Pharmacokinetics of diluted (U20) insulin aspart compared with standard (U100) in children aged 3-6 years with type 1 diabetes during closed-loop insulin delivery: a randomised clinical trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics of two different concentrations of insulin aspart (B28Asp human insulin) in children aged 3-6 years with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Young children with type 1 diabetes underwent an open-label, randomised, two-period crossover study in a clinical research facility, 2-6 weeks apart. In random order, diluted (1:5 dilution with saline [154 mmol/l NaCl]; 20 U/ml) or standard strength (100 U/ml) insulin aspart was administered via an insulin pump as a meal bolus and then overnight by closed-loop insulin delivery as determined by a model predictive algorithm. Plasma insulin was measured every 30-60 min from 17:00 hours on day 1 to 8:00 hours on day 2. We measured the time-to-peak insulin concentration (tmax), insulin metabolic clearance rate (MCR(I)) and background insulin concentration (ins(c)) using compartmental modelling. RESULTS: Eleven children (six male; age range 3.75-6.96 years, HbA1c 7.6% ± 1.3% [60 ± 14 mmol/mol], BMI standard deviation score 1.0 ± 0.8, duration of diabetes 2.2 ± 1.0 years, total daily dose 12.9 [10.6-16.5] U, fasting C-peptide concentration 5 [5-17.1] pmol/l; mean ± SD or median [interquartile range]) participated in the study. No differences between standard and diluted insulin were observed in terms of t max (59.2 ± 14.4 vs 61.6 ± 8.7) min for standard vs diluted, p = 0.59; MCR I (1.98 × 10(-2) ± 0.99 × 10(-2) vs 1.89 × 10(-2) ± 0.82 × 10(-2) 1/kg/min, p = 0.47), and ins c (34 [1-72] vs 23 [3-65] pmol/l, p = 0.66). However, t max showed less intersubject variability following administration of diluted aspart (SD 14.4 vs 8.7 min, p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Diluting insulin aspart does not change its pharmacokinetics. However, it may result in less variable absorption and could be used in young children with type 1 diabetes undergoing closed-loop insulin delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01557634. FUNDING: FUNDING was provided by the JDRF, 7th Framework Programme of the European Union, Wellcome Trust Strategic Award and the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.Funding was provided by the JDRF (grant number 22-2011- 668), 7th Framework Programme of the European Union (Spidiman project; grant agreement number 305343), Wellcome Trust Strategic Award (100574/Z/12/Z) and the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.This is the final published version. It first appeared at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00125-014-3483-6

Home Use of Day-and-Night Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Suboptimally Controlled Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: A 3-Week, Free-Living, Randomized Crossover Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in adolescents with type 1 diabetes under free-living conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In an open-label randomized crossover study, 12 suboptimally controlled adolescents on insulin pump therapy (mean ± SD age 14.6 ± 3.1 years; HbA1c 69 ± 8 mmol/mol [8.5 ± 0.7%]; duration of diabetes 7.8 ± 3.5 years) underwent two 21-day periods in which hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery was compared with sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy in random order. During the closed-loop intervention, a model predictive algorithm automatically directed insulin delivery between meals and overnight. Participants used a bolus calculator to administer prandial boluses. RESULTS: The proportion of time that sensor glucose was in the target range (3.9-10 mmol/L; primary end point) was increased during the closed-loop intervention compared with sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy by 18.8 ± 9.8 percentage points (mean ± SD; P < 0.001), the mean sensor glucose level was reduced by 1.8 ± 1.3 mmol/L (P = 0.001), and the time spent above target was reduced by 19.3 ± 11.3 percentage points (P < 0.001). The time spent with sensor glucose levels below 3.9 mmol/L was low and comparable between interventions (median difference 0.4 [interquartile range -2.2 to 1.3] percentage points; P = 0.33). Improved glucose control during closed-loop was associated with increased variability of basal insulin delivery (P < 0.001) and an increase in the total daily insulin dose (53.5 [39.5-72.1] vs. 51.5 [37.6-64.3] units/day; P = 0.006). Participants expressed positive attitudes and experience with the closed-loop system. CONCLUSIONS: Free-living home use of day-and-night closed-loop in suboptimally controlled adolescents with type 1 diabetes is safe, feasible, and improves glucose control without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. Larger and longer studies are warranted.National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (Grant ID: 1R01DK085621-01), JDRF, National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust (Strategic Award: 100574/Z/12/Z)This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from American Diabetes Association via http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc16-109

Sensor Life and Overnight Closed Loop: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop (CL) systems direct insulin delivery based on continuous glucose monitor (CGM) sensor values. CGM accuracy varies with sensor life, being least accurate on day 1 of sensor insertion. We evaluated the effect of sensor life (enhanced Enlite, Medtronic MiniMed, Northridge, CA) on overnight CL. METHODS: In an open-label, randomized, 2-period, inpatient crossover pilot study, 12 adolescents on insulin pump (age 16.7 ± 1.9 years; HbA1c 66 ± 10 mmol/mol) attended a clinical research facility on 2 overnight occasions. In random order, participants received CL on day 1 or on day 3-4 after sensor insertion. During both periods, glucose was automatically controlled by a model predictive control algorithm informed by sensor glucose. Plasma glucose was measured every 30 to 60 min. RESULTS: During overnight CL (22:30 to 07:30), the proportion of time with plasma glucose readings in the target range (3.9-8.0 mmol/l, primary endpoint) when initiated on day 1 of sensor insertion vs day 3-4 were comparable (58 ± 32% day 1 vs 56 ± 36% day 3-4; P = .34), and there were no significant differences between interventions in terms of mean plasma glucose ( P = .26), percentage time above 8.0 mmol/l ( P = .49), and time spent below 3.9 mmol/l ( P = .93). Sensor accuracy varied with sensor life (mean absolute relative difference 19.8 ± 15.0% on day 1 and 13.7 ± 10.2% on day 3 to 4). Sensor glucose tended to under-read plasma glucose inflating benefits of CL on glucose control. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of differences in sensor accuracy, overnight CL glucose control informed by sensor glucose on day 1 or day 3-4 after sensor insertion was comparable. The model predictive controller appears to mitigate against sensor inaccuracies.This work was funded by the JDRF (#22-2011-668). Additional support for the Artificial Pancreas work by National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre and Wellcome Strategic Award (100574/Z/12/Z). Medtronic supplied study pump, translator device, sensor transmitter, Amber user interface, and supported regulatory approval

Feasibility of overnight closed-loop therapy in young children with type 1 diabetes aged 3-6 years: comparison between diluted and standard insulin strength.

OBJECTIVE: To assess feasibility of overnight closed-loop therapy in young children with type 1 diabetes and contrast closed loop using diluted versus standard insulin strength. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Eleven children (male 6; age range 3.75-6.96 years; glycated hemoglobin 60 (14) mmol/mol; body mass index SD score 1.0 (0.8); diabetes duration 2.2 (1.0) years, mean (SD); total daily dose 12.9 (10.6, 16.5) IU/day, median (IQR)) were studied at a clinical research facility on two occasions. In random order, participants received closed loop with diluted insulin aspart (CL_Dil; 20 IU/mL) or closed loop with standard aspart (CL_Std; 100 IU/mL) from 17:00 until 8:00 the following morning. Children consumed an evening meal at 17:00 (44 (12) gCHO) and an optional bedtime snack (6 (7) gCHO) identical on both occasions. Meal insulin boluses were calculated by standard pump bolus calculators. Basal rates on insulin pump were adjusted every 15 min as directed by a model-predictive-control algorithm informed by a real-time glucose sensor values. RESULTS: Mean plasma glucose was 122 (24) mg/dL during CL_Dil vs 122 (23) mg/dL during CL_Std (p=0.993). The time spent in the target glucose range 70-145 mg/dL was 83 (70, 100)% vs 72 (54, 81)% (p=0.328). Time above 145 mg/dL was 13 (0, 27)% vs 19 (10, 45)% (p=0.477) and time spent below 70 mg/dL was 0.0 (0.0, 1.4)% vs 1.4 (0.0, 11.6)% (p=0.161). One asymptomatic hypoglycemia below 63 mg/dL occurred in one participant during CL_Dil versus six episodes in five participants during CL_Std (p=0.09). Glucose variability measured by CV of plasma glucose tended to be reduced during CL_Dil (20% (13, 31) vs 32% (24, 42), p=0.075). CONCLUSIONS: In this feasibility study, closed-loop therapy maintained good overnight glucose control with tendency towards reduced hypoglycemia and reduced glucose variability using diluted insulin. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01557634.This work was funded by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF Grant Number: 22-2011-668) and supported by NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.This is the final published version. It first appeared at http://drc.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000040.abstract

Patients' and caregivers' experiences of using continuous glucose monitoring to support diabetes self-management: qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) enables users to view real-time interstitial glucose readings and provides information on the direction and rate of change of blood glucose levels. Users can also access historical data to inform treatment decisions. While the clinical and psychological benefits of CGM are well established, little is known about how individuals use CGM to inform diabetes self-management. We explored participants' experiences of using CGM in order to provide recommendations for supporting individuals to make optimal use of this technology. METHODS: In-depth interviews (n = 24) with adults, adolescents and parents who had used CGM for ≥4 weeks; data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Participants found CGM an empowering tool because they could access blood glucose data effortlessly, and trend arrows enabled them to see whether blood glucose was rising or dropping and at what speed. This predicative information aided short-term lifestyle planning and enabled individuals to take action to prevent hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia. Having easy access to blood glucose data on a continuous basis also allowed participants to develop a better understanding of how insulin, activity and food impacted on blood glucose. This understanding was described as motivating individuals to make dietary changes and break cycles of over-treating hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia. Participants also described how historical CGM data provided a more nuanced picture of blood glucose control than was possible with blood glucose self-monitoring and, hence, better information to inform changes to background insulin doses and mealtime ratios. However, while participants expressed confidence making immediate adjustments to insulin and lifestyle to address impending hypoglycaemia and hypoglycaemia, most described needing and expecting health professionals to interpret historical CGM data and determine changes to background insulin doses and mealtime ratios. While alarms could reinforce a sense of hypoglycaemic safety, some individuals expressed ambivalent views, especially those who perceived alarms as signalling personal failure to achieve optimal glycaemic control. CONCLUSIONS: CGM can be an empowering and motivational tool which enables participants to fine-tune and optimize their blood glucose control. However, individuals may benefit from psycho-social education, training and/or technological support to make optimal use of CGM data and use alarms appropriately

Assessing the efficacy, safety and utility of closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in very young children with type 1 diabetes (KidsAP02 study): an open-label, multicentre, multinational, randomised cross-over study protocol

Introduction: Diabetes management in very young children remains challenging. Glycaemic targets are achieved at the expense of high parental diabetes management burden and frequent hypoglycaemia, impacting quality of life for the whole family. Our objective is to assess whether automated insulin delivery can improve glycaemic control and alleviate the burden of diabetes management in this particular age group. Methods and analysis: The study adopts an open-label, multinational, multicentre, randomised, crossover design and aims to randomise 72 children aged 1-7 years with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy. Following screening, participants will receive training on study insulin pump and study continuous glucose monitoring devices. Participants will be randomised to 16-week use of the hybrid closed-loop system (intervention period) or to 16-week use of sensor-augmented pump therapy (control period) with 1-4 weeks washout period before crossing over to the other arm. The order of the two study periods will be random. The primary endpoint is the between-group difference in time spent in the target glucose range from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L based on sensor glucose readings during the 16-week study periods. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Key secondary endpoints are between group differences in time spent above and below target glucose range, glycated haemoglobin and average sensor glucose. Participants' and caregivers' experiences will be evaluated using questionnaires and qualitative interviews, and sleep quality will be assessed. A health economic analysis will be performed. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval has been obtained from Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee (UK), Ethics Committees of the University of Innsbruck, the University of Vienna and the University of Graz (Austria), Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Leipzig (Germany) and Comité National d'Ethique de Recherche (Luxembourg). The results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations

Assessing the efficacy, safety and utility of 6-month day-and-night automated closed-loop insulin delivery under free-living conditions compared with insulin pump therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: an open-label, multicentre, multinational, single-period, randomised, parallel group study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Closed-loop systems titrate insulin based on sensor glucose levels, providing novel means to reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia while improving glycaemic control. We will assess effectiveness of 6-month day-and-night closed-loop insulin delivery compared with usual care (conventional or sensor-augmented pump therapy) in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The trial adopts an open-label, multicentre, multinational (UK and USA), randomised, single-period, parallel design. Participants (n=130) are children and adolescents (aged ≥6 and 16.7 mmol/L (300 mg/dL), area under the curve of glucose >10.0 mmol/L (180 mg/dL), total, basal and bolus insulin dose, body mass index z-score and blood pressure. Cognitive, emotional and behavioural characteristics of participants and caregivers and their responses to the closed-loop and clinical trial will be assessed. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for closed-loop will be estimated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee and Jaeb Center for Health Research Institutional Review Office approved the study. The findings will be disseminated by peer-review publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02925299; Pre-results

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

Assessing the effect of closed-loop insulin delivery from onset of type 1 diabetes in youth on residual beta-cell function compared to standard insulin therapy (CLOuD study): a randomised parallel study protocol.

INTRODUCTION:Management of newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (T1D) in children and adolescents is challenging for patients, families and healthcare professionals. The objective of this study is to determine whether continued intensive metabolic control using hybrid closed-loop (CL) insulin delivery following diagnosis of T1D can preserve C-peptide secretion, a marker of residual beta-cell function, compared with standard multiple daily injections (MDI) therapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The study adopts an open-label, multicentre, randomised, parallel design, and aims to randomise 96 participants aged 10-16.9 years, recruited within 21 days of diagnosis with T1D. Following a baseline mixed meal tolerance test (MMTT), participants will be randomised to receive 24 months treatment with conventional MDI therapy or with CL insulin delivery. A further 24-month optional extension phase will be offered to all participants to continue with the allocated treatment. The primary outcome is the between group difference in area under the stimulated C-peptide curve (AUC) of the MMTT at 12 months post diagnosis. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Key secondary outcomes are between group differences in time spent in target glucose range (3.9-10 mmol/L), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and time spent in hypoglycaemia (<3.9 mmol/L) at 12 months. Secondary efficacy outcomes include between group differences in stimulated C-peptide AUC at 24 months, time spent in target glucose range, glucose variability, hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia as recorded by periodically applied masked continuous glucose monitoring devices, total, basal and bolus insulin dose, and change in body weight. Cognitive, emotional and behavioural characteristics of participants and parents will be evaluated, and a cost-utility analysis performed to support adoption of CL as a standard treatment modality following diagnosis of T1D. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval has been obtained from Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee. The results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02871089; Pre-results