-in period, making up the intention-to-treat analysis. Median (interquartile range) age was 41.5 (32.3–49.8) years, diabetes duration 21.0 (11.5–26.0) years, and HbA1c 61.0 (58.0–66.1) mmol/mol. No significant difference was observed for percentage TIR between the PEPPER and Control groups (62.5 [52.1–67.8] % vs. 58.4 [49.6–64.3] %, respectively, P = 0.27). For quality of life, participants reported higher perceived hypoglycemia with the PEPPER system despite no objective difference in time spent in hypoglycemia. Conclusions: The PEPPER system was safe, but did not change glycemic outcomes, compared to control. There is wide scope for integrating PEPPER into routine diabetes management for pump and MDI users. Further studies are required to confirm overall effectiveness