Insulin pump therapy and glucose control during Ramadan fasting in an adolescent with type 1 diabetes: from an open-loop sensor-augmented pump therapy with predictive low-glucose management to an advanced hybrid closed-loop system.
Insulin pump therapy and glucose control during Ramadan fasting in an adolescent with type 1 diabetes: from an open-loop sensor-augmented pump therapy with predictive low-glucose management to an advanced hybrid closed-loop system.
Project description:Diabetes is one of the most common chronic disorders with an increasing incidence worldwide. Technologic advances in the field of diabetes have provided new tools for clinicians to manage this challenging disease. For example, the development of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion systems have allowed for refinement in the delivery of insulin, while continuous glucose monitors provide patients and clinicians with a better understanding of the minute to minute glucose variability, leading to the titration of insulin delivery based on this variability when applicable. Merging of these devices has resulted in sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy, which became a major building block upon which the artificial pancreas (closed-loop systems) can be developed. This article summarizes the evolution of sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy until present day and its future applications in new-generation diabetes management.
Project description:Objective: Several studies have shown that closed-loop automated insulin delivery (the artificial pancreas) improves glucose control compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy. We aimed to confirm these findings using our automated insulin delivery system based on the iPancreas platform. Research Design and Methods: We conducted a two-center, randomized crossover trial comparing automated insulin delivery with sensor-augmented pump therapy in 36 adults with type 1 diabetes. Each intervention lasted 12 days in outpatient free-living conditions with no remote monitoring. The automated insulin delivery system used a model predictive control algorithm that was a less aggressive version of our earlier dosing algorithm to emphasize safety. The primary outcome was time in the range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L. Results: The automated insulin delivery system was operational 90.2% of the time. Compared with the sensor-augmented pump therapy, automated insulin delivery increased time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) from 61% (interquartile range 53-74) to 69% (60-73; P = 0.006) and increased time in tight target range (3.9-7.8 mmol/L) from 37% (30-49) to 45% (35-51; P = 0.011). Automated insulin delivery also reduced time spent below 3.9 and 3.3 mmol/L from 3.5% (0.8-5.4) to 1.6% (1.1-2.7; P = 0.0021) and from 0.9% (0.2-2.1) to 0.5% (0.2-1.1; P = 0.0122), respectively. Time spent below 2.8 mmol/L was 0.2% (0.0-0.6) with sensor-augmented pump therapy and 0.1% (0.0-0.4; P = 0.155) with automated insulin delivery. Conclusions: Our study confirms findings that automated insulin delivery improves glucose control compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT02846831.
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:We aimed to evaluate the relationship between insulin pharmacodynamics and glycaemic outcomes during closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy. We retrospectively analysed data from a multicentre randomized control trial involving 32 adults with type 1 diabetes receiving day-and-night closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy over 12 weeks. We estimated time-to-peak insulin action (t max,IA ) and insulin sensitivity ( S I ) during both interventions, and correlated these with demographic factors and glycaemic outcomes. During both interventions, t max,IA was positively correlated with pre- and post-intervention HbA1c (r = 0.50-0.52, P < .01) and mean glucose (r = 0.45-0.62, P < .05), and inversely correlated with time sensor glucose, which was in target range 3.9 to 10 mmol/L (r = -0.64 to -0.47, P < .05). Increased body mass index was associated with higher t max,I and lower S I (both P < .05). During closed-loop insulin delivery, t max,IA was positively correlated with glucose variability ( P < .05). Faster insulin action is associated with improved glycaemic control during closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy.
Project description:BackgroundSensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy can improve glycemic control, compared with multiple daily insulin injections or with insulin pump therapy alone, without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia.Subjects and methodsA 12-month observational study in patients with type 1 diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), upon the introduction of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), was conducted in 15 countries (in Europe and in Israel) to document the real-life use of SAP and assess which variables are associated with improvement in type 1 diabetes management.ResultsData from 263 patients (38% male; mean age, 28.0 ± 15.7 years [range, 1-69 years]; body mass index, 23.3 ± 4.9 kg/m(2); diabetes duration, 13.9 ± 10.7 years; CSII duration, 2.6 ± 3 years) were collected. Baseline mean glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was 8.1 ± 1.4%; 82% had suboptimal HbA1c (≥ 7%). The average sensor use for 12 months was 30% (range, 0-94%), and sensor use decreased with time (first 3 months, 37%; last 3 months, 27%). Factors associated with improvement in HbA1c after 12 months in patients with baseline HbA1c ≥ 7% were high baseline HbA1c (P<0.001), older age group (P<0.001), and more frequent sensor use (P = 0.047). Significantly less hospitalization, increased treatment satisfaction, and reduced fear of hypoglycemia were reported after 12 months of SAP.ConclusionsThis is the largest and longest multicenter prospective observational study providing real-life data on SAP. These results are consistent with those of controlled trials showing the effectiveness of CGM in pump users.
Project description:AimsBlood glucose control is central to the management of diabetes, and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves glycemic control. We aimed to describe the perspectives of people with diabetes using CGM.Materials and methodsWe performed a systematic review of qualitative studies.ResultsFifty-four studies involving 1845 participants were included. Six themes were identified: gaining control and convenience (reducing pain and time, safeguarding against complications, achieving stricter glucose levels, and sharing responsibility with family); motivating self-management (fostering ownership, and increasing awareness of glycemic control); providing reassurance and freedom (attaining peace of mind, and restoring social participation); developing confidence (encouraged by the endorsement of others, gaining operational skills, customizing settings for ease of use, and trust in the device); burdened with device complexities (bewildered by unfamiliar technology, reluctant to rely on algorithms, overwhelmed by data, frustrated with malfunctioning and inaccuracy, distressed by alerts, and bulkiness of machines interfering with lifestyle); and excluded by barriers to access (constrained by cost, lack of suppliers).ConclusionsCGM can improve self-management and confidence in patients managing diabetes. However, the technical issues, uncertainty in readings, and cost may limit the uptake. Education and training from the health professionals may help to reduce the practical and psychological burden for better patient outcomes.
Project description:BackgroundIn outpatient studies of closed-loop insulin delivery systems, it is not typically practical to obtain blood glucose measurements for an outcome measure. Using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device as both part of the intervention and as the outcome in a clinical trial can give a biased estimate of the treatment effect. A stochastic adjustment has been proposed to correct this problem.Materials and methodsWe performed Monte Carlo simulations to assess the performance of the stochastic adjustment in various scenarios where the CGM device was used passively and when it was used to inform insulin delivery. The resulting bias for using CGM to estimate the percentage of glucose values inside a target range was compared with and without the proposed stochastic adjustment.ResultsCGM bias for estimating the percentage of glucose values 70-180 mg/dL ranged from -6% to +4% in the various scenarios studied. In some circumstances, stochastic adjustment did indeed reduce this CGM bias. However, in other circumstances, stochastic adjustment made the bias worse. Stochastic adjustment tended to underestimate the true percentage of glucose values in range for most, but not all, scenarios considered in these simulations.ConclusionsStochastic adjustment is not a general solution to the problem of CGM bias. The proposed adjustment relies on an implicit assumption that usually does not hold. The appropriate level of adjustment depends on how efficacious the closed-loop system is, which is not typically known in practice.
Project description:IntroductionDespite therapeutic advances, many individuals with type 1 diabetes are unable to achieve tight glycaemic target without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. The objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a 3-month day-and-night home closed-loop glucose control combined with a pump suspend feature, compared with sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy in youths and adults with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes.Methods and analysisThe study adopts an open-label, multi-centre, multi-national (UK and USA), randomised, single-period, parallel design and aims for 84 randomised patients. Participants are youths (6-21 years) or adults (>21 years) with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy and suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.5% (58 mmol/mol) and ≤10% (86 mmol/mol)). Following a 4-week run-in period, eligible participants will be randomised to a 3-month use of automated closed-loop insulin delivery combined with pump suspend feature or to sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome is the time spent in the target glucose range from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L based on continuous glucose monitoring levels during the 3-month free-living phase. Secondary outcomes include HbA1c at 3 months, mean glucose, time spent below and above target; time with glucose levels <3.5 and <2.8 mmol/L; area under the curve when sensor glucose is <3.5 mmol/L, time with glucose levels >16.7 mmol/L, glucose variability; total, basal and bolus insulin dose and change in body weight. Participants' and their families' perception in terms of lifestyle change, daily diabetes management and fear of hypoglycaemia will be evaluated.Ethics and disseminationEthics/institutional review board approval has been obtained. Before screening, all participants/guardians will be provided with oral and written information about the trial. The study will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Trial registration numberNCT02523131; Pre-results.
Project description:Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have proven effective in increasing time-in-range during both clinical trials and real-world use. Further improvements in outcomes for single-hormone (insulin only) AID may be limited by suboptimal insulin delivery settings. Methods: Adults (≥18 years of age) with type 1 diabetes were randomized to either sensor-augmented pump (SAP) (inclusive of predictive low-glucose suspend) or adaptive zone model predictive control AID for 13 weeks, then crossed over to the other arm. Each week, the AID insulin delivery settings were sequentially and automatically updated by an adaptation system running on the study phone. Primary outcome was sensor glucose time-in-range 70-180 mg/dL, with noninferiority in percent time below 54 mg/dL as a hierarchical outcome. Results: Thirty-five participants completed the trial (mean age 39 ± 16 years, HbA1c at enrollment 6.9% ± 1.0%). Mean time-in-range 70-180 mg/dL was 66% with SAP versus 69% with AID (mean adjusted difference +2% [95% confidence interval: -1% to +6%], P = 0.22). Median time <70 mg/dL improved from 3.0% with SAP to 1.6% with AID (-1.5% [-2.4% to -0.5%], P = 0.002). The adaptation system decreased initial basal rates by a median of 4% (-8%, 16%) and increased initial carbohydrate ratios by a median of 45% (32%, 59%) after 13 weeks. Conclusions: Automated adaptation of insulin delivery settings with AID use did not significantly improve time-in-range in this very well-controlled population. Additional study and further refinement of the adaptation system are needed, especially in populations with differing degrees of baseline glycemic control, who may show larger benefits from adaptation.
Project description:IntroductionDiabetes 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 analysisThe 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 disseminationEthics 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.Trial registration numberNCT03784027.