Beneficial Effects of Control-IQ Automated Insulin Delivery in Basal-Bolus and Basal-Only Insulin Users With Type 2 Diabetes.

The t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology (Control-IQ) advanced hybrid closed-loop automated insulin delivery system was evaluated in this prospective single-arm trial. Thirty adults with type 2 diabetes using the Control-IQ system showed substantial glycemic improvement with no increase in hypoglycemia. Mean time in range (70-180 mg/dL) improved 15%, representing an increase of 3.6 hours/day, and mean glucose decreased by 22 mg/dL.

A Comparison of Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Measured Time-in-Range 70-180 mg/dL Versus Time-in-Tight-Range 70-140 mg/dL.

Objective: To evaluate the relationship between continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-measured time-in-range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) and time-in-tight-range 70-140 mg/dL (TITR). Methods: TIR and TITR were calculated from CGM data collected using blinded or unblinded Dexcom sensors from 9 studies with 912 participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and 2 studies with 184 participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The TIR-TITR relationship was assessed overall and stratified by coefficient of variation (CV) and by time below range <70 mg/dL (TBR). Results: The correlation between TIR and TITR was 0.94. TITR was higher for a given TIR for T2D compared with T1D. However, after adjusting for the differences in CV or TBR, both of which were higher with T1D than T2D, the differences were minimized. The TIR-TITR relationship was nonlinear, with a higher ratio of TITR:TIR observed as TIR increased ranging from 0.42 when TIR was 20% to 0.66 when TIR was 80%. Similarly, as TITR increased, the ratio of TIR:TITR decreased, varying from 2.6 with TITR of 10% to 1.3 for TITR of 70%. The TIR-TITR relationship varied according to CV and TBR, such that the higher the CV or higher the amount of TBR the greater was TITR for a given TIR. Conclusions: TIR and TITR are highly correlated, although the relationship is nonlinear. With knowledge of TIR, TITR can be estimated with reasonable precision.

Comprehensive Telehealth Model to Support Diabetes Self-Management.

Importance: As the number of patients with diabetes continues to increase in the United States, novel approaches to clinical care access should be considered to meet the care needs for this population, including support for diabetes-related technology. Objective: To evaluate a virtual clinic to facilitate comprehensive diabetes care, support continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) integration into diabetes self-management, and provide behavioral health support for diabetes-related issues. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a prospective, single-arm, remote study involving adult participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who were referred through community resources. The study was conducted virtually from August 24, 2020, to May 26, 2022; analysis was conducted at the clinical coordinating center. Intervention: Training and education led by a Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist for CGM use through a virtual endocrinology clinic structure, which included endocrinologists and behavioral health team members. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes included CGM-measured mean glucose level, coefficient of variation, and time in range (TIR) of 70 to 180 mg/dL, time with values greater than 180 mg/dL or 250 mg/dL, and time with values less than 70 mg/dL or 54 mg/dL. Hemoglobin A1c was measured at baseline and at 12 and 24 weeks. Results: Among the 234 participants, 160 had type 1 diabetes and 74 had type 2 diabetes. The mean (SD) age was 47 (14) years, 123 (53%) were female, and median diabetes duration was 20 years. Median (IQR) CGM use over 6 months was 96% (91%-98%) for participants with type 1 diabetes and 94% (85%-97%) for those with type 2 diabetes. Mean (SD) hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in those with type 1 diabetes decreased from 7.8% (1.6%) at baseline to 7.1% (1.0%) at 3 months and 7.1% (1.0%) at 6 months (mean change from baseline to 6 months, -0.6%, 95% CI, -0.8% to -0.5%; P < .001), with an 11% mean TIR increase over 6 months (95% CI, 9% to 14%; P < .001). Mean HbA1c in participants with type 2 diabetes decreased from 8.1% (1.7%) at baseline to 7.1% (1.0%) at 3 months and 7.1% (0.9%) at 6 months (mean change from baseline to 6 months, -1.0%; 95% CI, -1.4% to -0.7%; P < .001), with an 18% TIR increase over 6 months (95% CI, 13% to 24%; P < .001). In participants with type 1 diabetes, mean percentage of time with values less than 70 mg/dL and less than 54 mg/dL decreased over 6 months by 0.8% (95% CI, -1.2% to -0.4%; P = .001) and by 0.3% (95% CI, -0.5% to -0.2%, P < .001), respectively. In the type 2 diabetes group, hypoglycemia was rare (mean [SD] percentage of time <70 mg/dL, 0.5% [0.6%]; and <54 mg/dL, 0.07% [0.14%], over 6 months). Conclusions and Relevance: Results from this cohort study demonstrated clinical benefits associated with implementation of a comprehensive care model that included diabetes education. This model of care has potential to reach a large portion of patients with diabetes, facilitate diabetes technology adoption, and improve glucose control.

Outcomes in Pump- and CGM-Baseline Use Subgroups in the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the potential benefits of automated insulin delivery (AID) among individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in sub-populations of baseline device use determined by continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use status and insulin delivery via multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a six-month randomized, multicenter trial, 168 individuals were assigned to closed-loop control (CLC, Control-IQ, Tandem Diabetes Care), or sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. The trial included a two- to eight-week run-in phase to train participants on study devices. The participants were stratified into four subgroups: insulin pump and CGM (pump+CGM), pump-only, MDI and CGM (MDI+CGM), and MDI users without CGM (MDI-only) users. We compared glycemic outcomes among four subgroups. RESULTS: At baseline, 61% were pump+CGM users, 18% pump-only users, 10% MDI+CGM users, and 11% MDI-only users. Mean time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) improved from baseline in the four subgroups using CLC: pump+CGM, 62% to 73%; pump-only, 61% to 70%; MDI+CGM, 54% to 68%; and MDI-only, 61% to 69%. The reduction in time below 70 mg/dL from baseline was comparable among the four subgroups. No interaction effect was detected with baseline device use for TIR (P = .67) or time below (P = .77). On the System Usability Questionnaire, scores were high at 26 weeks for all subgroups: pump+CGM: 87.2 ± 12.1, pump-only: 89.4 ± 8.2, MDI+CGM 87.2 ± 9.3, MDI: 78.1 ± 15. CONCLUSIONS: There was a consistent benefit in patients with T1D when using CLC, regardless of baseline insulin delivery modality or CGM use. These data suggest that this CLC system can be considered across a wide range of patients.

The Relationship Between Percent Time <70 mg/dL and Percent Time <54 mg/dL Measured by Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Objective: While it is recognized that there is a strong relationship between the amount of time glucose levels are <70 mg/dL (T<70) and the amount of time <54 mg/dL (T<54), the association has not been well quantified. Methods: Datasets with Dexcom continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data from nine type 1 diabetes randomized trials were pooled to evaluate the relationship between CGM-measured T<70 and T<54. Penalized B-spline regression lines were fitted to assess the relationship between T<70 and T<54 for blinded CGM use, unblinded CGM use without an automated insulin delivery (AID) system, and unblinded CGM use with an AID system. Results: For blinded data, the T<54 : T<70 ratio varied from 19% when the amount of T<70 was <1% to 44% when the amount of T<70 was ≥7% whereas for unblinded data the ratio varied from 15% to 42%, respectively. When T<70 was 4%, the predicted T<54 was 1.18%, 0.94%, and 0.91% for the blinded, unblinded, and AID data, respectively (P<0.001 comparing blinded versus unblinded and AID). Conclusions: The T<54 : T<70 ratio increases with greater T<70, and the ratio generally is higher with blinded than unblinded CGM data, with the latter appearing to be similar to AID system data. The finding of greater T<54 for a given T<70 with blinded CGM data is presumed to be due to an action being taken by the unblinded CGM user and/or by the AID system to minimize hypoglycemia which will have the effect of reducing the amount of T<54.

The Optimal Duration of a Run-In Period to Initiate Continuous Glucose Monitoring for a Randomized Trial.

Objective: To determine the optimal duration of a run-in period for initiation of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) before the start of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: Data sets were pooled from 8 RCTs, which had a blinded CGM wear period followed by at least 3 months of unblinded CGM use. Across all participants, mean time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) and mean time <54 mg/dL (T < 54) as well as other key CGM metrics were computed for the initial period of blinded CGM wear and from the subsequent 13 weeks of unblinded CGM use. Results: The analysis cohort included data from 485 participants: 348 with T1D and 137 with T2D, ranging in age from 2 to 82 years. Mean TIR was 49% with blinded CGM before initiation of unblinded CGM use, increased to 55% by the end of the first week of unblinded CGM use, and then showed little change through 13 weeks. Mean T < 54 decreased from 1.4% with blinded CGM to 0.8% 1 week and 0.6% 2 weeks after initiating unblinded CGM use, which matched the value in month 3. Similar results were obtained for mean glucose, time >180 mg/dL, time >250 mg/dL, and time <70 mg/dL, with the mean improvement in hyperglycemia metrics plateauing slightly faster than hypoglycemia metrics. Findings were largely similar for T1D and T2D. Conclusion: When initiating unblinded real-time CGM, improvement in key CGM metrics occurs rapidly, with maximal effect on the mean of each metric achieved within 1-2 weeks. For a randomized trial in which all participants will use real-time unblinded CGM for glucose monitoring, a run-in period should be implemented before collecting baseline data for participants who are not CGM users. For such CGM-naive individuals, a 7- to 14-day acclimation period is sufficient followed by a 14-day period for collection of baseline unblinded CGM data.

Outpatient Randomized Crossover Comparison of Zone Model Predictive Control Automated Insulin Delivery with Weekly Data Driven Adaptation Versus Sensor-Augmented Pump: Results from the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial 4.

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.

Insulin Delivery and Glucose Variability Throughout the Menstrual Cycle on Closed Loop Control for Women with Type 1 Diabetes.

Objective: To analyze insulin delivery and glycemic metrics throughout the menstrual cycle for women with type 1 diabetes using closed loop control (CLC) insulin delivery. Methods: Menstruating women using a CLC system in a clinical trial were invited to record their menstrual cycles through a cycle-tracking application. Sixteen participants provided data for this secondary analysis over three or more complete cycles. Insulin delivery and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data were analyzed in relation to reported cycle phases. Results: Insulin delivery and CGM metrics remained consistent during cycle phases. Intraparticipant variability of CGM metrics and weight-based insulin delivery did not change through cycle phases. Conclusions: For this sample of menstruating women with type 1 diabetes using a CLC system, insulin delivery and glycemic metrics remained stable throughout menstrual cycle phases. Additional studies in this population are needed, particularly among women who report variable glycemic control during their cycles. Trial Registration: NCT03591354.

Glycemic Outcomes in Baseline Hemoglobin A1C Subgroups in the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial.

Using a closed-loop system significantly improves time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). In a 6-month RCT, 112 subjects were randomly assigned to closed-loop control (Tandem Control-IQ) after obtaining 2 weeks of baseline Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data from sensor-augmented pump therapy. We compared glycemic outcomes from baseline to end of study among subgroups classified by baseline HbA1c levels. All HbA1c subgroups showed an improvement in TIR due to reduction of both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. Those with HbA1c <6.5% improved mostly by reducing nocturnal hypoglycemia due to the automated basal insulin adjustments. Those with HbA1c ≥8.5% improved mostly by reducing daytime and nocturnal hyperglycemia due to both automated basal insulin adjustments and correction boluses during the day. There does not appear to be any reason to exclude individuals with T1D from automated insulin delivery based on their HbA1c. Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT03563313.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Randomized Trial of Closed-Loop Control: The Pivotal International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial.

Background: Closed-loop control (CLC) has been shown to improve glucose time in range and other glucose metrics; however, randomized trials >3 months comparing CLC with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy are limited. We recently reported glucose control outcomes from the 6-month international Diabetes Closed-Loop (iDCL) trial; we now report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in this iDCL trial. Methods: Participants were randomized 2:1 to CLC (N = 112) versus SAP (N = 56) and completed questionnaires, including Hypoglycemia Fear Survey, Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), Hypoglycemia Awareness, Hypoglycemia Confidence, Hyperglycemia Avoidance, and Positive Expectancies of CLC (INSPIRE) at baseline, 3, and 6 months. CLC participants also completed Diabetes Technology Expectations and Acceptance and System Usability Scale (SUS). Results: The Hypoglycemia Fear Survey Behavior subscale improved significantly after 6 months of CLC compared with SAP. DDS did not differ except for powerless subscale scores, which worsened at 3 months in SAP. Whereas Hypoglycemia Awareness and Hyperglycemia Avoidance did not differ between groups, CLC participants showed a tendency toward improved confidence in managing hypoglycemia. The INSPIRE questionnaire showed favorable scores in the CLC group for teens and parents, with a similar trend for adults. At baseline and 6 months, CLC participants had high positive expectations for the device with Diabetes Technology Acceptance and SUS showing high benefit and low burden scores. Conclusion: CLC improved some PROs compared with SAP. Participants reported high benefit and low burden with CLC. Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT03563313.

Clinical Management and Pump Parameter Adjustment of the Control-IQ Closed-Loop Control System: Results from a 6-Month, Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Data are limited on the need for and benefits of pump setting optimization with automated insulin delivery. We examined clinical management of a closed-loop control (CLC) system and its relationship to glycemic outcomes. Materials and Methods: We analyzed personal parameter adjustments in 168 participants in a 6-month multicenter trial of CLC with Control-IQ versus sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. Preset parameters (BR = basal rates, CF = correction factors, CR = carbohydrate ratios) were optimized at randomization, 2 and 13 weeks, for safety issues, participant concerns, or initiation by participants' usual diabetes care team. Time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was compared in the week before and after parameter changes. Results: In 607 encounters for parameter changes, there were fewer adjustments for CLC than SAP (3.4 vs. 4.1/participant). Adjustments involved BR (CLC 69%, SAP 80%), CR (CLC 68%, SAP 50%), CF (CLC 44%, SAP 41%), and overnight parameters (CLC 62%, SAP 75%). TIR before and after adjustments was 71.2% and 71.3% for CLC and 61.0% and 62.9% for SAP. The highest baseline HbA1c CLC subgroup had the largest TIR improvement (51.2% vs. 57.7%). When a CR was made more aggressive in the CLC group, postprandial time >180 mg/dL was 43.1% before the change and 36.0% after the change. The median postprandial time <70 mg/dL before making CR less aggressive was 1.8%, and after the change was 0.7%. Conclusions: No difference in TIR was detected with parameter changes overall, but they may have an effect in higher HbA1c subgroups or following user-directed boluses, suggesting that changes may matter more in suboptimal control or during discrete periods of the day. Clinical Trials Registration number: NCT03563313.

Closed-Loop Insulin Therapy Improves Glycemic Control in Adolescents and Young Adults: Outcomes from the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of closed-loop control (CLC) insulin delivery system in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Research Design and Methods: Prespecified subanalysis of outcomes in adolescents and young adults aged 14-24 years old with type 1 diabetes in a previously published 6-month multicenter randomized trial. Participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to CLC (Tandem Control-IQ) or sensor augmented pump (SAP, various pumps+Dexcom G6 CGM) and followed for 6 months. Results: Mean age of the 63 participants was 17 years, median type 1 diabetes duration was 7 years, and mean baseline HbA1c was 8.1%. All 63 completed the trial. Time in range (TIR) increased by 13% with CLC versus decreasing by 1% with SAP (adjusted treatment group difference = +13% [+3.1 h/day]; 95% confidence interval [CI] 9-16, P < 0.001), which largely reflected a reduction in time >180 mg/dL (adjusted difference -12% [-2.9 h/day], P < 0.001). Time <70 mg/dL decreased by 1.6% with CLC versus 0.3% with SAP (adjusted difference -0.7% [-10 min/day], 95% CI -1.0% to -0.2%, P = 0.002). CLC use averaged 89% of the time for 6 months. The mean adjusted difference in HbA1c after 6 months was 0.30% in CLC versus SAP (95% CI -0.67 to +0.08, P = 0.13). There was one diabetic ketoacidosis episode in the CLC group. Conclusions: CLC use for 6 months was substantial and associated with improved TIR and reduced hypoglycemia in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Thus, CLC has the potential to improve glycemic outcomes in this challenging age group. The clinical trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03563313).

Glycemic Outcomes of Use of CLC Versus PLGS in Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Limited information is available about glycemic outcomes with a closed-loop control (CLC) system compared with a predictive low-glucose suspend (PLGS) system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: After 6 months of use of a CLC system in a randomized trial, 109 participants with type 1 diabetes (age range, 14-72 years; mean HbA1c, 7.1% [54 mmol/mol]) were randomly assigned to CLC (N = 54, Control-IQ) or PLGS (N = 55, Basal-IQ) groups for 3 months. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitor (CGM)-measured time in range (TIR) for 70-180 mg/dL. Baseline CGM metrics were computed from the last 3 months of the preceding study. RESULTS: All 109 participants completed the study. Mean ± SD TIR was 71.1 ± 11.2% at baseline and 67.6 ± 12.6% using intention-to-treat analysis (69.1 ± 12.2% using per-protocol analysis excluding periods of study-wide suspension of device use) over 13 weeks on CLC vs. 70.0 ± 13.6% and 60.4 ± 17.1% on PLGS (difference = 5.9%; 95% CI 3.6%, 8.3%; P < 0.001). Time >180 mg/dL was lower in the CLC group than PLGS group (difference = -6.0%; 95% CI -8.4%, -3.7%; P < 0.001) while time <54 mg/dL was similar (0.04%; 95% CI -0.05%, 0.13%; P = 0.41). HbA1c after 13 weeks was lower on CLC than PLGS (7.2% [55 mmol/mol] vs. 7.5% [56 mmol/mol], difference -0.34% [-3.7 mmol/mol]; 95% CI -0.57% [-6.2 mmol/mol], -0.11% [1.2 mmol/mol]; P = 0.0035). CONCLUSIONS: Following 6 months of CLC, switching to PLGS reduced TIR and increased HbA1c toward their pre-CLC values, while hypoglycemia remained similarly reduced with both CLC and PLGS.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Mobile Closed-Loop Control.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the efficacy of inControl AP, a mobile closed-loop control (CLC) system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This protocol, NCT02985866, is a 3-month parallel-group, multicenter, randomized unblinded trial designed to compare mobile CLC with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. Eligibility criteria were type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year, use of insulin pumps for at least 6 months, age ≥14 years, and baseline HbA1c <10.5% (91 mmol/mol). The study was designed to assess two coprimary outcomes: superiority of CLC over SAP in continuous glucose monitor (CGM)-measured time below 3.9 mmol/L and noninferiority in CGM-measured time above 10 mmol/L. RESULTS: Between November 2017 and May 2018, 127 participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to CLC (n = 65) versus SAP (n = 62); 125 participants completed the study. CGM time below 3.9 mmol/L was 5.0% at baseline and 2.4% during follow-up in the CLC group vs. 4.7% and 4.0%, respectively, in the SAP group (mean difference -1.7% [95% CI -2.4, -1.0]; P < 0.0001 for superiority). CGM time above 10 mmol/L was 40% at baseline and 34% during follow-up in the CLC group vs. 43% and 39%, respectively, in the SAP group (mean difference -3.0% [95% CI -6.1, 0.1]; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority). One severe hypoglycemic event occurred in the CLC group, which was unrelated to the study device. CONCLUSIONS: In meeting its coprimary end points, superiority of CLC over SAP in CGM-measured time below 3.9 mmol/L and noninferiority in CGM-measured time above 10 mmol/L, the study has demonstrated that mobile CLC is feasible and could offer certain usability advantages over embedded systems, provided the connectivity between system components is stable.

Six-Month Randomized, Multicenter Trial of Closed-Loop Control in Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop systems that automate insulin delivery may improve glycemic outcomes in patients with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: In this 6-month randomized, multicenter trial, patients with type 1 diabetes were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with a closed-loop system (closed-loop group) or a sensor-augmented pump (control group). The primary outcome was the percentage of time that the blood glucose level was within the target range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 10.0 mmol per liter), as measured by continuous glucose monitoring. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients underwent randomization; 112 were assigned to the closed-loop group, and 56 were assigned to the control group. The age range of the patients was 14 to 71 years, and the glycated hemoglobin level ranged from 5.4 to 10.6%. All 168 patients completed the trial. The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the glucose level was within the target range increased in the closed-loop group from 61±17% at baseline to 71±12% during the 6 months and remained unchanged at 59±14% in the control group (mean adjusted difference, 11 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 14; P<0.001). The results with regard to the main secondary outcomes (percentage of time that the glucose level was >180 mg per deciliter, mean glucose level, glycated hemoglobin level, and percentage of time that the glucose level was <70 mg per deciliter or <54 mg per deciliter [3.0 mmol per liter]) all met the prespecified hierarchical criterion for significance, favoring the closed-loop system. The mean difference (closed loop minus control) in the percentage of time that the blood glucose level was lower than 70 mg per deciliter was -0.88 percentage points (95% CI, -1.19 to -0.57; P<0.001). The mean adjusted difference in glycated hemoglobin level after 6 months was -0.33 percentage points (95% CI, -0.53 to -0.13; P = 0.001). In the closed-loop group, the median percentage of time that the system was in closed-loop mode was 90% over 6 months. No serious hypoglycemic events occurred in either group; one episode of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group. CONCLUSIONS: In this 6-month trial involving patients with type 1 diabetes, the use of a closed-loop system was associated with a greater percentage of time spent in a target glycemic range than the use of a sensor-augmented insulin pump. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; iDCL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03563313.).

The International Diabetes Closed-Loop Study: Testing Artificial Pancreas Component Interoperability.

BACKGROUND: Use of artificial pancreas (AP) requires seamless interaction of device components, such as continuous glucose monitor (CGM), insulin pump, and control algorithm. Mobile AP configurations also include a smartphone as computational hub and gateway to cloud applications (e.g., remote monitoring and data review and analysis). This International Diabetes Closed-Loop study was designed to demonstrate and evaluate the operation of the inControl AP using different CGMs and pump modalities without changes to the user interface, user experience, and underlying controller. METHODS: Forty-three patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) were enrolled at 10 clinical centers (7 United States, 3 Europe) and 41 were included in the analyses (39% female, >95% non-Hispanic white, median T1D duration 16 years, median HbA1c 7.4%). Two CGMs and two insulin pumps were tested by different study participants/sites using the same system hub (a smartphone) during 2 weeks of in-home use. RESULTS: The major difference between the system components was the stability of their wireless connections with the smartphone. The two sensors achieved similar rates of connectivity as measured by percentage time in closed loop (75% and 75%); however, the two pumps had markedly different closed-loop adherence (66% vs. 87%). When connected, all system configurations achieved similar glycemic outcomes on AP control (73% [mean] time in range: 70-180 mg/dL, and 1.7% [median] time <70 mg/dL). CONCLUSIONS: CGMs and insulin pumps can be interchangeable in the same Mobile AP system, as long as these devices achieve certain levels of reliability and wireless connection stability.

First Look at Control-IQ: A New-Generation Automated Insulin Delivery System.

OBJECTIVE: To pilot test a new closed-loop control technology to validate it for a further large clinical trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ Technology (Tandem Diabetes Care) includes a Dexcom G6 sensor and a closed-loop algorithm implemented in the pump that 1) automates insulin correction boluses, 2) has a dedicated hypoglycemia safety system, and 3) gradually intensifies control overnight, aiming for blood glucose levels of approximately 100-120 mg/dL every morning. RESULTS: Five patients with type 1 diabetes (mean age 52.8 years, 2/3 male/female, mean A1C 6.5%) used Control-IQ in an outpatient setting (hotel) for approximately 37 h. During the closed loop, mean glucose was 129 mg/dL (135/121 mg/dL during the day/night), time within target range 70-180 mg/dL was 87% (82%/94% during the day/night), and time <60 mg/dL was 1.1% (2.0%/0.0% during the day/night). CONCLUSIONS: Following this pilot trial, Control-IQ was deployed in several studies, including the large-scale National Institutes of Health International Diabetes Closed-Loop (iDCL) Trial.

Predictive hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia minimization: In-home double-blind randomized controlled evaluation in children and young adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this trial was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a predictive hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia minimization (PHHM) system vs predictive low glucose suspension (PLGS) alone in optimizing overnight glucose control in children 6 to 14 years old. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twenty-eight participants 6 to 14 years old with T1D duration ≥1 year with daily insulin therapy ≥12 months and on insulin pump therapy for ≥6 months were randomized per night into PHHM mode or PLGS-only mode for 42 nights. The primary outcome was percentage of time in sensor-measured range 70 to 180 mg/dL in the overnight period. RESULTS: The addition of automated insulin delivery with PHHM increased time in target range (70-180 mg/dL) from 66 ± 11% during PLGS nights to 76 ± 9% during PHHM nights (P<.001), without increasing hypoglycemia as measured by time below various thresholds. Average morning blood glucose improved from 176 ± 28 mg/dL following PLGS nights to 154 ± 19 mg/dL following PHHM nights (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The PHHM system was effective in optimizing overnight glycemic control, significantly increasing time in range, lowering mean glucose, and decreasing glycemic variability compared to PLGS alone in children 6 to 14 years old.

Predictive Hyperglycemia and Hypoglycemia Minimization: In-Home Evaluation of Safety, Feasibility, and Efficacy in Overnight Glucose Control in Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of a predictive hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia minimization (PHHM) system compared with predictive low-glucose insulin suspension (PLGS) alone in overnight glucose control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 42-night trial was conducted in 30 individuals with type 1 diabetes in the age range 15-45 years. Participants were randomly assigned each night to either PHHM or PLGS and were blinded to the assignment. The system suspended the insulin pump on both the PHHM and PLGS nights for predicted hypoglycemia but delivered correction boluses for predicted hyperglycemia on PHHM nights only. The primary outcome was the percentage of time spent in a sensor glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL during the overnight period. RESULTS: The addition of automated insulin delivery with PHHM increased the time spent in the target range (70-180 mg/dL) from 71 ± 10% during PLGS nights to 78 ± 10% during PHHM nights (P < 0.001). The average morning blood glucose concentration improved from 163 ± 23 mg/dL after PLGS nights to 142 ± 18 mg/dL after PHHM nights (P < 0.001). Various sensor-measured hypoglycemic outcomes were similar on PLGS and PHHM nights. All participants completed 42 nights with no episodes of severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, or other study- or device-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a predictive hyperglycemia minimization component to our existing PLGS system was shown to be safe, feasible, and effective in overnight glucose control.