Comparison of Insulin Dose Adjustments Made by Artificial Intelligence-Based Decision Support Systems and by Physicians in People with Type 1 Diabetes Using Multiple Daily Injections Therapy.

Objective: Artificial intelligence-based decision support systems (DSS) need to provide decisions that are not inferior to those given by experts in the field. Recommended insulin dose adjustments on the same individual data set were compared among multinational physicians, and with recommendations made by automated Endo.Digital DSS (ED-DSS). Research Design and Methods: This was a noninterventional study surveying 20 physicians from multinational academic centers. The survey included 17 data cases of individuals with type 1 diabetes who are treated with multiple daily insulin injections. Participating physicians were asked to recommend insulin dose adjustments based on glucose and insulin data. Insulin dose adjustments recommendations were compared among physicians and with the automated ED-DSS. The primary endpoints were the percentage of comparison points for which there was agreement on the trend of insulin dose adjustments. Results: The proportion of agreement and disagreement in the direction of insulin dose adjustment among physicians was statistically noninferior to the proportion of agreement and disagreement observed between ED-DSS and physicians for basal rate, carbohydrate-to insulin ratio, and correction factor (P < 0.001 and P ≤ 0.004 for all three parameters for agreement and disagreement, respectively). The ED-DSS magnitude of insulin dose change was consistently lower than that proposed by the physicians. Conclusions: Recommendations for insulin dose adjustments made by automatization did not differ significantly from recommendations given by expert physicians regarding the direction of change. These results highlight the potential utilization of ED-DSS as a useful clinical tool to manage insulin titration and dose adjustments.

Adjustment of Insulin Pump Settings in Type 1 Diabetes Management: Advisor Pro Device Compared to Physicians' Recommendations.

AIMS: To compare insulin dose adjustments made by physicians to those made by an artificial intelligence-based decision support system, the Advisor Pro, in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using an insulin pump and self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG). METHODS: This was a multinational, non-interventional study surveying 17 physicians from 11 countries. Each physician was asked to provide insulin dose adjustments for the settings of the pump including basal rate, carbohydrate-to-insulin ratios (CRs), and correction factors (CFs) for 15 data sets of pumps and SMBG of people with T1D (mean age 18.4 ± 4.8 years; eight females; mean glycated hemoglobin 8.2% ± 1.4% [66 ± 11mmol/mol]). The recommendations were compared among the physicians and between the physicians and the Advisor Pro. The study endpoint was the percentage of comparison points for which there was an agreement on the direction of insulin dose adjustments. RESULTS: The percentage (mean ± SD) of agreement among the physicians on the direction of insulin pump dose adjustments was 51.8% ± 9.2%, 54.2% ± 6.4%, and 49.8% ± 11.6% for the basal, CR, and CF, respectively. The automated recommendations of the Advisor Pro on the direction of insulin dose adjustments were comparable )49.5% ± 6.4%, 55.3% ± 8.7%, and 47.6% ± 14.4% for the basal rate, CR, and CF, respectively( and noninferior to those provided by physicians. The mean absolute difference in magnitude of change between physicians was 17.1% ± 13.1%, 14.6% ± 8.4%, and 23.9% ± 18.6% for the basal, CR, and CF, respectively, and comparable to the Advisor Pro 11.7% ± 9.7%, 10.1% ± 4.5%, and 25.5% ± 19.5%, respectively, significant for basal and CR. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable differences in the recommendations for changes in insulin dosing were observed among physicians. Since automated recommendations by the Advisor Pro were similar to those given by physicians, it could be considered a useful tool to manage T1D.

Add-on therapy with dapagliflozin under full closed loop control improves time in range in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes: The DAPADream study.

AIM: To investigate the effect of the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin on glucose levels overnight and during the following day after two unannounced meals under full closed loop (FCL) conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this single-centre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial, non-obese persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D) were studied twice (10 mg dapagliflozin bid vs. placebo) for 24 hours with two unannounced mixed meal tests 6 hours apart under FCL conditions. Primary outcome was sensor glucose time in range (TIR; 3.9-10 mmol/L). For safety evaluation, ß-hydroxybutyrate (BHB), glucagon, insulin and gastric inhibitory polypeptide were measured. RESULTS: Fifteen adolescents (aged 15.4 ± 1.6 years, diabetes duration 10.0 ± 3.4 years, HbA1c 8.4% ± 0.9% [67.7 ± 10.1 mmol/mol]) and 15 young adults (aged 18.7 ± 0.8 years; diabetes duration 12.5 ± 3.6 years; HbA1c 8.3% ± 0.9% [68.5 ± 11.2 mmol/mol]) completed the trial. TIR was significantly higher in the intervention group compared with placebo (68% ± 6% vs. 50% ± 13%; P < .001); nocturnal glucose was significantly lower with dapagliflozin (6.2 ± 0.7 vs. 7.3 ± 1.7 mmol/L; P = .003) without an increase in time at less than 3.9 mmol/L (3.3% ± 6.0% vs 3.1% ± 5.2%; P = .75). Urinary glucose excretion was increased 3-fold using dapagliflozin (149 ± 42 vs. 49 ± 23 g/24 hours) with a total insulin reduction of 22% (39.7 ± 12.7 vs. 30.6 ± 10.4 U; P = .004). No abnormal elevated BHB values were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In adolescents and adults with T1D, dapagliflozin significantly increased TIR on average by 259 minutes/day while reducing glycaemic variability during FCL control without any signs of hypoglycaemia or ketosis.

Feasibility Study of a Hybrid Closed-Loop System with Automated Insulin Correction Boluses.

Background: The Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G system adjusts basal insulin delivery in response to continuous glucose monitoring levels and is already in use in clinical practice. We tested the home-based feasibility of the new MiniMed advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system, which includes several algorithm enhancements and an optional autocorrection bolus mode. Methods: Twelve adolescents and young adults (eight females) with type 1 diabetes [median (interquartile range)] aged 16.6 (15.9, 18.2) years and diabetes duration of 7.1 (4.7, 8.8) years] participated in this single-arm study. The first stage was a 6-day open-loop run-in period, with the predictive low-glucose suspend feature on. This was followed by 6 days/5 nights in a supervised hotel setting, using the AHCL system, including closed-loop challenges (missed meal bolus, late meal bolus, and physical activity); and finally, 3 weeks with unrestricted home use. Glycemic parameters were compared between the open-loop and closed-loop periods. Results: Participants spent 93.3% (4.7) of the time in SmartGuard™ Auto Mode. Hemoglobin A1C levels decreased from median (interquartile range) 7.1% (6.7, 7.9) at baseline to 6.8% (6.6, 7.4) at study end, after 4 weeks (P = 0.0027). Time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) was 68.4% (10.6) and time below 70 mg/dL was 4% (3.5) during open-loop; and 74% (6.1) and 2.6% (1.9), respectively, during the closed-loop at home phase (P = 0.06, P = 0.27). TIR increased during the nighttime, from 64.6% (17.4) to 80.7% (7.8), P = 0.007, without change in time below 70 mg/dL (P = 0.15). No serious adverse events occurred. Conclusions: The new AHCL system demonstrated safety and effectiveness in controlling day and night glucose levels.

Faster Compared With Standard Insulin Aspart During Day-and-Night Fully Closed-Loop Insulin Therapy in Type 1 Diabetes: A Double-Blind Randomized Crossover Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of day-and-night fully closed-loop insulin therapy using faster (Faster-CL) compared with standard insulin aspart (Standard-CL) in young adults with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial, 20 participants with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy (11 females, aged 21.3 ± 2.3 years, HbA1c 7.5 ± 0.5% [58.5 ± 5.5 mmol/mol]) underwent two 27-h inpatient periods with unannounced afternoon moderate-vigorous exercise and unannounced/uncovered meals. We compared Faster-CL and Standard-CL in random order. During both interventions, the fuzzy-logic control algorithm DreaMed GlucoSitter was used. Glucose sensor data were analyzed by intention-to-treat principle with the difference (between Faster-CL and Standard-CL) in proportion of time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) over 27 h as the primary end point. RESULTS: The proportion of TIR was similar for both arms: 53.3% (83% overnight) in Faster-CL and 57.9% (88% overnight) in Standard-CL (P = 0.170). The proportion of time in hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL was 0.0% for both groups. Baseline-adjusted interstitial prandial glucose increments 1 h after meals were greater in Faster-CL compared with Standard-CL (P = 0.017). The gaps between measured plasma insulin and estimated insulin-on-board levels at the beginning, at the end, and 2 h after the exercise were smaller in the Standard-CL group (P = 0.029, P = 0.003, and P = 0.004, respectively). No severe adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Fully closed-loop insulin delivery using either faster or standard insulin aspart was safe and efficient in achieving near-normal glucose concentrations outside postprandial periods. The closed-loop algorithm was better adjusted to the standard insulin aspart.

DREAM5: An open-label, randomized, cross-over study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of day and night closed-loop control by comparing the MD-Logic automated insulin delivery system to sensor augmented pump therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes at home.

AIMS: Previous DREAM studies demonstrated the safety and efficacy of the CE marked MD-Logic closed-loop system (DreaMed GlucoSitter) in different settings for overnight glycaemic control. The present study aimed to evaluate the system for day and night use for 60 hours during the weekend at home compared to sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy in participants with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre, crossover, controlled study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT01238406). All participants were connected in randomized order for one weekend to SAP therapy or the MD-Logic System. In the intervention arm only, the amount of carbohydrate was entered into the bolus calculator; the rest of insulin delivery was automated and wireless via a tablet computer. The primary endpoint was percentage of glucose values between 70 and 180 mg/dL. RESULTS: The ITT population comprised 48 (19 males, 29 females) adolescents and adults experienced in sensor use: (median, [IQR]): age, 16.1years [13.2-18.5]; diabetes duration, 9.4 years [5.0-12.7]; pump use, 5.4 years [3.1-9.4]; HbA1c, 7.6% [7.0-8.1]. A significant increase in the percentage of time within target range (70-180 mg/dL) (66.6% vs 59.9%, P = 0.002) was observed with the closed-loop system vs control weekends with unchanged percentage of time below 70 mg/dL (2.3% vs 1.5%, P = 0.369). Mean weekend glucose level per participant was significantly lower (153 [142-175] vs 164 [150-186] mg/dL, P = 0.003). No safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The MD-Logic system was safe and associated with better glycaemic control than SAP therapy for day and night use. The absence of remote monitoring did not lead to safety signals in adapting basal rates nor in administration of automated bolus corrections.

Adjusting insulin doses in patients with type 1 diabetes who use insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring: Variations among countries and physicians.

AIMS: To evaluate physicians' adjustments of insulin pump settings based on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for patients with type 1 diabetes and to compare these to automated insulin dose adjustments. METHODS: A total of 26 physicians from 16 centres in Europe, Israel and South America participated in the study. All were asked to adjust insulin dosing based on insulin pump, CGM and glucometer downloads of 15 patients (mean age 16.2 ± 4.3 years, six female, mean glycated haemoglobin 8.3 ± 0.9% [66.8 ± 7.3 mmol/mol]) gathered over a 3-week period. Recommendations were compared for the relative changes in the basal, carbohydrate to insulin ratio (CR) and correction factor (CF) plans among physicians and among centres and also between the physicians and an automated algorithm, the Advisor Pro (DreaMed Diabetes Ltd, Petah Tikva, Israel). Study endpoints were the percentage of comparison points for which there was full agreement on the trend of insulin dose adjustments (same trend), partial agreement (increase/decrease vs no change) and full disagreement (opposite trend). RESULTS: The percentages for full agreement between physicians on the trend of insulin adjustments of the basal, CR and CF plans were 41 ± 9%, 45 ± 11% and 45.5 ± 13%, and for complete disagreement they were 12 ± 7%, 9.5 ± 7% and 10 ± 8%, respectively. Significantly similar results were found between the physicians and the automated algorithm. The algorithm magnitude of insulin dose change was at least equal to or less than that proposed by the physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians provide different insulin dose recommendations based on the same datasets. The automated advice of the Advisor Pro did not differ significantly from the advice given by the physicians in the direction or magnitude of the insulin dosing.

Closed-loop glucose control in young people with type 1 diabetes during and after unannounced physical activity: a randomised controlled crossover trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Hypoglycaemia 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Between 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/INTERPRETATION: Closed-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 REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02657083 FUNDING: University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenian National Research Agency, and ISPAD Research Fellowship.

MD-Logic overnight type 1 diabetes control in home settings: A multicentre, multinational, single blind randomized trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the safety, efficacy and need for remote monitoring of the MD-Logic closed-loop system during short-term overnight use at home. METHODS: Seventy-five patients (38 male; aged 10-54 years; average A1c, 7.8% ± 0.7%, 61.8 ± 7.2 mmol/mol) were enrolled from 3 clinical sites. Patients were randomly assigned to participate in 2 overnight crossover periods, each including 4 consecutive nights, 1 under closed-loop control and 1 under sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy in the patient's home. Both study arms were supervised using a remote-monitoring system in a blinded manner. Primary endpoints were time spent with glucose levels below 70 mg/dL and percentage of nights in which mean overnight glucose levels were within 90 to 140 mg/dL. RESULTS: The median [interquartile range] percentage of time spent in hypoglycaemia was significantly lower on nights when MD-Logic was used, compared to SAP therapy (2.07 [0, 4.78] and 2.6 [0, 10.34], respectively; P = .004) and the percentage of individual nights with a mean overnight glucose level in target was significantly greater (75 [42, 75] and 50 [25,75], respectively; P = .008). The time spent in target range was increased by a median of 28% (P = .001), with the same amount of insulin (10.69 [7.28, 13.94] and 10.41[6.9, 14.07], respectively; P = .087). The remote monitoring triggered calls for hypoglycaemia at twice the rate during SAP therapy compared to closed-loop control (62 and 29, respectively; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: The MD-Logic system demonstrated a safe and efficient profile during overnight use by children, adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes and, therefore, provides an effective means of mitigating the risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia.

Reduced Worries of Hypoglycaemia, High Satisfaction, and Increased Perceived Ease of Use after Experiencing Four Nights of MD-Logic Artificial Pancreas at Home (DREAM4).

AIMS: This study assesses the impact of using an AP-system at home on fear of hypoglycaemia. In addition, satisfaction and acceptance of the new technology are evaluated. METHODS: In a multicentre, multinational study of 75 patients using the MD-Logic AP during four consecutive nights in home setting 59 of them (aged 10-54 years, 54% male, HbA1c 7.89 ± 0.69% [62.72 ± 7.51 mmol/mol], diabetes duration 11.6 ± 8.4 yrs) answered standardized questionnaires (HFS, adapted TAM, and AP satisfaction) before and after using the AP. RESULTS: After experiencing the AP in home setting worries of hypoglycaemia were significantly reduced (before 1.04 ± 0.53 versus after 0.90 ± 0.63; P = 0.017). Perceived ease of use as a measure of acceptance with the AP significantly increased after personal experience (before 4.64 ± 0.94 versus after 5.06 ± 1.09; P = 0.002). The overall satisfaction mean score after using the AP was 3.02 ± 0.54 (range 0-4), demonstrating a high level of satisfaction with this technology. CONCLUSIONS: The four-night home-based experience of using MD Logic AP was associated with reduced worries of hypoglycaemia, high level of satisfaction, and increased perceived ease of use of the new technology in children, adolescents, and adults.

A remote monitoring system for artificial pancreas support is safe, reliable, and user friendly.

INTRODUCTION: We developed a unique remote monitoring and control diabetes management system (MDRS) supporting the use of an artificial pancreas (AP) at home. In this study, we aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of the MDRS and its ability to prevent or shorten nocturnal hypoglycemia episodes without the use of an AP, as well as evaluating parental attitudes toward the use of such a system in the future. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, case control, randomized study. Eighteen patients treated nightly over a 2-week period by the MDRS were compared with 19 patients treated with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. We analyzed the performance of the MDRS, the number and duration of hypo- or hyperglycemia episodes, and the efficacy of the MDRS in detecting them. Parents of the study participants completed the hypoglycemia fear survey, attitude, and satisfaction questionnaires. RESULTS: The MDRS allows continuous monitoring of the patients using it. Without the use of an AP, the MDRS did not significantly prevent nocturnal hypoglycemia episodes. The patients and their parents found the system reliable and user-friendly. The overall impression of the MDRS users was favorable, with a keen interest of the patients and their caregivers to use such a system in the future. CONCLUSIONS: The MDRS is reliable and safe remote monitoring system for AP at-home systems. Remote monitoring of type 1 diabetes patients treated with SAP therapy is a promising and feasible task that is highly anticipated by patients and their caregivers.

MD-Logic overnight control for 6 weeks of home use in patients with type 1 diabetes: randomized crossover trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effect of the MD-Logic system on overnight glycemic control at patients' homes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients (aged 12-43 years; average A1c 7.5 ± 0.8%, 58.1 ± 8.4 mmol/mol) were randomly assigned to participate in two overnight crossover periods, each including 6 weeks of consecutive nights: one under closed loop and the second under sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy at patients' homes in real-life conditions. The primary end point was time spent with sensor glucose levels below 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) overnight. RESULTS: Closed-loop nights significantly reduced time spent in hypoglycemia (P = 0.02) and increased the percentage of time spent in the target range of 70-140 mg/dL (P = 0.003) compared with nights when the SAP therapy was used. The time spent in substantial hyperglycemia above 240 mg/dL was reduced by a median of 52.2% (interquartile range [IQR] 4.8, 72.9%; P = 0.001) under closed-loop control compared with SAP therapy. Overnight total insulin doses were lower in the closed-loop nights compared with the SAP nights (P = 0.04). The average daytime glucose levels after closed-loop operation were reduced by a median of 10.0 mg/dL (IQR -2.7, 19.2; P = 0.017) while lower total insulin doses were used (P = 0.038). No severe adverse events occurred during closed-loop control; there was a single event of severe hypoglycemia during a control night. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term home use of automated overnight insulin delivery by the MD-Logic system was found to be a feasible, safe, and an effective tool to reduce nocturnal hypoglycemia and improve overnight glycemic control in subjects with type 1 diabetes.

Multicenter closed-loop insulin delivery study points to challenges for keeping blood glucose in a safe range by a control algorithm in adults and adolescents with type 1 diabetes from various sites.

BACKGROUND: The Control to Range Study was a multinational artificial pancreas study designed to assess the time spent in the hypo- and hyperglycemic ranges in adults and adolescents with type 1 diabetes while under closed-loop control. The controller attempted to keep the glucose ranges between 70 and 180 mg/dL. A set of prespecified metrics was used to measure safety. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied 53 individuals for approximately 22 h each during clinical research center admissions. Plasma glucose level was measured every 15-30 min (YSI clinical laboratory analyzer instrument [YSI, Inc., Yellow Springs, OH]). During the admission, subjects received three mixed meals (1 g of carbohydrate/kg of body weight; 100 g maximum) with meal announcement and automated insulin dosing by the controller. RESULTS: For adults, the mean of subjects' mean glucose levels was 159 mg/dL, and mean percentage of values 71-180 mg/dL was 66% overall (59% daytime and 82% overnight). For adolescents, the mean of subjects' mean glucose levels was 166 mg/dL, and mean percentage of values in range was 62% overall (53% daytime and 82% overnight). Whereas prespecified criteria for safety were satisfied by both groups, they were met at the individual level in adults only for combined daytime/nighttime and for isolated nighttime. Two adults and six adolescents failed to meet the daytime criterion, largely because of postmeal hyperglycemia, and another adolescent failed to meet the nighttime criterion. CONCLUSIONS: The control-to-range system performed as expected: faring better overnight than during the day and performing with variability between patients even after individualization based on patients' prior settings. The system had difficulty preventing postmeal excursions above target range.

Night glucose control with MD-Logic artificial pancreas in home setting: a single blind, randomized crossover trial-interim analysis.

BACKGROUND: Artificial pancreas (AP) systems have shown an improvement in glucose control and a reduced risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia under controlled conditions but remain to be evaluated under daily-life conditions. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the MD-Logic AP in controlling nocturnal glucose levels in the patient's home. METHODS: Two-arm study, each covering four consecutive nights comparing the MD-Logic AP ('closed-loop' arm) with sensor-augmented pump therapy ('control' arm). Fifteen patients (mean age 19 ± 10.4 yr, A1c 7.5 ± 0.5% or 58 ± 5.9 mmol/mol, diabetes duration 9.9 ± 8.2 yr) were randomly assigned either to 'Group A' (first 'closed-loop', then 'control' arm) or to 'Group B' (vice versa). Investigators were masked to treatment intervention. Primary endpoints were the time spent with glucose levels below 70 mg/dL and the percentage of nights in which the mean overnight glucose levels were within 90-140 mg/dL. Endpoint analyses were based on unmodified sensor glucose readings of the four study nights. RESULTS: Time of glucose levels spent below 70 mg/dL was significantly shorter on the closed-loop nights than on control nights, median and interquartile range 3.8 (0, 11.6) and 48.7 (0.6, 67.9) min, respectively; p = 0.0034. The percentage of individual nights in which mean overnight glucose level was within 90-140 mg/dL was 67 (33, 88), and 50 (25, 75), under closed-loop and control nights, respectively, with no statistical difference. Secondary endpoint analyses demonstrated significant improvements in hypoglycemia parameters. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: This interim analysis demonstrates the feasibility, safety, and efficiency of the MD-Logic AP system in home use, and demonstrates an improvement over sensor-augmented pump therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01726829).

The "Glucositter" overnight automated closed loop system for type 1 diabetes: a randomized crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Tight glucose control is needed to prevent long-term diabetes complications; this is hindered by the risk of hypoglycemia, especially at night. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of the closed-loop MD-Logic Artificial Pancreas (MDLAP), controlling nocturnal glucose levels in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a randomized, multicenter, multinational, crossover trial conducted in Slovenia, Germany, and Israel. Twelve patients with T1DM (age 23.8 ± 15.6 yr; duration of diabetes 13.5 ± 11.9 yr; A1c 8.1 ± 0.8%, mean ± SD) were randomly assigned to participate in two sequential overnight sessions: one using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and the other, closed-loop insulin delivery by MDLAP. The primary outcome was the number of hypoglycemic events below 63 mg/dL. Endpoints analyses were based on sensor glucose readings. RESULTS: Three events of nocturnal hypoglycemia occurred during CSII and none during the closed-loop control (p = 0.18). The percentage of time spent in the near normal range of 63-140 mg/dL was significantly higher in the overnight closed-loop sessions [76% (54-85)] than during CSII therapy [29% (11-44)] [p = 0.02, median (interquartile range)]. The mean overnight glucose level was reduced by 36 mg/dL with closed-loop insulin delivery (p = 0.02) with a significantly less glucose variability when compared with the CSII nights (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate the ability of the MDLAP to safely improve overnight glucose control without increased risk of hypoglycemia in patients with T1DM at three different national, geographic, and clinical centers (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT 01238406).

Nocturnal glucose control with an artificial pancreas at a diabetes camp.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that an artificial-pancreas system can improve glucose control and reduce nocturnal hypoglycemia. However, it is not known whether such results can be replicated in settings outside the hospital. METHODS: In this multicenter, multinational, randomized, crossover trial, we assessed the short-term safety and efficacy of an artificial pancreas system for control of nocturnal glucose levels in patients (10 to 18 years of age) with type 1 diabetes at a diabetes camp. In two consecutive overnight sessions, we randomly assigned 56 patients to receive treatment with an artificial pancreas on the first night and a sensor-augmented insulin pump (control) on the second night or to the reverse order of therapies on the first and second nights. Thus, all the patients received each treatment in a randomly assigned order. The primary end points were the number of hypoglycemic events (defined as a sensor glucose value of <63 mg per deciliter [3.5 mmol per liter] for at least 10 consecutive minutes), the time spent with glucose levels below 60 mg per deciliter (3.3 mmol per liter), and the mean overnight glucose level for individual patients. RESULTS: On nights when the artificial pancreas was used, versus nights when the sensor-augmented insulin pump was used, there were significantly fewer episodes of nighttime glucose levels below 63 mg per deciliter (7 vs. 22) and significantly shorter periods when glucose levels were below 60 mg per deciliter (P=0.003 and P=0.02, respectively, after adjustment for multiplicity). Median values for the individual mean overnight glucose levels were 126.4 mg per deciliter (interquartile range, 115.7 to 139.1 [7.0 mmol per liter; interquartile range, 6.4 to 7.7]) with the artificial pancreas and 140.4 mg per deciliter (interquartile range, 105.7 to 167.4 [7.8 mmol per liter; interquartile range, 5.9 to 9.3]) with the sensor-augmented pump. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Patients at a diabetes camp who were treated with an artificial-pancreas system had less nocturnal hypoglycemia and tighter glucose control than when they were treated with a sensor-augmented insulin pump. (Funded by Sanofi and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01238406.).