Microdialysis-Coupled Enzymatic Microreactor for in Vivo Glucose Monitoring in Rats

<p>Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is an important aid for diabetic patients to optimize glycemic control and to prevent long-term complications. However, current CGM devices need further miniaturization and improved functional performance. We have coupled a previously described microfluidic chip with enzymatic microreactor (EMR) to a microdialysis probe and evaluated the performance of this system for monitoring subcutaneous glucose concentration in rats. Nanoliter volumes of microdialysis sample are efficiently reacted with continuously supplied glucose oxidase (GOx) solution in the EMR. The hydrogen peroxide produced is amperometrically detected at a (polypyrrole (PPy)-protected) thin-film Pt electrode. Subcutaneous glucose concentration was continuously monitored in anesthetized rats in response to intravenous injections of 20% glucose (w/v), 5 U/kg insulin, or saline as a control. In vitro evaluation showed a linear range of 2.1-20.6 mM and a sensitivity of 7.8 +/- 1.0 nA/mM (n = 6). The physical lag time between microdialysis and the analytical signal was approximately 18 min. The baseline concentration of blood glucose was 10.2 +/- 2.3 mM. After administering glucose to the rats, glucose levels increased by about 2 mM to 12.1 +/- 2.3 mM in blood and 11.9 +/- 1.5 mM in subcutaneous interstitial fluid (ISF). After insulin administration, glucose levels decreased by about 8 mM relative to baseline to 2.1 +/- 0.6 mM in blood and 2.1 +/- 0.9 mM in ISF. A microfluidic device with integrated chaotic mixer and EMR has been successfully combined with subcutaneous microdialysis to continuously monitor glucose in rats. This proof-of-principle demonstrates the feasibility of improved miniaturization in CGM based on microfluidics.</p>

Home use of a bihormonal bionic pancreas versus insulin pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre randomised crossover trial

BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of a continuous, day-and-night automated glycaemic control system using insulin and glucagon has not been shown in a free-living, home-use setting. We aimed to assess whether bihormonal bionic pancreas initialised only with body mass can safely reduce mean glycaemia and hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes who were living at home and participating in their normal daily routines without restrictions on diet or physical activity. METHODS: We did a random-order crossover study in volunteers at least 18 years old who had type 1 diabetes and lived within a 30 min drive of four sites in the USA. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) in blocks of two using sequentially numbered sealed envelopes to glycaemic regulation with a bihormonal bionic pancreas or usual care (conventional or sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy) first, followed by the opposite intervention. Both study periods were 11 days in length, during which time participants continued all normal activities, including athletics and driving. The bionic pancreas was initialised with only the participant’s body mass. Autonomously adaptive dosing algorithms used data from a continuous glucose monitor to control subcutaneous delivery of insulin and glucagon. The coprimary outcomes were the mean glucose concentration and time with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) glucose concentration less than 3·3 mmol/L, analysed over days 2–11 in participants who completed both periods of the study. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092220. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 43 participants between May 6, 2014, and July 3, 2015, 39 of whom completed the study: 20 who were assigned to bionic pancreas first and 19 who were assigned to the comparator first. The mean CGM glucose concentration was 7·8 mmol/L (SD 0·6) in the bionic pancreas period versus 9·0 mmol/L (1·6) in the comparator period (difference 1·1 mmol/L, 95% CI 0·7–1·6; p<0·0001), and the mean time with CGM glucose concentration less than 3·3 mmol/L was 0·6% (0·6) in the bionic pancreas period versus 1·9% (1·7) in the comparator period (difference 1·3%, 95% CI 0·8–1·8; p<0·0001). The mean nausea score on the Visual Analogue Scale (score 0–10) was greater during the bionic pancreas period (0·52 [SD 0·83]) than in the comparator period (0·05 [0·17]; difference 0·47, 95% CI 0·21–0·73; p=0·0024). Body mass and laboratory parameters did not differ between periods. There were no serious or unexpected adverse events in the bionic pancreas period of the study. INTERPRETATION: Relative to conventional and sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy, the bihormonal bionic pancreas, initialised only with participant weight, was able to achieve superior glycaemic regulation without the need for carbohydrate counting. Larger and longer studies are needed to establish the long-term benefits and risks of automated glycaemic management with a bihormonal bionic pancreas. FUNDING: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health, and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences