CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop with ultra-rapid lispro compared with standard lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes: a double-blind, randomized, crossover study.

INTRODUCTION To evaluate hybrid closed-loop with ultra-rapid insulin lispro (Lyumjev) compared with hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS In a single-center, double-blind, randomized, crossover study, 28 adults with type 1 diabetes (mean±SD: age 44.5±10.7, HbA1c 7.1±0.9% [54±10mmol/mol]) underwent two 8-week periods comparing hybrid closed-loop with ultra-rapid insulin lispro and hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin lispro in random order. CamAPS FX closed-loop system was used in both periods. RESULTS In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time sensor glucose was in target range (3.9 to 10mmol/L; primary endpoint) was greater with ultra-rapid lispro compared with standard insulin lispro (mean±SD: 78.7±9.8% vs. 76.2±9.6%; mean difference 2.5 percentage points [95%CI 0.8 to 4.2]; p=0.005). Mean sensor glucose was lower with ultra-rapid lispro compared with standard insulin lispro (7.9±0.8mmol/L vs. 8.1±0.9mmol/L; p=0.048). The proportion of time with sensor glucose <3.9mmol/L was similar between interventions (median [IQR] ultra-rapid lispro 2.3% [1.3-2.7%] vs. standard insulin lispro 2.1% [1.4-3.3%]; p=0.33). No severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred. CONCLUSIONS The use of ultra-rapid lispro with CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop increases time in range and reduces mean glucose with no difference in hypoglycemia compared with standard insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes

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

The Artificial Pancreas and Type 1 Diabetes.

Diabetes technologies represent a paradigm shift in type 1 diabetes care. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) pumps and continuous glucose monitors (CGM) improve glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, enhance time in optimal glycemic range, limit severe hypoglycemia, and reduce diabetes distress. The artificial pancreas or closed-loop system connects these devices via a control algorithm programmed to maintain target glucose, partially relieving the person living with diabetes of this constant responsibility. Automating insulin delivery reduces the input required from those wearing the device, leading to better physiological and psychosocial outcomes. Hybrid closed-loop therapy systems, requiring user-initiated prandial insulin doses, are the most advanced closed-loop systems commercially available. Fully closed-loop systems, requiring no user-initiated insulin boluses, and dual hormone systems have been shown to be safe and efficacious in the research setting. Clinical adoption of closed-loop therapy remains in early stages despite recent technological advances. People living with diabetes, health care professionals, and regulatory agencies continue to navigate the complex path to equitable access. We review the available devices, evidence, clinical implications, and barriers regarding these innovatory technologies

Interventions That Restore Awareness of Hypoglycemia in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes:A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE Impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) increases the risk of severe hypoglycemia (SH) sixfold and affects 30% of adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). This systematic review and meta-analysis looks at the educational, technological, and pharmacological interventions aimed at restoring hypoglycemia awareness (HA) in adults with T1D. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception until 1 October 2014. Included studies described HA status at baseline. Outcome measures were SH rates, change in HA, counterregulatory hormone responses, and glycemic control. RESULTS Forty-three studies (18 randomized controlled trials, 25 before-and-after studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising 27 educational, 11 technological, and 5 pharmacological interventions. Educational interventions included structured diabetes education on flexible insulin therapy, including psychotherapeutic and behavioral techniques. These were able to reduce SH and improve glycemic control, with greater benefit from the latter two techniques in improving IAH. Technological interventions (insulin pump therapy, continuous glucose monitoring, and sensor-augmented pump) reduced SH, improved glycemic control, and restored awareness when used in combination with structured education and frequent contact. Pharmacological studies included four insulin studies and one noninsulin study, but with low background SH prevalence rates. CONCLUSIONS This review provides evidence for the effectiveness of a stepped-care approach in the management of patients with IAH, initially with structured diabetes education in flexible insulin therapy, which may incorporate psychotherapeutic and behavioral therapies, progressing to diabetes technology, incorporating sensors and insulin pumps, in those with persisting need. </jats:sec

Restoration of Hypoglycemia Awareness Alters Brain Activity in Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE Impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a major risk factor for severe hypoglycemia (SH) and is associated with atypical responses to hypoglycemia in brain regions involved in arousal, decision making, and memory. Whether restoration of hypoglycemia awareness alters these responses is unknown. We sought to investigate the impact of awareness restoration on brain responses to hypoglycemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Twelve adults with T1D and IAH underwent pseudocontinuous arterial spin labeling functional MRI during a hypoglycemic clamp (5–2.6 mmol/L) before and after a hypoglycemia avoidance program of structured education (Dose Adjustment for Normal Eating), specialist support, and sensor-augmented pump therapy (Medtronic MiniMed 640G). Hypoglycemic cerebral blood flow (CBF) responses were compared pre- and postintervention using predefined region-of-interest analysis of the thalamus, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), and hippocampus. RESULTS Postintervention, Gold and Clarke scores fell (6.0 ± 1.0 to 4.0 ± 1.6, P = 0.0002, and 5.7 ± 1.7 to 3.4 ± 1.8, P = 0.0008, respectively), SH rates reduced (1.5 ± 2 to 0.3 ± 0.5 episodes per year, P = 0.03), hypoglycemic symptom scores increased (18.8 ± 6.3 to 27.3 ± 12.7, P = 0.02), and epinephrine responses did not change (P = 0.2). Postintervention, hypoglycemia induced greater increases in ACC CBF (P = 0.01, peak voxel coordinates [6, 40, −2]), while thalamic and OFC activity did not change. CONCLUSIONS Increased blood flow is seen within brain pathways involved in internal self-awareness and decision making (ACC) after restoration of hypoglycemia awareness, suggesting partial recovery of brain responses lost in IAH. Resistance of frontothalamic networks, involved in arousal and emotion processing, may explain why not all individuals with IAH achieve awareness restoration with education and technology alone.</p

Fully automated closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 2 diabetes: an open-label, single-center, randomized crossover trial.

Funder: Dexcom supplied discounted continuous glucose monitoring devices and sensors for the study; company representatives had no role in the study conduct. Supported by National Institute for Health and Care Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.Funder: The University of Cambridge has received salary support for MLE from the National Health Service in the East of England through the Clinical Academic Reserve.In adults with type 2 diabetes, the benefits of fully closed-loop insulin delivery, which does not require meal bolusing, are unclear. In an open-label, single-center, randomized crossover study, 26 adults with type 2 diabetes (7 women and 19 men; (mean ± s.d.) age, 59 ± 11 years; baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), 75 ± 15 mmol mol-1 (9.0% ± 1.4%)) underwent two 8-week periods to compare the CamAPS HX fully closed-loop app with standard insulin therapy and a masked glucose sensor (control) in random order, with a 2-week to 4-week washout between periods. The primary endpoint was proportion of time in target glucose range (3.9-10.0 mmol l-1). Analysis was by intention to treat. Thirty participants were recruited between 16 December 2020 and 24 November 2021, of whom 28 were randomized to two groups (14 to closed-loop therapy first and 14 to control therapy first). Proportion of time in target glucose range (mean ± s.d.) was 66.3% ± 14.9% with closed-loop therapy versus 32.3% ± 24.7% with control therapy (mean difference, 35.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval (CI), 28.0-42.6 percentage points; P  10.0 mmol l-1 was 33.2% ± 14.8% with closed-loop therapy versus 67.0% ± 25.2% with control therapy (mean difference, -35.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -42.8 to -27.5 percentage points; P < 0.001). Mean glucose was lower during the closed-loop therapy period than during the control therapy period (9.2 ± 1.2 mmol l-1 versus 12.6 ± 3.0 mmol l-1, respectively; mean difference, -3.6 mmol l-1; 95% CI, -4.6 to -2.5 mmol l-1; P < 0.001). HbA1c was lower following closed-loop therapy (57 ± 9 mmol mol-1 (7.3% ± 0.8%)) than following control therapy (72 ± 13 mmol mol-1 (8.7% ± 1.2%); mean difference, -15 mmol mol-1; 95% CI, -11 to -20 mmol l-1 (mean difference, -1.4%; 95% CI, -1.0 to -1.8%); P < 0.001). Time < 3.9 mmol l-1 was similar between treatments (a median of 0.44% (interquartile range, 0.19-0.81%) during the closed-loop therapy period versus a median of 0.08% (interquartile range, 0.00-1.05%) during the control therapy period; P = 0.43). No severe hypoglycemia events occurred in either period. One treatment-related serious adverse event occurred during the closed-loop therapy period. Fully closed-loop insulin delivery improved glucose control without increasing hypoglycemia compared with standard insulin therapy and may represent a safe and efficacious method to improve outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04701424).Dexcom supplied discounted continuous glucose monitoring devices and sensors for the study; Supported by National Institute for Health and Care Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. The University of Cambridge has received salary support for MLE from the National Health Service in the East of England through the Clinical Academic Reserv