Dataset Information

Assessment of Meal Anticipation for Improving Fully Automated Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Meals are a consistent challenge to glycemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Our objective was to assess the glycemic impact of meal anticipation within a fully automated insulin delivery (AID) system among adults with T1D.

Research design and methods

We report the results of a randomized crossover clinical trial comparing three modalities of AID systems: hybrid closed loop (HCL), full closed loop (FCL), and full closed loop with meal anticipation (FCL+). Modalities were tested during three supervised 24-h admissions, where breakfast, lunch, and dinner were consumed per participant's home schedule, at a fixed time, and with a 1.5-h delay, respectively. Primary outcome was the percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) during the breakfast postprandial period for FCL+ versus FCL.

Results

Thirty-five adults with T1D (age 44.5 ± 15.4 years; HbA1c 6.7 ± 0.9%; n = 23 women and n = 12 men) were randomly assigned. TIR for the 5-h period after breakfast was 75 ± 23%, 58 ± 21%, and 63 ± 19% for HCL, FCL, and FCL+, respectively, with no significant difference between FCL+ and FCL. For the 2 h before dinner, time below range (TBR) was similar for FCL and FCL+. For the 5-h period after dinner, TIR was similar for FCL+ and FCL (71 ± 34% vs. 72 ± 29%; P = 1.0), whereas TBR was reduced in FCL+ (median 0% [0-0%] vs. 0% [0-0.8%]; P = 0.03). Overall, 24-h control for HCL, FCL, and FCL+ was 86 ± 10%, 77 ± 11%, and 77 ± 12%, respectively.

Conclusions

Although postprandial control remained optimal with hybrid AID, both fully AID solutions offered overall TIR >70% with similar or lower exposure to hypoglycemia. Anticipation did not significantly improve postprandial control in AID systems but also did not increase hypoglycemic risk when meals were delayed.

SUBMITTER: Garcia-Tirado J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10465820 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessment of Meal Anticipation for Improving Fully Automated Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

Garcia-Tirado Jose J Colmegna Patricio P Villard Orianne O Diaz Jenny L JL Esquivel-Zuniga Rebeca R Koravi Chaitanya L K CLK Barnett Charlotte L CL Oliveri Mary C MC Fuller Morgan M Brown Sue A SA DeBoer Mark D MD Breton Marc D MD

Diabetes care 20230901 9

<h4>Objective</h4>Meals are a consistent challenge to glycemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Our objective was to assess the glycemic impact of meal anticipation within a fully automated insulin delivery (AID) system among adults with T1D.<h4>Research design and methods</h4>We report the results of a randomized crossover clinical trial comparing three modalities of AID systems: hybrid closed loop (HCL), full closed loop (FCL), and full closed loop with meal anticipation (FCL+). Modalities we ...[more]

PMID: 37478323

Similar Datasets

Project description: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 < 0.001). Time > 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).

Project description:ImportanceThere is a need for additional treatment options for people with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin. Given the limited data on the use of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in type 2 diabetes, studies evaluating their safety and efficacy are important.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of AID with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels in a diverse cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes.Design, setting, and participantsThis single-arm prospective trial was conducted at 21 clinical centers in the United States among individuals aged 18 to 75 years with type 2 diabetes who had been using insulin for at least 3 months prior to screening. Participants with AID system use were excluded. The study started with a 14-day standard therapy phase, followed by 13 weeks of treatment with the investigational device. The first participant was enrolled April 11, 2023, and the last participant follow-up visit was February 29, 2024.InterventionParticipants used the Omnipod 5 AID System for 13 weeks following the 14-day standard therapy phase.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was change in HbA1c level at 13 weeks, tested sequentially for noninferiority (0.3% margin) and superiority, compared with baseline.ResultsAmong 305 participants (mean [SD] age, 57 [11] years; 175 [57%] female; 72 [24%] Black, 66 [22%] Hispanic or Latino, and 153 [50%] White), 289 (95%) completed the trial. At baseline, 223 (73%) were using multiple daily injections, 63 (21%) were using basal insulin without bolus, 17 (6%) were using an insulin pump, 188 (62%) were using continuous glucose monitoring, 168 (55%) were using glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), and 134 (44%) were using sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is). Following AID use, HbA1c levels decreased from a mean (SD) of 8.2% (1.3) at baseline to 7.4% (0.9) at 13 weeks (mean difference, -0.8 [95% CI, -1.0 to -0.7] percentage points; P < .001 for noninferiority and superiority). Improvement was seen across various subgroups (age, sex, race and ethnicity, insurance), and notably with or without use of GLP-1RAs or SGLT-2is and regardless of pretrial mealtime insulin regimen. Time in target glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) increased from a mean (SD) of 45% (25) to 66% (17) (mean difference, 20 [95% CI, 18 to 22] percentage points; P < .001). Percentage of time in hypoglycemic ranges of less than 54 mg/dL and less than 70 mg/dL was noninferior compared with standard therapy. There was 1 episode of severe hypoglycemia and none of diabetic ketoacidosis or hyperosmolar hyperglycemic syndrome.Conclusions and relevanceIn this nonrandomized clinical trial, HbA1c levels were lower in a diverse cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes following AID initiation, suggesting that AID may be a beneficial and safe option for people with type 2 diabetes using insulin.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05815342.

Dataset Information

Assessment of Meal Anticipation for Improving Fully Automated Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

Objective

Research design and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Assessment of Meal Anticipation for Improving Fully Automated Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets