Impact of Ultra-Rapid Insulin on Boost and Ease-Off in the Cambridge Hybrid Closed-Loop System for Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ultra-rapid-acting insulin with the Boost and Ease-off features of the Cambridge hybrid closed-loop system. METHODS: A secondary analysis of Boost and Ease-off from two double-blind, randomized, crossover hybrid closed-loop studies comparing (1) Fiasp to insulin aspart (n = 25), and (2) Lyumjev to insulin lispro (n = 26) was carried out. Mean glucose on initialization of Boost and Ease-off, change in glucose 60 and 120 minutes after initialization, duration and frequency of use, mean glucose, and time in, above, and below target glucose range were calculated for periods of Boost use, Ease-off use, or neither. RESULTS: Participants used Boost for longer with Fiasp than insulin aspart (median [interquartile range, IQR] = 75 [53-125] minutes vs 60 [49-75] minutes; P = .01). Mean glucose on Boost initialization with Fiasp was 238 ± 62 mg/dL compared with 218 ± 45 mg/dL with insulin aspart (P = .08). Fiasp use resulted in a greater glucose reduction 120 minutes after Boost initialization [-59 ± 34 mg/dL vs -43 ± 31 mg/dL; P = .02]. There were no statistically significant differences in sensor glucose endpoints during Boost or Ease-off periods between Fiasp and aspart. There were no statistically significant differences during Boost or Ease-off periods when comparing Lyumjev with insulin lispro. There were no safety issues when using Boost and Ease-off with ultra-rapid insulins. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Fiasp and Lyumjev during Boost or Ease-off resulted in comparable safety and efficacy to using insulin aspart and lispro.

Hypoglycemia and Hyperglycemia According to Type of Diabetes: Observations During Fully Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: CamAPS HX fully closed-loop (FCL) system, with no user input required at mealtimes, has been shown to be safe and effective in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. We assessed whether time spent in hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia during FCL insulin delivery in adults varied by type of diabetes over the 24-hour period. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed eight weeks of data from 52 participants (adults with type 1 diabetes and adults with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes) recruited to two single-center randomized controlled studies using FCL insulin delivery during unrestricted-living conditions. Key outcomes were time spent in hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL and marked hyperglycemia >300 mg/dL by type of diabetes. RESULTS: The median percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL over the 24-hour period was lower for those with type 2 diabetes than for those with type 1 diabetes (median [interquartile range (IQR)] 0.43% [0.20-0.77] vs 0.86%, [0.54-1.46]; mean difference 0.46 percentage points [95% CI 0.23-0.70]; P < .001). Median percentage time in marked hyperglycemia >300 mg/dL was lower for those with type 2 diabetes than for those with type 1 diabetes (median [IQR] 1.8% [0.6-3.5] vs 9.3% [6.9-11.8]; mean difference 7.8 percentage points [95% CI 5.5-10.0]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Using the FCL system, hypoglycemia and marked hyperglycemia exposure were lower in type 2 diabetes than in type 1 diabetes.

The INNODIA Type 1 Diabetes Natural History Study: a European cohort of newly diagnosed children, adolescents and adults.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Type 1 diabetes is an heterogenous condition. Characterising factors explaining differences in an individual's clinical course and treatment response will have important clinical and research implications. Our aim was to explore type 1 diabetes heterogeneity, as assessed by clinical characteristics, autoantibodies, beta cell function and glycaemic outcomes, during the first 12 months from diagnosis, and how it relates to age at diagnosis. METHODS: Data were collected from the large INNODIA cohort of individuals (aged 1.0-45.0 years) newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, followed 3 monthly, to assess clinical characteristics, C-peptide, HbA1c and diabetes-associated antibodies, and their changes, during the first 12 months from diagnosis, across three age groups: <10 years; 10-17 years; and ≥18 years. RESULTS: The study population included 649 individuals (57.3% male; age 12.1±8.3 years), 96.9% of whom were positive for one or more diabetes-related antibodies. Baseline (IQR) fasting C-peptide was 242.0 (139.0-382.0) pmol/l (AUC 749.3 [466.2-1106.1] pmol/l × min), with levels increasing with age (p<0.001). Over time, C-peptide remained lower in participants aged <10 years but it declined in all age groups. In parallel, glucose levels progressively increased. Lower baseline fasting C-peptide, BMI SD score and presence of diabetic ketoacidosis at diagnosis were associated with lower stimulated C-peptide over time. HbA1c decreased during the first 3 months (p<0.001), whereas insulin requirement increased from 3 months post diagnosis (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: In this large cohort with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes, we identified age-related differences in clinical and biochemical variables. Of note, C-peptide was lower in younger children but there were no main age differences in its rate of decline.

Lived Experience of Fully Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Introduction: The Closing the Loop in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes (CLEAR) randomized crossover study compared a novel fully closed-loop insulin delivery system with no carbohydrate entry or mealtime bolusing (CamAPS HX), with standard insulin pump therapy and glucose sensor in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic outcomes. This qualitative substudy aimed to understand the psychosocial impact of using the fully automated system. Materials and Methods: Adults participating in the CLEAR study were invited to take part in a virtual semistructured interview after they had completed 8 weeks using the fully closed-loop system. Recruitment continued until there was adequate representation and data saturation occurred. Interviews were anonymized and transcribed for in-depth thematic analysis using an inductive-deductive approach. Study participants were also asked to complete questionnaires assessing diabetes distress, hypoglycemia confidence, and closed-loop treatment satisfaction. Results: Eleven participants (eight male and three female; age range 26-66 years) were interviewed. After an initial adjustment period, interviewees reported enjoying a reduction in diabetes burden, freed-up mental capacity, and improved mood. All were happy with overnight glycemic outcomes, with the majority reporting benefits on sleep. Although experiences of postprandial glucose outcomes varied, all found mealtimes easier and less stressful, particularly when eating out. Negatives raised by participants predominantly related to the insulin pump hardware, but some also reported increased snacking and challenges around resuming carbohydrate counting at trial closeout. Conclusions: In adults with type 1 diabetes, use of a fully closed-loop insulin delivery system had significant quality-of-life benefits and provided a welcome break from the day-to-day demands of living with diabetes. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04977908.

Counterregulatory hormone and symptom responses to hypoglycaemia in people with type 1 diabetes, insulin-treated type 2 diabetes or without diabetes: the Hypo-RESOLVE hypoglycaemic clamp study.

AIM: The sympathetic nervous and hormonal counterregulatory responses to hypoglycaemia differ between people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and may change along the course of diabetes, but have not been directly compared. We aimed to compare counterregulatory hormone and symptom responses to hypoglycaemia between people with type 1 diabetes, insulin-treated type 2 diabetes and controls without diabetes, using a standardised hyperinsulinaemic-hypoglycaemic clamp. MATERIALS: We included 47 people with type 1 diabetes, 15 with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, and 32 controls without diabetes. Controls were matched according to age and sex to the people with type 1 diabetes or with type 2 diabetes. All participants underwent a hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic-(5.2 ± 0.4 mmol/L)-hypoglycaemic-(2.8 ± 0.13 mmol/L)-clamp. RESULTS: The glucagon response was lower in people with type 1 diabetes (9.4 ± 0.8 pmol/L, 8.0 [7.0-10.0]) compared to type 2 diabetes (23.7 ± 3.7 pmol/L, 18.0 [12.0-28.0], p < 0.001) and controls (30.6 ± 4.7, 25.5 [17.8-35.8] pmol/L, p < 0.001). The adrenaline response was lower in type 1 diabetes (1.7 ± 0.2, 1.6 [1.3-5.2] nmol/L) compared to type 2 diabetes (3.4 ± 0.7, 2.6 [1.3-5.2] nmol/L, p = 0.001) and controls (2.7 ± 0.4, 2.8 [1.4-3.9] nmol/L, p = 0.012). Growth hormone was lower in people with type 2 diabetes than in type 1 diabetes, at baseline (3.4 ± 1.6 vs 7.7 ± 1.3 mU/L, p = 0.042) and during hypoglycaemia (24.7 ± 7.1 vs 62.4 ± 5.8 mU/L, p = 0.001). People with 1 diabetes had lower overall symptom responses than people with type 2 diabetes (45.3 ± 2.7 vs 58.7 ± 6.4, p = 0.018), driven by a lower neuroglycopenic score (27.4 ± 1.8 vs 36.7 ± 4.2, p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Acute counterregulatory hormone and symptom responses to experimental hypoglycaemia are lower in people with type 1 diabetes than in those with long-standing insulin-treated type 2 diabetes and controls.

Postprandial Glucose Excursions with Ultra-Rapid Insulin Analogs in Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Objective: To evaluate postprandial glucose control when applying (1) faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) compared to insulin aspart and (2) ultra-rapid insulin lispro (Lyumjev) compared to insulin lispro using the CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop algorithm. Research Design and Methods: We undertook a secondary analysis of postprandial glucose excursions from two double-blind, randomized, crossover hybrid closed-loop studies contrasting Fiasp to standard insulin aspart, and Lyumjev to standard insulin lispro. Endpoints included incremental area under curve (iAUC)-2h, iAUC-4h, 4 h postprandial time in target range, time above range, and time below range. It was approved by independent research ethics committees. Results: Two trials with 8 weeks of data from 51 adults with type 1 diabetes were analyzed and 7137 eligible meals were included. During Lyumjev compared with insulin lispro, iAUC-2h and iAUC-4h were significantly decreased following breakfast (mean difference 92 mmol/L per 2 h (95% confidence interval [CI]: 56 to 127); P < 0.001 and 151 mmol/L per 4 h (95% CI: 74 to 229); P < 0.001, respectively) and the evening meal (P < 0.001 and P = 0.011, respectively). Mean time in target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) for 4 h postprandially significantly increased during Lyumjev with a mean difference of 6.7 percentage points (95% CI: 3.3 to 10) and 5.7 percentage points (95% CI: 1.4 to 9.9) for breakfast and evening meal, respectively. In contrast, there were no significant differences in iAUC-2h, iAUC-4h, and the other measures of postprandial glucose control between insulin aspart and Fiasp during breakfast, lunch, and evening meal (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The use of Lyumjev with CamAPS FX closed-loop system improved postprandial glucose excursions compared with insulin lispro, while the use of Fiasp did not provide any advantage compared with insulin aspart. Clinical Trial Registration numbers: NCT04055480, NCT05257460.

Estimating the cost-effectiveness of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes in England.

OBJECTIVE: We previously showed that intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) reduces HbA1c at 24 weeks compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose with finger pricking (SMBG) in adults with type 1 diabetes and high HbA1c levels (58-97 mmol/mol [7.5%-11%]). We aim to assess the economic impact of isCGM compared with SMBG. METHODS: Participant-level baseline and follow-up health status (EQ-5D-5L) and within-trial healthcare resource-use data were collected. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived at 24 weeks, adjusting for baseline EQ-5D-5L. Participant-level costs were generated. Using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, economic analysis was performed from the National Health Service perspective over a lifetime horizon, discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: Within-trial EQ-5D-5L showed non-significant adjusted incremental QALY gain of 0.006 (95% CI: -0.007 to 0.019) for isCGM compared with SMBG and an adjusted cost increase of £548 (95% CI: 381-714) per participant. The lifetime projected incremental cost (95% CI) of isCGM was £1954 (-5108 to 8904) with an incremental QALY (95% CI) gain of 0.436 (0.195-0.652) resulting in an incremental cost-per-QALY of £4477. In all subgroups, isCGM had an incremental cost-per-QALY better than £20,000 compared with SMBG; for people with baseline HbA1c >75 mmol/mol (9.0%), it was cost-saving. Sensitivity analysis suggested that isCGM remains cost-effective if its effectiveness lasts for at least 7 years. CONCLUSION: While isCGM is associated with increased short-term costs, compared with SMBG, its benefits in lowering HbA1c will lead to sufficient long-term health-gains and cost-savings to justify costs, so long as the effect lasts into the medium term.

Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes: A subgroup analysis from the FLASH-UK study.

AIMS: The FLASH-UK trial showed lower HbA1c with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM), as compared with self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), in adults with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c ≥58 mmol/mol (≥7.5%). Here, we present results from the pre-specified subgroup analysis for the 24-week HbA1c (primary outcome) and selected sensor-based secondary outcomes. METHODS: This was a multi-centre, parallel-design, randomised controlled trial. The difference in treatment effect between subgroups (baseline HbA1c [≤75 vs. >75 mmol/mol] [≤9.0 vs >9.0%], treatment modality [pump vs injections], prior participation in structured education, age, educational level, impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia, deprivation index quintile sex, ethnic group and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] detected depression category) were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-six participants (females 44%, mean [SD] baseline HbA1c 71 [9] mmol/mol 8.6 [0.8%], age 44 [15]) were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio to isCGM (n = 78) or SMBG (n = 78). The mean (SD) baseline HbA1c (%) was 8.7 (0.9) in the isCGM group and 8.5 (0.8) in the SMBG group, lowering to 7.9 (0.8) versus 8.3 (0.9), respectively, at 24 weeks (adjusted mean difference -0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.7 to -0.3; p < 0.001]. For HbA1c, there was no impact of treatment modality, prior participation in structured education, deprivation index quintile, sex or baseline depression category. The between-group difference in HbA1c was larger for younger people (a reduction of 2.7 [95% CI 0.3-5.0; p = 0.028] mmol/mol for every additional 15 years of age). Those with HbA1c 76-97 mmol/mol (>9.0%-11.0%) had a marginally non-significant higher reduction in HbA1c of 8.4 mmol/mol (3.3-13.5) compared to 3.1 (0.3-6.0) in those with HbA1c 58-75 mmol/mol (p = 0.08). For 'Time in range' (% 3.9-10 mmol/L), the difference was larger for those with at least a bachelor's degree. For 'Time below range' (% <3.9 mmol/L), the difference was larger for those using injections, older people and those with less than bachelor's degree. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring is generally effective across a range of baseline characteristics.

CamAPS FX Hybrid Closed-Loop with Ultra-Rapid Lispro Compared with Standard Lispro in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Crossover Study.

Introduction: To evaluate hybrid closed-loop with ultra-rapid insulin lispro (Lyumjev) compared with hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes. Materials and Methods: In a single-center, double-blind, randomized, crossover study, 28 adults with type 1 diabetes (mean ± standard deviation [SD]: age 44.5 ± 10.7 years, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.1 ± 0.9% [54 ± 10 mmol/mol]) underwent two 8-week periods comparing hybrid closed-loop with ultra-rapid insulin lispro and hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin lispro in random order. The same CamAPS FX closed-loop algorithm was used in both periods. Results: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time sensor glucose was in target range (3.9-10 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]; primary endpoint) was greater with ultra-rapid lispro compared with standard insulin lispro (mean ± SD: 78.7 ± 9.8% vs. 76.2 ± 9.6%; mean difference 2.5 percentage points [95% confidence interval 0.8 to 4.2]; P = 0.005). Mean sensor glucose was lower with ultra-rapid lispro compared with standard insulin lispro (7.9 ± 0.8 mmol/L [142 ± 14 mg/dL] vs. 8.1 ± 0.9 mmol/L [146 ± 16 mg/dL]; P = 0.048). The proportion of time with sensor glucose <3.9 mmol/L [70 mg/dL] was similar between interventions (median [interquartile range] ultra-rapid lispro 2.3% [1.3%-2.7%] vs. standard insulin lispro 2.1% [1.4%-3.3%]; P = 0.33). No severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred. Conclusions: The use of ultra-rapid lispro with CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop increases time in range and reduces mean glucose with no difference in hypoglycemia compared with standard insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes. ClinicalTrials.gov: Trial registration number NCT05257460.

Fully Closed-Loop Glucose Control Compared With Insulin Pump Therapy With Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes and Suboptimal Glycemic Control: A Single-Center, Randomized, Crossover Study.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control compared with insulin pump therapy with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This single-center, randomized, crossover study enrolled 26 adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin pump therapy with suboptimal glycemic control (mean ± SD, age 41 ± 12 years, HbA1c 9.2 ± 1.1% [77 ± 12 mmol/mol]). Participants underwent two 8-week periods of unrestricted living to compare fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro (CamAPS HX system) with insulin pump therapy with CGM in random order. RESULTS: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time glucose was in range (primary end point 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was higher during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD 50.0 ± 9.6% vs. 36.2 ± 12.2%, mean difference 13.2 percentage points [95% CI 9.5, 16.9], P < 0.001). Time with glucose >10.0 mmol/L and mean glucose were lower during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD time >10.0 mmol/L: 49.0 ± 9.9 vs. 62.9 ± 12.6%, mean difference -13.3 percentage points [95% CI -17.2, -9.5], P < 0.001; mean ± SD glucose 10.7 ± 1.1 vs. 12.0 ± 1.6 mmol/L, mean difference -1.2 mmol/L [95% CI -1.8, -0.7], P < 0.001). The proportion of time with glucose <3.9 mmol/L was similar between periods (median [interquartile range (IQR)] closed-loop 0.88% [0.51-1.55] vs. pump with CGM 0.64% [0.28-1.10], P = 0.102). Total daily insulin requirements did not differ (median [IQR] closed-loop 51.9 units/day [35.7-91.2] vs. pump with CGM 50.7 units/day [34.0-70.0], P = 0.704). No severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Fully closed-loop insulin delivery with CamAPS HX improved glucose control compared with insulin pump therapy with CGM in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control.

Sumatriptan, a serotonin 5HT1B receptor agonist, acutely reduces insulin secretion and sensitivity and glucose effectiveness in overweight humans: A double-blinded placebo-controlled cross-over trial.

AIM: Evidence from mouse models suggests that brain serotonergic pathways control blood glucose. We hypothesized that sumatriptan (5HT1B -receptor agonist) would alter glucose homeostasis in humans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a two-visit random-order double-blinded placebo-controlled cross-over trial in 10 overweight adults that were otherwise healthy. Participants received sumatriptan (single dose, 100 mg) or placebo before undergoing a 60-min intravenous glucose tolerance test, followed by a 120-min hyperinsulinaemic euglycaemic clamp. RESULTS: Glucose excursion was greater during intravenous glucose tolerance test with sumatriptan compared with placebo [iAUC0-60 min 316 (268-333) vs. 251 (197-319) min/mmol/L p = .047]. This was probably explained by a combination of reduced circulating insulin levels [iAUC0-10 min 1626 (1103-2733) vs. 2336 (1702-3269) min/pmol/L, p = .005], reduced insulin sensitivity [M/I-value 2.11 (1.15, 4.05) vs. 3.03 (1.14, 4.90) mg/kg/min per pmol/L, p = .010] and glucose effectiveness [SG 0.17 (0.12, 0.21) vs. 0.22 (0.18, 0.65)/min, p = .027]. CONCLUSIONS: 5HT1B receptors have a glucoregulatory role in humans, probably acting on insulin secretion, insulin sensitivity and glucose effectiveness.

Time Spent in Hypoglycemia According to Age and Time of Day: Observations During Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery.

Objective: We aimed to assess whether percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia during closed-loop insulin delivery differs by age group and time of day. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from hybrid closed-loop studies involving young children (2-7 years), children and adolescents (8-18 years), adults (19-59 years), and older adults (≥60 years) with type 1 diabetes. Main outcome was time spent in hypoglycemia <3.9 mmol/L (<70 mg/dL). Eight weeks of data for 88 participants were analyzed. Results: Median time spent in hypoglycemia over the 24-h period was highest in children and adolescents (4.4% [interquartile range 2.4-5.0]) and very young children (4.0% [3.4-5.2]), followed by adults (2.7% [1.7-4.0]), and older adults (1.8% [1.2-2.2]); P < 0.001 for difference between age groups. Time spent in hypoglycemia during nighttime (midnight-05:59) was lower than during daytime (06:00-23:59) across all age groups. Conclusion: Time in hypoglycemia was highest in the pediatric age group during closed-loop insulin delivery. Hypoglycemia burden was lowest overnight across all age groups.

Chronic hyperglycaemia increases the vulnerability of the hippocampus to oxidative damage induced during post-hypoglycaemic hyperglycaemia in a mouse model of chemically induced type 1 diabetes.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Chronic hyperglycaemia and recurrent hypoglycaemia are independently associated with accelerated cognitive decline in type 1 diabetes. Recurrent hypoglycaemia in rodent models of chemically induced (streptozotocin [STZ]) diabetes leads to cognitive impairment in memory-related tasks associated with hippocampal oxidative damage. This study examined the hypothesis that post-hypoglycaemic hyperglycaemia in STZ-diabetes exacerbates hippocampal oxidative stress and explored potential contributory mechanisms. METHODS: The hyperinsulinaemic glucose clamp technique was used to induce equivalent hypoglycaemia and to control post-hypoglycaemic glucose levels in mice with and without STZ-diabetes and Nrf2-/- mice (lacking Nrf2 [also known as Nfe2l2]). Subsequently, quantitative proteomics based on stable isotope labelling by amino acids in cell culture and biochemical approaches were used to assess oxidative damage and explore contributory pathways. RESULTS: Evidence of hippocampal oxidative damage was most marked in mice with STZ-diabetes exposed to post-hypoglycaemic hyperglycaemia; these mice also showed induction of Nrf2 and the Nrf2 transcriptional targets Sod2 and Hmox-1. In this group, hypoglycaemia induced a significant upregulation of proteins involved in alternative fuel provision, reductive biosynthesis and degradation of damaged proteins, and a significant downregulation of proteins mediating the stress response. Key differences emerged between mice with and without STZ-diabetes following recovery from hypoglycaemia in proteins mediating the stress response and reductive biosynthesis. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: There is a disruption of the cellular response to a hypoglycaemic challenge in mice with STZ-induced diabetes that is not seen in wild-type non-diabetic animals. The chronic hyperglycaemia of diabetes and post-hypoglycaemic hyperglycaemia act synergistically to induce oxidative stress and damage in the hippocampus, possibly leading to irreversible damage/modification to proteins or synapses between cells. In conclusion, recurrent hypoglycaemia in sub-optimally controlled diabetes may contribute, at least in part, to accelerated cognitive decline through amplifying oxidative damage in key brain regions, such as the hippocampus. DATA AVAILABILITY: The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in ProteomeXchange, accession no. 1-20220824-173727 ( www.proteomexchange.org ). Additional datasets generated during and/or analysed during the present study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Fully automated closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 2 diabetes: an open-label, single-center, randomized crossover trial.

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).

Evaluating the Impact of Applying Personal Glucose Targets in a Closed-Loop System for People With Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: CamAPS FX is a hybrid closed-loop smartphone app used to manage type one diabetes. The closed-loop algorithm has a default target glucose of 5.8 mmol/L (104.5 mg/dL), but users can select personal glucose targets (adjustable between 4.4 mmol/L and 11.0 mmol/L [79 mg/dL and 198 mg/dL, respectively]). METHOD: In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of personal glucose targets on glycemic control using data from participants in five randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: Personal glucose targets were widely used, with 20.3% of all days in the data set having a target outside the default target bin (5.5-6.0 mmol/L [99-108 mg/dL]). Personal glucose targets >6.5 mmol/L (117 mg/dL) were associated with significantly less time in target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]; 6.5-7.0 mmol/L [117-126 mg/dL]: mean difference = -3.2 percentage points [95% CI: -5.3 to -1.2; P < .001]; 7.0-7.5 mmol/L [126-135 mg/dL]: -10.8 percentage points [95% CI: -14.1 to -7.6; P < .001]). Personal targets >6.5 mmol/L (117 mg/dL) were associated with significantly lower time (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]; 6.5-7.0 mmol/L [117-126 mg/dL]: -1.85 percentage points [95% CI: -2.37 to -1.34; P < .001]; 7.0-7.5 mmol/L [126-135 mg/dL]: -2.68 percentage points [95% CI: -3.49 to -1.86; P < .001]). CONCLUSIONS: Discrete study populations showed differences in glucose control when applying similar personal targets.