The Artificial Pancreas in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: Bringing Closed-Loop Home

Type 1 diabetes is one of the most common chronic conditions in childhood and adolescence. Despite ongoing development of more physiological insulin preparations, recent advancements in insulin pump technology and more accurate blood glucose monitoring, in clinical practice it remains challenging to achieve normoglycaemia whilst reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia, particularly in young people with type 1 diabetes. Closed-loop insulin delivery (the artificial pancreas) is an emerging technology gradually progressing from bench to clinical practice. Closed-loop systems combine glucose sensing with computer-based algorithm informed insulin delivery to provide real-time glucose-responsive insulin administration. The key objective of my thesis is to evaluate the safety, efficacy and utility of closed-loop insulin delivery in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes outside of the research facility setting. Results of five clinical trials are presented in the main chapters of this thesis. In a mechanistic study, the impact of glucose sensor operation duration on efficacy of overnight closed-loop was investigated comparing closed-loop performance on day 1 of sensor insertion to day 3 to 4 of sensor. Twelve adolescents with type 1 diabetes attended the research facility for two overnight visits. The sequence of the interventions was random. Despite 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. In home settings, overnight closed-loop application was evaluated over three months in 25 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes aged six to 18 years. The study was conducted at three centres in the UK and adopted a randomised cross-over design. Compared to sensor-augmented pump therapy, overnight home use of closed-loop increased the proportion of time sensor glucose was in target, and reduced mean glucose and hypoglycaemia. Two randomised crossover studies evaluated the safety and efficacy of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in young people with type 1 diabetes aged 10 to 18 years over seven days, and 21 days, respectively. A total of 24 subjects were enrolled in this single centre trial. Free-living home use of day-and-night closed-loop in suboptimally controlled adolescents with type 1 diabetes was safe, and improved glucose control without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. Finally, closed-loop technology was assessed in five very young children (aged one to seven years) with type 1 diabetes in a two-period, crossover study. Closed-loop was used during both 3-week intervention periods, either with standard strength insulin (U100), or with diluted insulin (U20). The order of intervention was random. Free-living home use of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop in very young children with type 1 diabetes was feasible and safe. Glucose control was comparable during both intervention periods. Thus, use of diluted insulin during closed-loop insulin delivery might not be of additional benefit in this population. In conclusion, studies conducted as part of my thesis demonstrate that use of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems in children and adolescents aged one to 18 years in free daily living without remote monitoring or supervision is feasible, safe and effective. My work supports the progression of this technology from research to mainstream clinical practice

Factors Affecting Recruitment of Participants for Studies of Diabetes Technology in Newly Diagnosed Youth with Type 1 Diabetes: A Qualitative Focus Group Study with Parents and Children.

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about parents' or children's attitudes toward recruitment for, and participation in, studies of new diabetes technologies immediately after diagnosis. This study investigated factors affecting recruitment of participants for studies in newly diagnosed youth with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Qualitative focus group study incorporating four recorded focus groups, conducted in four outpatient pediatric diabetes clinics in large regional hospitals in England. Participants comprised four groups of parents (n = 22) and youth (n = 17) with type 1 diabetes, purposively sampled on the basis of past involvement (either participation or nonparticipation) in an ongoing two-arm randomized trial comparing multiple daily injection with conventional continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion regimens from the onset of type 1 diabetes. RESULTS: Stress associated with diagnosis presents significant challenges in terms of study recruitment, with parents demonstrating varied levels of willingness to be approached soon after diagnosis. Additional challenges arise regarding the following: randomization when study arms are perceived as sharply differentiated in terms of therapy effectiveness; burdens arising from study participation; and the need to surrender new technologies following the end of the study. However, these challenges were mostly insufficient to rule out study participation. Participants emphasized the benefits and reassurance arising from support provided by staff and fellow study participants. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment to studies of new diabetes technologies immediately after diagnosis in youth presents significant challenges, but these are not insurmountable. The stress and uncertainty arising from potential participation may be alleviated by personalized discussion with staff and peer support from fellow study participants.This work was supported by the National Institute of Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre; Wellcome Strategic Award (100574/Z/12/Z); Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation, National Institutes for Health Research (#14/23/09); The Leona M. & Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust (#2016PG-T1D045); JDRF (#2-SRA- 2014-256-M-R).This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Mary Ann Liebert via http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/dia.2016.015

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

Mixed-meal tolerance test to assess residual beta-cell secretion: Beyond the area-under-curve of plasma C-peptide concentration.

AIMS: Residual beta-cell secretion in type 1 diabetes is commonly assessed by area-under-curve of plasma C-peptide concentration (AUCCpep ) following mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT). We aimed to investigate alternative measures of beta-cell responsiveness. METHODS: We analyzed data from 32 youth (age 7 to 17 years) undergoing MMTT within 6 months of type 1 diabetes diagnosis. We related AUCCpep with (a) validated mechanistic index of postprandial beta-cell responsiveness MI accounting for glucose level during MMTT, and (b) pragmatic marker calculated as baseline plasma C-peptide concentration corrected for baseline plasma glucose concentration. RESULTS: Postprandial responsiveness MI was correlated with age and BMI SDS (Rs = 0.66 and 0.44, P < 0.01 and P < 0.05) and was more correlated with glycated hemoglobin than AUCCpep (Rs = 0.79, P = 0.04). The pragmatic marker was highly correlated with AUCCpep (Rs = 0.94, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Postprandial responsiveness MI may be more relevant to glucose control than AUCCpep . Baseline C-peptide corrected for baseline glucose appears to be a suitable surrogate of AUCCpep if MMTT is not performed

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

Artificial pancreas treatment for outpatients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of artificial pancreas treatment in non-pregnant outpatients with type 1 diabetes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and grey literature up to 2 February 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials in non-pregnant outpatients with type 1 diabetes that compared the use of any artificial pancreas system with any type of insulin based treatment. Primary outcome was proportion (%) of time that sensor glucose level was within the near normoglycaemic range (3.9-10 mmol/L). Secondary outcomes included proportion (%) of time that sensor glucose level was above 10 mmol/L or below 3.9 mmol/L, low blood glucose index overnight, mean sensor glucose level, total daily insulin needs, and glycated haemoglobin. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess study quality. RESULTS: 40 studies (1027 participants with data for 44 comparisons) were included in the meta-analysis. 35 comparisons assessed a single hormone artificial pancreas system, whereas nine comparisons assessed a dual hormone system. Only nine studies were at low risk of bias. Proportion of time in the near normoglycaemic range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was significantly higher with artificial pancreas use, both overnight (weighted mean difference 15.15%, 95% confidence interval 12.21% to 18.09%) and over a 24 hour period (9.62%, 7.54% to 11.7%). Artificial pancreas systems had a favourable effect on the proportion of time with sensor glucose level above 10 mmol/L (-8.52%, -11.14% to -5.9%) or below 3.9 mmol/L (-1.49%, -1.86% to -1.11%) over 24 hours, compared with control treatment. Robustness of findings for the primary outcome was verified in sensitivity analyses, by including only trials at low risk of bias (11.64%, 9.1% to 14.18%) or trials under unsupervised, normal living conditions (10.42%, 8.63% to 12.2%). Results were consistent in a subgroup analysis both for single hormone and dual hormone artificial pancreas systems. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial pancreas systems are an efficacious and safe approach for treating outpatients with type 1 diabetes. The main limitations of current research evidence on artificial pancreas systems are related to inconsistency in outcome reporting, small sample size, and short follow-up duration of individual trials

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

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

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