Dataset Information

Home use of closed-loop insulin delivery for overnight glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a 4-week, multicentre, randomised crossover study.

ABSTRACT: Closed-loop insulin delivery is a promising option to improve glycaemic control and reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia. We aimed to assess whether overnight home use of automated closed-loop insulin delivery would improve glucose control.We did this open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled, crossover study between Dec 1, 2012, and Dec 23, 2014, recruiting patients from three centres in the UK. Patients aged 18 years or older with type 1 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive 4 weeks of overnight closed-loop insulin delivery (using a model-predictive control algorithm to direct insulin delivery), then 4 weeks of insulin pump therapy (in which participants used real-time display of continuous glucose monitoring independent of their pumps as control), or vice versa. Allocation to initial treatment group was by computer-generated permuted block randomisation. Each treatment period was separated by a 3-4 week washout period. The primary outcome was time spent in the target glucose range of 3·9-8·0 mmol/L between 0000 h and 0700 h. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01440140.We randomly assigned 25 participants to initial treatment in either the closed-loop group or the control group, patients were later crossed over into the other group; one patient from the closed-loop group withdrew consent after randomisation, and data for 24 patients were analysed. Closed loop was used over a median of 8·3 h (IQR 6·0-9·6) on 555 (86%) of 644 nights. The proportion of time when overnight glucose was in target range was significantly higher during the closed-loop period compared to during the control period (mean difference between groups 13·5%, 95% CI 7·3-19·7; p=0·0002). We noted no severe hypoglycaemic episodes during the control period compared with two episodes during the closed-loop period; these episodes were not related to closed-loop algorithm instructions.Unsupervised overnight closed-loop insulin delivery at home is feasible and could improve glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes.Diabetes UK.

SUBMITTER: Thabit H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4165604 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Home use of closed-loop insulin delivery for overnight glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a 4-week, multicentre, randomised crossover study.

Thabit Hood H Lubina-Solomon Alexandra A Stadler Marietta M Leelarathna Lalantha L Walkinshaw Emma E Pernet Andrew A Allen Janet M JM Iqbal Ahmed A Choudhary Pratik P Kumareswaran Kavita K Nodale Marianna M Nisbet Chloe C Wilinska Malgorzata E ME Barnard Katharine D KD Dunger David B DB Heller Simon R SR Amiel Stephanie A SA Evans Mark L ML Hovorka Roman R

The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology 20140616 9

<h4>Background</h4>Closed-loop insulin delivery is a promising option to improve glycaemic control and reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia. We aimed to assess whether overnight home use of automated closed-loop insulin delivery would improve glucose control.<h4>Methods</h4>We did this open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled, crossover study between Dec 1, 2012, and Dec 23, 2014, recruiting patients from three centres in the UK. Patients aged 18 years or older with type 1 diabetes were random ...[more]

PMID: 24943065

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of overnight closed loop delivery of insulin (artificial pancreas) with conventional insulin pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes.DesignTwo sequential, open label, randomised controlled crossover, single centre studies.SettingClinical research facility.Participants24 adults (10 men, 14 women) with type 1 diabetes, aged 18-65, who had used insulin pump therapy for at least three months: 12 were tested after consuming a medium sized meal and the other 12 after consuming a larger meal accompanied by alcohol.InterventionDuring overnight closed loop delivery, sensor measurements of glucose were fed into a computer algorithm, which advised on insulin pump infusion rates at 15 minute intervals. During control nights, conventional insulin pump settings were applied. One study compared closed loop delivery of insulin with conventional pump therapy after a medium sized evening meal (60 g of carbohydrates) at 1900, depicting the scenario of "eating in." The other study was carried out after a later large evening meal (100 g of carbohydrates) at 2030, accompanied by white wine (0.75 g/kg ethanol) and depicted the scenario of "eating out."Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the time plasma glucose levels were in target (3.91-8.0 mmol/L) during closed loop delivery and a comparable control period. Secondary outcomes included pooled data analysis and time plasma glucose levels were below target (≤ 3.9 mmol/L).ResultsFor the eating in scenario, overnight closed loop delivery of insulin increased the time plasma glucose levels were in target by a median 15% (interquartile range 3-35%), P = 0.002. For the eating out scenario, closed loop delivery increased the time plasma glucose levels were in target by a median 28% (2-39%), P = 0.01. Analysis of pooled data showed that the overall time plasma glucose was in target increased by a median 22% (3-37%) with closed loop delivery (P < 0.001). Closed loop delivery reduced overnight time spent hypoglycaemic (plasma glucose ≤ 3.9 mmol/L) by a median 3% (0-20%), P=0.04, and eliminated plasma glucose concentrations below 3.0 mmol/L after midnight.ConclusionThese two small crossover trials suggest that closed loop delivery of insulin may improve overnight control of glucose levels and reduce the risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00910767 and NCT00944619.

Project description:BackgroundThe achievement of glycaemic control remains challenging for patients with type 1 diabetes. We assessed the effectiveness of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in people with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older.MethodsIn this open-label, multicentre, multinational, single-period, parallel randomised controlled trial, participants were recruited from diabetes outpatient clinics at four hospitals in the UK and two centres in the USA. We randomly assigned participants with type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older treated with insulin pump and with suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·5-10·0%) to receive either hybrid closed-loop therapy or sensor-augmented pump therapy over 12 weeks of free living. Training on study insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring took place over a 4-week run-in period. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned using central randomisation software. Allocation to the two study groups was unblinded, and randomisation was stratified within centre by low (<8·5%) or high (≥8·5%) HbA1c. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range of 3·9-10·0 mmol/L at 12 weeks post randomisation. Analyses of primary outcome and safety measures were done in all randomised patients. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02523131, and is closed to accrual.FindingsFrom May 12, 2016, to Nov 17, 2017, 114 individuals were screened, and 86 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive hybrid closed-loop therapy (n=46) or sensor-augmented pump therapy (n=40; control group). The proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range was significantly higher in the closed-loop group (65%, SD 8) compared with the control group (54%, SD 9; mean difference in change 10·8 percentage points, 95% CI 8·2 to 13·5; p<0·0001). In the closed-loop group, HbA1c was reduced from a screening value of 8·3% (SD 0·6) to 8·0% (SD 0·6) after the 4-week run-in, and to 7·4% (SD 0·6) after the 12-week intervention period. In the control group, the HbA1c values were 8·2% (SD 0·5) at screening, 7·8% (SD 0·6) after run-in, and 7·7% (SD 0·5) after intervention; reductions in HbA1c percentages were significantly greater in the closed-loop group compared with the control group (mean difference in change 0·36%, 95% CI 0·19 to 0·53; p<0·0001). The time spent with glucose concentrations below 3·9 mmol/L (mean difference in change -0·83 percentage points, -1·40 to -0·16; p=0·0013) and above 10·0 mmol/L (mean difference in change -10·3 percentage points, -13·2 to -7·5; p<0·0001) was shorter in the closed-loop group than the control group. The coefficient of variation of sensor-measured glucose was not different between interventions (mean difference in change -0·4%, 95% CI -1·4% to 0·7%; p=0·50). Similarly, total daily insulin dose was not different (mean difference in change 0·031 U/kg per day, 95% CI -0·005 to 0·067; p=0·09) and bodyweight did not differ (mean difference in change 0·68 kg, 95% CI -0·34 to 1·69; p=0·19). No severe hypoglycaemia occurred. One diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group due to infusion set failure. Two participants in each study group had significant hyperglycaemia, and there were 13 other adverse events in the closed-loop group and three in the control group.InterpretationHybrid closed-loop insulin delivery improves glucose control while reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia across a wide age range in patients with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes.FundingJDRF, NIHR, and Wellcome Trust.

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundOlder adults with type 1 diabetes have distinct characteristics that can make optimising glycaemic control challenging. We sought to test our hypothesis that hybrid closed-loop glucose control is safe and more effective than sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy in older adults with type 1 diabetes.MethodsIn an open-label, multicentre, multinational (UK and Austria), randomised, crossover study, adults aged 60 years and older with type 1 diabetes using insulin pump therapy underwent two 16-week periods comparing hybrid closed-loop (CamAPS FX, CamDiab, Cambridge, UK) and SAP therapy in random order. Block randomisation by means of central randomisation software to one of two treatment sequences was stratified by centre. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time sensor glucose was in target range between 3·9 and 10·0 mmol/L. Analysis for the primary endpoint and adverse events was by intention-to-treat. The study has completed and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04025762.Findings38 participants were enrolled. One participant withdrew during run-in because of difficulties with the study pump infusion sets. 37 participants (median [IQR] age 68 [63-70] years, mean [SD] baseline glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c]; 7·4% [0·9%]; 57 [10] mmol/mol) were randomly assigned between Sept 4, 2019, and Oct 2, 2020. The proportion of time with glucose between 3·9 and 10·0 mmol/L was significantly higher in the closed-loop group compared to the SAP group (79·9% [SD 7·9] vs 71·4% [13·2], difference 8·6 percentage points [95% CI 6·3 to 11·0]; p<0·0001). Two severe hypoglycaemia events occurred during the SAP period. There were two non-treatment related serious adverse events: cardiac arrest from pulmonary embolism associated with COVID-19 during the SAP period resulting in death, and a hospital presentation for parenteral hydrocortisone because of COVID-19 in a participant with adrenal insufficiency during the run-in period.InterpretationHybrid closed-loop insulin delivery is safe and achieves superior glycaemic control to SAP therapy in older adults with long duration of type 1 diabetes. Importantly this was achieved without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia in this population with risk factors for severe hypoglycaemia. This suggests that hybrid closed-loop therapy is a clinically important treatment option for older adults with type 1 diabetes.

Project description:BackgroundManagement of type 1 diabetes is challenging. We compared outcomes using a commercially available hybrid closed-loop system versus a new investigational system with features potentially useful for adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes.MethodsIn this multinational, randomised, crossover trial (Fuzzy Logic Automated Insulin Regulation [FLAIR]), individuals aged 14-29 years old, with a clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes with a duration of at least 1 year, using either an insulin pump or multiple daily insulin injections, and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of 7·0-11·0% (53-97 mmol/mol) were recruited from seven academic-based endocrinology practices, four in the USA, and one each in Germany, Israel, and Slovenia. After a run-in period to teach participants how to use the study pump and continuous glucose monitor, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated sequence, with a permuted block design (block sizes of two and four), stratified by baseline HbA1c and use of a personal MiniMed 670G system (Medtronic) at enrolment, to either use of a MiniMed 670G hybrid closed-loop system (670G) or the investigational advanced hybrid closed-loop system (Medtronic) for the first 12-week period, and then participants were crossed over with no washout period, to the other group for use for another 12 weeks. Masking was not possible due to the nature of the systems used. The coprimary outcomes, measured with continuous glucose monitoring, were proportion of time that glucose levels were above 180 mg/dL (>10·0 mmol/L) during 0600 h to 2359 h (ie, daytime), tested for superiority, and proportion of time that glucose levels were below 54 mg/dL (<3·0 mmol/L) calculated over a full 24-h period, tested for non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin 2%). Analysis was by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all participants randomly assigned to treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03040414, and is now complete.FindingsBetween June 3 and Aug 22, 2019, 113 individuals were enrolled into the trial. Mean age was 19 years (SD 4) and 70 (62%) of 113 participants were female. Mean proportion of time with daytime glucose levels above 180 mg/dL (>10·0 mmol/L) was 42% (SD 13) at baseline, 37% (9) during use of the 670G system, and 34% (9) during use of the advanced hybrid closed-loop system (mean difference [advanced hybrid closed-loop system minus 670G system] -3·00% [95% CI -3·97 to -2·04]; p<0·0001). Mean 24-h proportion of time with glucose levels below 54 mg/dL (<3·0 mmol/L) was 0·46% (SD 0·42) at baseline, 0·50% (0·35) during use of the 670G system, and 0·46% (0·33) during use of the advanced hybrid closed-loop system (mean difference [advanced hybrid closed-loop system minus 670G system] -0·06% [95% CI -0·11 to -0·02]; p<0·0001 for non-inferiority). One severe hypoglycaemic event occurred in the advanced hybrid closed-loop system group, determined to be unrelated to study treatment, and none occurred in the 670G group.InterpretationHyperglycaemia was reduced without increasing hypoglycaemia in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes using the investigational advanced hybrid closed-loop system compared with the commercially available MiniMed 670G system. Testing an advanced hybrid closed-loop system in populations that are underserved due to socioeconomic factors and testing during pregnancy and in individuals with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia would advance the effective use of this technology FUNDING: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Project description:Aims/hypothesisHypoglycaemia during and after exercise remains a challenge. The present study evaluated the safety and efficacy of closed-loop insulin delivery during unannounced (to the closed-loop algorithm) afternoon physical activity and during the following night in young people with type 1 diabetes.MethodsA randomised, two-arm, open-label, in-hospital, crossover clinical trial was performed at a single site in Slovenia. The order was randomly determined using an automated web-based programme with randomly permuted blocks of four. Allocation assignment was not masked. Children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes who were experienced insulin pump users were eligible for the trial. During four separate in-hospital visits, the participants performed two unannounced exercise protocols: moderate intensity (55% of [Formula: see text]) and moderate intensity with integrated high-intensity sprints (55/80% of [Formula: see text]), using the same study device either for closed-loop or open-loop insulin delivery. We investigated glycaemic control during the exercise period and the following night. The closed-loop insulin delivery was applied from 15:00 h on the day of the exercise to 13:00 h on the following day.ResultsBetween 20 January and 16 June 2016, 20 eligible participants (9 female, mean age 14.2 ± 2.0 years, HbA1c 7.7 ± 0.6% [60.0 ± 6.6 mmol/mol]) were included in the trial and performed all trial-mandated activities. The median proportion of time spent in hypoglycaemia below 3.3 mmol/l was 0.00% for both treatment modalities (p = 0.7910). Use of the closed-loop insulin delivery system increased the proportion of time spent within the target glucose range of 3.9-10 mmol/l when compared with open-loop delivery: 84.1% (interquartile range 70.0-85.5) vs 68.7% (59.0-77.7), respectively (p = 0.0057), over the entire study period. This was achieved with significantly less insulin delivered via the closed-loop (p = 0.0123).Conclusions/interpretationClosed-loop insulin delivery was safe both during and after unannounced exercise protocols in the in-hospital environment, maintaining glucose values mostly within the target range without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02657083 FUNDING: University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenian National Research Agency, and ISPAD Research Fellowship.

Dataset Information

Home use of closed-loop insulin delivery for overnight glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a 4-week, multicentre, randomised crossover study.

Publications

Home use of closed-loop insulin delivery for overnight glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a 4-week, multicentre, randomised crossover study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets