Glycemic Outcomes of Use of CLC Versus PLGS in Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Limited information is available about glycemic outcomes with a closed-loop control (CLC) system compared with a predictive low-glucose suspend (PLGS) system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: After 6 months of use of a CLC system in a randomized trial, 109 participants with type 1 diabetes (age range, 14-72 years; mean HbA1c, 7.1% [54 mmol/mol]) were randomly assigned to CLC (N = 54, Control-IQ) or PLGS (N = 55, Basal-IQ) groups for 3 months. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitor (CGM)-measured time in range (TIR) for 70-180 mg/dL. Baseline CGM metrics were computed from the last 3 months of the preceding study. RESULTS: All 109 participants completed the study. Mean ± SD TIR was 71.1 ± 11.2% at baseline and 67.6 ± 12.6% using intention-to-treat analysis (69.1 ± 12.2% using per-protocol analysis excluding periods of study-wide suspension of device use) over 13 weeks on CLC vs. 70.0 ± 13.6% and 60.4 ± 17.1% on PLGS (difference = 5.9%; 95% CI 3.6%, 8.3%; P < 0.001). Time >180 mg/dL was lower in the CLC group than PLGS group (difference = -6.0%; 95% CI -8.4%, -3.7%; P < 0.001) while time <54 mg/dL was similar (0.04%; 95% CI -0.05%, 0.13%; P = 0.41). HbA1c after 13 weeks was lower on CLC than PLGS (7.2% [55 mmol/mol] vs. 7.5% [56 mmol/mol], difference -0.34% [-3.7 mmol/mol]; 95% CI -0.57% [-6.2 mmol/mol], -0.11% [1.2 mmol/mol]; P = 0.0035). CONCLUSIONS: Following 6 months of CLC, switching to PLGS reduced TIR and increased HbA1c toward their pre-CLC values, while hypoglycemia remained similarly reduced with both CLC and PLGS

Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Randomized Trial of Closed-Loop Control: The Pivotal International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial

International audienceBackground: Closed-loop control (CLC) has been shown to improve glucose time in range and other glucose metrics; however, randomized trials >3 months comparing CLC with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy are limited. We recently reported glucose control outcomes from the 6-month international Diabetes Closed-Loop (iDCL) trial; we now report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in this iDCL trial. Methods: Participants were randomized 2:1 to CLC (N = 112) versus SAP (N = 56) and completed questionnaires, including Hypoglycemia Fear Survey, Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), Hypoglycemia Awareness, Hypoglycemia Confidence, Hyperglycemia Avoidance, and Positive Expectancies of CLC (INSPIRE) at baseline, 3, and 6 months. CLC participants also completed Diabetes Technology Expectations and Acceptance and System Usability Scale (SUS). Results: The Hypoglycemia Fear Survey Behavior subscale improved significantly after 6 months of CLC compared with SAP. DDS did not differ except for powerless subscale scores, which worsened at 3 months in SAP. Whereas Hypoglycemia Awareness and Hyperglycemia Avoidance did not differ between groups, CLC participants showed a tendency toward improved confidence in managing hypoglycemia. The INSPIRE questionnaire showed favorable scores in the CLC group for teens and parents, with a similar trend for adults. At baseline and 6 months, CLC participants had high positive expectations for the device with Diabetes Technology Acceptance and SUS showing high benefit and low burden scores. Conclusion: CLC improved some PROs compared with SAP. Participants reported high benefit and low burden with CLC. Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT03563313