Evening and overnight closed-loop control versus 24/7 continuous closed-loop control for type 1 diabetes: a randomised crossover trial.

Background: Automated closed-loop control (CLC), known as the "artificial pancreas" is emerging as a treatment option for Type 1 Diabetes (T1D), generally superior to sensor-augmented insulin pump (SAP) treatment. It is postulated that evening-night (E-N) CLC may account for most of the benefits of 24-7 CLC; however, a direct comparison has not been done. Methods: In this trial (NCT02679287), adults with T1D were randomised 1:1 to two groups, which followed different sequences of four 8-week sessions, resulting in two crossover designs comparing SAP vs E-N CLC and E-N CLC vs 24-7 CLC, respectively. Eligibility: T1D for at least 1 year, using an insulin pump for at least six months, ages 18 years or older. Primary hypothesis: E-N CLC compared to SAP will decrease percent time <70mg/dL (3.9mmol/L) measured by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) without deterioration in HbA1c. Secondary Hypotheses: 24-7 CLC compared to SAP will increase CGM-measured time in target range (TIR, 70-180mg/dL; 3.9-10mmol/L) and will reduce glucose variability during the day. Findings: Ninety-three participants were randomised and 80 were included in the analysis, ages 18-69 years; HbA1c levels 5.4-10.6%; 66% female. Compared to SAP, E-N CLC reduced overall time <70mg/dL from 4.0% to 2.2% () resulting in an absolute difference of 1.8% (95%CI: 1.2-2.4%), p<0.0001. This was accompanied by overall reduction in HbA1c from 7.4% at baseline to 7.1% at the end of study, resulting in an absolute difference of 0.3% (95% CI: 0.1-0.4%), p<0.0001. There were 5 severe hypoglycaemia adverse events attributed to user-directed boluses without malfunction of the investigational device, and no diabetic ketoacidosis events. Interpretation: In type 1 diabetes, evening-night closed-loop control was superior to sensor-augmented pump therapy, achieving most of the glycaemic benefits of 24-7 closed-loop.

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.

The Use of a Smart Bolus Calculator Informed by Real-time Insulin Sensitivity Assessments Reduces Postprandial Hypoglycemia Following an Aerobic Exercise Session in Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Insulin dosing in type 1 diabetes (T1D) is oftentimes complicated by fluctuating insulin requirements driven by metabolic and psychobehavioral factors impacting individuals' insulin sensitivity (IS). In this context, smart bolus calculators that automatically tailor prandial insulin dosing to the metabolic state of a person can improve glucose management in T1D. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Fifteen adults with T1D using continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin pumps completed two 24-h admissions in a hotel setting. During the admissions, participants engaged in an early afternoon 45-min aerobic exercise session, after which they received a standardized dinner meal. The dinner bolus was computed using a standard bolus calculator or smart bolus calculator informed by real-time IS estimates. Glucose control was assessed in the 4 h following dinner using CGMs and was compared between the two admissions. RESULTS: The IS-informed bolus calculator allowed for a reduction in postprandial hypoglycemia as quantified by the low blood glucose index (2.02 vs. 3.31, P = 0.006) and percent time <70 mg/dL (8.48% vs. 15.18%, P = 0.049), without increasing hyperglycemia (high blood glucose index: 3.13 vs. 2.09, P = 0.075; percent time >180 mg/dL: 13.24% vs. 10.42%, P = 0.5; percent time >250 mg/dL: 2.08% vs. 1.19%, P = 0.317). In addition, the number of hypoglycemia rescue treatments was reduced from 12 to 7 with the use of the system. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that the proposed IS-informed bolus calculator is safe and feasible in adults with T1D, appropriately reducing postprandial hypoglycemia following an exercise-induced IS increase.

Safety and Efficacy of Initializing the Control-IQ Artificial Pancreas System Based on Total Daily Insulin in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes.

Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of a simplified initialization for the Tandem t:slim X2 Control-IQ hybrid closed-loop system, using parameters based on total daily insulin ("MyTDI") in adolescents with type 1 diabetes under usual activity and during periods of increased exercise. Research Design and Methods: Adolescents with type 1 diabetes 12-18 years of age used Control-IQ for 5 days at home using their usual parameters. Upon arrival at a 60-h ski camp, participants were randomized to either continue Control-IQ using their home settings or to reinitialize Control-IQ with MyTDI parameters. Control-IQ use continued for 5 days following camp. The effect of MyTDI on continuous glucose monitoring outcomes were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA): baseline, camp, and at home. Results: Twenty participants were enrolled and completed the study; two participants were excluded from the analysis due to absence from ski camp (1) and illness (1). Time in range was similar between both groups at home and camp. A tendency to higher time <70 mg/dL in the MyTDI group was present but only during camp (median 3.8% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.057). MyTDI users with bolus/TDI ratios >40% tended to show greater time in the euglycemic range improvements between baseline and home than users with ratios <40% (+16.3% vs. -9.0%, P = 0.012). All participants maintained an average of 95% time in closed loop (84.1%-100%). Conclusions: MyTDI is a safe, effective, and easy way to determine insulin parameters for use in the Control-IQ artificial pancreas. Future modifications to account for the influence of carbohydrate intake on MyTDI calculations might further improve time in range.

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.).

Hybrid Closed-Loop Control Is Safe and Effective for People with Type 1 Diabetes Who Are at Moderate to High Risk for Hypoglycemia.

Background: Typically, closed-loop control (CLC) studies excluded patients with significant hypoglycemia. We evaluated the effectiveness of hybrid CLC (HCLC) versus sensor-augmented pump (SAP) in reducing hypoglycemia in this high-risk population. Methods: Forty-four subjects with type 1 diabetes, 25 women, 37 ± 2 years old, HbA1c 7.4% ± 0.2% (57 ± 1.5 mmol/mol), diabetes duration 19 ± 2 years, on insulin pump, were enrolled at the University of Virginia (N = 33) and Stanford University (N = 11). Eligibility: increased risk of hypoglycemia confirmed by 1 week of blinded continuous glucose monitor (CGM); randomized to 4 weeks of home use of either HCLC or SAP. Primary/secondary outcomes: risk for hypoglycemia measured by the low blood glucose index (LBGI)/CGM-based time in ranges. Results: Values reported: mean ± standard deviation. From baseline to the final week of study: LBGI decreased more on HCLC (2.51 ± 1.17 to 1.28 ± 0.5) than on SAP (2.1 ± 1.05 to 1.79 ± 0.98), P < 0.001; percent time below 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) decreased on HCLC (7.2% ± 5.3% to 2.0% ± 1.4%) but not on SAP (5.8% ± 4.7% to 4.8% ± 4.5%), P = 0.001; percent time within the target range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10 mmol/L) increased on HCLC (67.8% ± 13.5% to 78.2% ± 10%) but decreased on SAP (65.6% ± 12.9% to 59.6% ± 16.5%), P < 0.001; percent time above 180 mg/dL (10 mmol/L) decreased on HCLC (25.1% ± 15.3% to 19.8% ± 10.1%) but increased on SAP (28.6% ± 14.6% to 35.6% ± 17.6%), P = 0.009. Mean glucose did not change significantly on HCLC (144.9 ± 27.9 to 143.8 ± 14.4 mg/dL [8.1 ± 1.6 to 8.0 ± 0.8 mmol/L]) or SAP (152.5 ± 24.3 to 162.4 ± 28.2 [8.5 ± 1.4 to 9.0 ± 1.6]), P = ns. Conclusions: Compared with SAP therapy, HCLC reduced the risk and frequency of hypoglycemia, while improving time in target range and reducing hyperglycemia in people at moderate to high risk of hypoglycemia.

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.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Insulin Informed Advisory System with Automated Titration and Dosing of Insulin Reduces Glucose Variability in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Glucose variability (GV) remains a key limiting factor in the success of diabetes management. While new technologies, for example, accurate continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and connected insulin delivery devices, are now available, current treatment standards fail to leverage the wealth of information generated. Expert systems, from automated insulin delivery to advisory systems, are a key missing element to richer, more personalized, glucose management in diabetes. METHODS: Twenty four subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), 15 women, 37 ± 11 years of age, hemoglobin A1c 7.2% ± 1%, total daily insulin (TDI) 46.7 ± 22.3 U, using either an insulin pump or multiple daily injections with carbohydrate counting, completed two randomized crossover 48-h visits at the University of Virginia, wearing Dexcom G4 CGM, and using either usual care or the UVA decision support system (DSS). DSS consisted of a combination of automated insulin titration, bolus calculation, and CHO treatment advice. During each admission, participants were exposed to a variety of meal sizes and contents and two 45-min bouts of exercise. GV and glucose control were assessed using CGM. RESULTS: The use of DSS significantly reduced GV (coefficient of variation: 0.36 ± 08. vs. 0.33 ± 0.06, P = 0.045) while maintaining glycemic control (average CGM: 155.2 ± 27.1 mg/dL vs. 155.2 ± 23.2 mg/dL), by reducing hypoglycemia exposure (%<70 mg/dL: 3.8% ± 4.6% vs. 1.8% ± 2%, P = 0.018), with nonsignificant trends toward reduction of significant hyperglycemia overnight (%>250 mg/dL: 5.3% ± 9.5% vs. 1.9% ± 4.6%) and at mealtime (11.3% ± 14.8% vs. 5.8% ± 9.1%). CONCLUSIONS: A CGM/insulin informed advisory system proved to be safe and feasible in a cohort of 24 T1DM subjects. Use of the system may result in reduced GV and improved protection against hypoglycemia.

Recent Exposure to Hypoglycemia Increases Glucose Variability Following a Hyper/Hypoglycemic Metabolic Challenge in T1D.

AIMS: In type 1 diabetes (T1D), repeated hypoglycemic episodes may reduce hormonal defenses and increase the risk for severe hypoglycemia. In this work, we investigate the effect of a structured hyper/hypoglycemic metabolic challenge on the postintervention glucose variability in T1D subjects studied at home. METHODS: Thirty T1D subjects using insulin pump were monitored with blood glucose meters (SMBG) during a 1-month observation period. After 2 weeks of monitoring, participants were admitted at the University of Virginia Clinical Research Unit to undergo an 8-hour metabolic challenge. The intervention was designed to create hyperglycemia shortly followed by hypoglycemia, mimicking a real-life scenario of underbolused meal followed by overcorrection. After the intervention, subjects were monitored for 2 more weeks. Glycemic variability was assessed before and after the challenge using the low blood glucose index (LBGI). Glucagon counterregulation (GCR) response to induced hypoglycemia was also measured. LBGI variation and GCR were linked to prior exposure to hypoglycemia. RESULTS: Subjects significantly exposed to hypoglycemia in the 2 weeks before the intervention had a significant increase of postchallenge LBGI ( P < .001) and lower GCR response ( P < .05). Recent occurrence of hypoglycemia and number of years not using an insulin pump were identified as significant predictors of postchallenge LBGI ( P < .001). CONCLUSION: Glycemic swings, a common result of suboptimal insulin treatment, have a significant impact on future (days) glycemic control in T1D subjects with a recent history of hypoglycemia, as measured in the field. Choice of past insulin therapy may also mediate this effect.

Overnight Closed-Loop Control Improves Glycemic Control in a Multicenter Study of Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

Context: Closed-loop control (CLC) for the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a novel method for optimizing glucose control, and strategies for individualized implementation are being developed. Objective: To analyze glycemic control in an overnight CLC system designed to "reset" the patient to near-normal glycemic targets every morning. Design: Randomized, crossover, multicenter clinical trial. Participants: Forty-four subjects with T1D requiring insulin pump therapy. Intervention: Sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAP) at home vs 5 nights of CLC (active from 23:00 to 07:00) in a supervised outpatient setting (research house or hotel), with a substudy of 5 nights of CLC subsequently at home. Main Outcome Measure: The percentage of time spent in the target range (70 to 180 mg/dL measured using a continuous glucose monitor). Results: Forty subjects (age, 45.5 ± 9.5 years; hemoglobin A1c, 7.4% ± 0.8%) completed the study. The time in the target range (70 to 180 mg/dL) significantly improved in CLC vs SAP over 24 hours (78.3% vs 71.4%; P = 0.003) and overnight (85.7% vs 67.6%; P < 0.001). The time spent in a hypoglycemic range (<70 mg/dL) decreased significantly in the CLC vs SAP group over 24 hours (2.5% vs 4.3%; P = 0.002) and overnight (0.9% vs 3.2%; P < 0.001). The mean glucose level at 07:00 was lower with CLC than with SAP (123.7 vs 145.3 mg/dL; P < 0.001). The substudy at home, involving 10 T1D subjects, showed similar trends with an increased time in target (70 to 180 mg/dL) overnight (75.2% vs 62.2%; P = 0.07) and decreased time spent in the hypoglycemic range (<70 mg/dL) overnight in CLC vs SAP (0.6% vs 3.7%; P = 0.03). Conclusion: Overnight-only CLC increased the time in the target range over 24 hours and decreased the time in hypoglycemic range over 24 hours in a supervised outpatient setting. A pilot extension study at home showed a similar nonsignificant trend.

Evaluation of a Predictive Low-Glucose Management System In-Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Predictions based on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data are the basis for automatic suspension and resumption of insulin delivery by a predictive low-glucose management feature termed "suspend before low," which is part of the Medtronic MiniMed® 640G combined insulin pump and CGM system. This study assessed the safety and performance characteristics of the system in an in-clinic setting at eight sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In-clinic standardized increases in basal insulin delivery rates were used to induce nocturnal hypoglycemia in subjects (14-75 years) with type 1 diabetes wearing the MiniMed 640G system. The "suspend before low" feature was set at 65 mg/dL, and as a result, the predictive algorithm suspended insulin delivery when the forecasted glucose was predicted to be ≤85 mg/dL in 30 min (a 20 mg/dL safety buffer). Reference plasma glucose values (Yellow Springs Instruments [YSI], Yellow Springs, OH) were used to establish hypoglycemia and were defined as ≥2 consecutive values ≤65 mg/dL. RESULTS: Eighty subjects were screened. Among the 69 successful completers, 27 experienced a hypoglycemic event and 42 did not, a prevention rate of 60%. The mean (±standard deviation) YSI value at the time of pump suspension was 101 ± 18.5 mg/dL, and the mean duration of the 68 "suspend before low" events was 105 ± 27 min. At 120 min after the start of the pump suspension events, the mean YSI value was 102 ± 34.6 mg/dL. CONCLUSION: The MiniMed 640G "suspend before low" feature prevented 60% of induced predicted hypoglycemic events without significant rebound hyperglycemia.

Glucose Outcomes with the In-Home Use of a Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery System in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of the in-home use of a hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system that automatically increases, decreases, and suspends insulin delivery in response to continuous glucose monitoring were investigated. METHODS: Adolescents (n = 30, ages 14-21 years) and adults (n = 94, ages 22-75 years) with type 1 diabetes participated in a multicenter (nine sites in the United States, one site in Israel) pivotal trial. The Medtronic MiniMed® 670G system was used during a 2-week run-in phase without HCL control, or Auto Mode, enabled (Manual Mode) and, thereafter, with Auto Mode enabled during a 3-month study phase. A supervised hotel stay (6 days/5 nights) that included a 24-h frequent blood sample testing with a reference measurement (i-STAT) occurred during the study phase. RESULTS: Adolescents (mean ± standard deviation [SD] 16.5 ± 2.29 years of age and 7.7 ± 4.15 years of diabetes) used the system for a median 75.8% (interquartile range [IQR] 68.0%-88.4%) of the time (2977 patient-days). Adults (mean ± SD 44.6 ± 12.79 years of age and 26.4 ± 12.43 years of diabetes) used the system for a median 88.0% (IQR 77.6%-92.7%) of the time (9412 patient-days). From baseline run-in to the end of study phase, adolescent and adult HbA1c levels decreased from 7.7% ± 0.8% to 7.1% ± 0.6% (P < 0.001) and from 7.3% ± 0.9% to 6.8% ± 0.6% (P < 0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test), respectively. The proportion of overall in-target (71-180 mg/dL) sensor glucose (SG) values increased from 60.4% ± 10.9% to 67.2% ± 8.2% (P < 0.001) in adolescents and from 68.8% ± 11.9% to 73.8% ± 8.4% (P < 0.001) in adults. During the hotel stay, the proportion of in-target i-STAT® blood glucose values was 67.4% ± 27.7% compared to SG values of 72.0% ± 11.6% for adolescents and 74.2% ± 17.5% compared to 76.9% ± 8.3% for adults. There were no severe hypoglycemic or diabetic ketoacidosis events in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: HCL therapy was safe during in-home use by adolescents and adults and the study phase demonstrated increased time in target, and reductions in HbA1c, hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, compared to baseline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02463097.

Feasibility of Long-Term Closed-Loop Control: A Multicenter 6-Month Trial of 24/7 Automated Insulin Delivery.

BACKGROUND: In the past few years, the artificial pancreas-the commonly accepted term for closed-loop control (CLC) of blood glucose in diabetes-has become a hot topic in research and technology development. In the summer of 2014, we initiated a 6-month trial evaluating the safety of 24/7 CLC during free-living conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Following an initial 1-month Phase 1, 14 individuals (10 males/4 females) with type 1 diabetes at three clinical centers in the United States and one in Italy continued with a 5-month Phase 2, which included 24/7 CLC using the wireless portable Diabetes Assistant (DiAs) developed at the University of Virginia Center for Diabetes Technology. Median subject characteristics were age 45 years, duration of diabetes 27 years, total daily insulin 0.53 U/kg/day, and baseline HbA1c 7.2% (55 mmol/mol). RESULTS: Compared with the baseline observation period, the frequency of hypoglycemia below 3.9 mmol/L during the last 3 months of CLC was lower: 4.1% versus 1.3%, P < 0.001. This was accompanied by a downward trend in HbA1c from 7.2% (55 mmol/mol) to 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) at 6 months. HbA1c improvement was correlated with system use (Spearman r = 0.55). The user experience was favorable with identified benefit particularly at night and overall trust in the system. There were no serious adverse events, severe hypoglycemia, or diabetic ketoacidosis. CONCLUSION: We conclude that CLC technology has matured and is safe for prolonged use in patients' natural environment. Based on these promising results, a large randomized trial is warranted to assess long-term CLC efficacy and safety.

Multinational Home Use of Closed-Loop Control Is Safe and Effective.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a portable, wearable, wireless artificial pancreas system (the Diabetes Assistant [DiAs] running the Unified Safety System) on glucose control at home in overnight-only and 24/7 closed-loop control (CLC) modes in patients with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: At six clinical centers in four countries, 30 participants 18-66 years old with type 1 diabetes (43% female, 96% non-Hispanic white, median type 1 diabetes duration 19 years, median A1C 7.3%) completed the study. The protocol included a 2-week baseline sensor-augmented pump (SAP) period followed by 2 weeks of overnight-only CLC and 2 weeks of 24/7 CLC at home. Glucose control during CLC was compared with the baseline SAP. RESULTS: Glycemic control parameters for overnight-only CLC were improved during the nighttime period compared with baseline for hypoglycemia (time <70 mg/dL, primary end point median 1.1% vs. 3.0%; P < 0.001), time in target (70-180 mg/dL: 75% vs. 61%; P < 0.001), and glucose variability (coefficient of variation: 30% vs. 36%; P < 0.001). Similar improvements for day/night combined were observed with 24/7 CLC compared with baseline: 1.7% vs. 4.1%, P < 0.001; 73% vs. 65%, P < 0.001; and 34% vs. 38%, P < 0.001, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CLC running on a smartphone (DiAs) in the home environment was safe and effective. Overnight-only CLC reduced hypoglycemia and increased time in range overnight and increased time in range during the day; 24/7 CLC reduced hypoglycemia and increased time in range both overnight and during the day. Compared with overnight-only CLC, 24/7 CLC provided additional hypoglycemia protection during the day.

Multinight "bedside" closed-loop control for patients with type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Studies of closed-loop control (CLC) systems have improved glucose levels in patients with type 1 diabetes. In this study we test a new CLC concept aiming to "reset" the patient overnight to near-normoglycemia each morning, for several consecutive nights. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ten insulin pump users with type 1 diabetes (mean age, 46.4±8.5 years) were enrolled in a two-center (in the United States and Italy) randomized crossover trial comparing 5 consecutive nights of CLC (23:00-07:00 h) in an outpatient setting versus sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy of the same duration at home. Primary end points included time spent in 80-140 mg/dL as measured by continuous glucose monitoring overnight and fasting blood glucose distribution at 7:00 h. RESULTS: Compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy, CLC improved significantly time spent between 80 and 140 mg/dL (54.5% vs. 32.2%; P<0.001) and between 70 and 180 mg/dL (85.4% vs. 59.1%; P<0.001); CLC reduced the mean glucose level at 07:00 h (119.3 vs. 152.9 mg/dL; P<0.001) and overnight mean glucose level (139.0 vs. 170.3 mg/dL; P<0.001) using a marginally lower amount of insulin (6.1 vs. 6.8 units; P=0.1). Tighter overnight control led to improved daytime control on the next day: the overnight/next-day control correlation was r=0.52, P<0.01. CONCLUSIONS: Multinight CLC of insulin delivery (artificial pancreas) results in significant improvement in morning and overnight glucose levels and time in target range, with the potential to improve daytime control when glucose levels were "reset" to near-normoglycemia each morning.

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.

Safety of outpatient closed-loop control: first randomized crossover trials of a wearable artificial pancreas.

OBJECTIVE: We estimate the effect size of hypoglycemia risk reduction on closed-loop control (CLC) versus open-loop (OL) sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy in supervised outpatient setting. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twenty patients with type 1 diabetes initiated the study at the Universities of Virginia, Padova, and Montpellier and Sansum Diabetes Research Institute; 18 completed the entire protocol. Each patient participated in two 40-h outpatient sessions, CLC versus OL, in randomized order. Sensor (Dexcom G4) and insulin pump (Tandem t:slim) were connected to Diabetes Assistant (DiAs)-a smartphone artificial pancreas platform. The patient operated the system through the DiAs user interface during both CLC and OL; study personnel supervised on site and monitored DiAs remotely. There were no dietary restrictions; 45-min walks in town and restaurant dinners were included in both CLC and OL; alcohol was permitted. RESULTS: The primary outcome-reduction in risk for hypoglycemia as measured by the low blood glucose (BG) index (LGBI)-resulted in an effect size of 0.64, P = 0.003, with a twofold reduction of hypoglycemia requiring carbohydrate treatment: 1.2 vs. 2.4 episodes/session on CLC versus OL (P = 0.02). This was accompanied by a slight decrease in percentage of time in the target range of 3.9-10 mmol/L (66.1 vs. 70.7%) and increase in mean BG (8.9 vs. 8.4 mmol/L; P = 0.04) on CLC versus OL. CONCLUSIONS: CLC running on a smartphone (DiAs) in outpatient conditions reduced hypoglycemia and hypoglycemia treatments when compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy. This was accompanied by marginal increase in average glycemia resulting from a possible overemphasis on hypoglycemia safety.

Effect of algorithm aggressiveness on the performance of the Hypoglycemia-Hyperglycemia Minimizer (HHM) System.

The Hypoglycemia-Hyperglycemia Minimizer (HHM) System aims to mitigate glucose excursions by preemptively modulating insulin delivery based on continuous glucose monitor (CGM) measurements. The "aggressiveness factor" is a key parameter in the HHM System algorithm, affecting how readily the system adjusts insulin infusion in response to changing CGM levels. Twenty adults with type 1 diabetes were studied in closed-loop in a clinical research center for approximately 26 hours. This analysis focused on the effect of the aggressiveness factor on the insulin dosing characteristics of the algorithm and, to a lesser extent, on the glucose control results observed. As the aggressiveness factor increased from conservative to medium to aggressive: the maximum observed insulin dose delivered by the algorithm­which is designed to give doses that are corrective in nature every 5 minutes­increased (1.00 vs 1.15 vs 2.20 U, respectively); tendency to adhere to the subject's nominal basal dose decreased (61.9% vs 56.6% vs 53.4%); and readiness to decrease insulin below basal also increased (18.4% vs 19.4% vs 25.2%). Glucose analyses by both CGM and Yellow Springs Instruments (YSI) indicated that the aggressive setting of the algorithm resulted in the least time spent at levels >180 mg/dL, and the most time spent between 70-180 mg/dL. There was no severe hyperglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, or severe hypoglycemia for any of the aggressiveness values investigated. These analyses underscore the importance of investigating the sensitivity of the HHM System to its key parameters, such as the aggressiveness factor, to guide future development decisions.