Driving with Type 1 Diabetes: Real-World Evidence to Support Starting Glucose Level and Frequency of Monitoring During Journeys.

There is limited evidence supporting the recommendation that drivers with insulin-treated diabetes need to start journeys with glucose >90 mg/dL. Glucose levels of drivers with type 1 diabetes were monitored for 3 weeks using masked continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Eighteen drivers (median [IQR] age 40 [35, 51] years; 11 men) undertook 475 trips (duration 15 [13, 21] min). Hypoglycemia did not occur in any trip starting with glucose >90 mg/dL (92%; n = 436). Thirteen drivers recorded at least one trip (total n = 39) starting with glucose <90 mg/dL. Among these, driving glucose was <70 mg/dL in five drivers (38%) during 10 trips (26%). Among five drivers (28%), a ≥ 36 mg/dL drop was observed within 20 min of starting their journey. Journey duration was positively associated with maximum glucose change. These findings support current guidelines to start driving with glucose >90 mg/dL, and to be aware that glucose levels may change significantly within 20 min. A CGM-based, in-vehicle display could provide glucose information and alerts that are compatible with safe driving. Clinical Trial Registration number: ACTRN12617000520336.

Meal-time glycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections vs insulin pump therapy following carbohydrate-counting education and bolus calculator provision.

AIMS: To compare meal-time glycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) managed with multiple daily injections (MDI) vs. insulin pump therapy (IPT), using self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG), following diabetes education. METHODS: Adults with T1D received carbohydrate-counting education and a bolus calculator: MDI (Roche Aviva Expert) and IPT (pump bolus calculator). All then wore 3-weeks of masked-CGM (Enlite, Medtronic). Meal-times were assessed by two approaches: 1) Set time-blocks (breakfast 06:00-10:00hrs; lunch 11:00-15:00hrs; dinner 17:00-21:00hrs) and 2) Bolus-calculator carbohydrate entries signalling meal commencement. Post-meal masked-CGM time-in-range (TIR) 3.9-10.0 mmol/L was the primary outcome. RESULTS: MDI(n = 61) and IPT (n = 59) participants were equivalent in age, sex, diabetes duration and HbA1c. Median (IQR) education time provided did not differ (MDI: 1.1 h (0.75, 1.5) vs. IPT: 1.1 h (1.0, 2.0); p = 0.86). Overall, daytime (06:00-24:00hrs), lunch and dinner TIR did not differ for MDI vs. IPT participants but was greater for breakfast with IPT in both analyses with a mean difference of 12.8%, (95 CI 4.8, 20.9); p = 0.002 (time-block analysis). CONCLUSION: After diabetes education, MDI and IPT use were associated with similar day-time glycemia, though IPT users had significantly greater TIR during the breakfast period. With education, meal-time glucose levels are comparable with use of MDI vs. pumps.

Less Nocturnal Hypoglycemia but Equivalent Time in Range Among Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Using Insulin Pumps Versus Multiple Daily Injections.

Background: This prerandomization analysis from the Australian HCL-Adult trial (registration number: ACTRN12617000520336) compared masked continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics among adults using insulin pumps versus multiple daily injections (MDIs), who were all self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG). Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes, using an insulin pump or MDIs without real-time CGM (and entering a trial of closed-loop technology), were eligible. MDI users were given an insulin dosage calculator. All participants received diabetes and carbohydrate-counting education, then wore masked CGM sensors for 3 weeks. Ethics Approval: HREC-D 088/16 Results: Adults using MDIs (n = 61) versus pump (n = 59) did not differ by age, sex, diabetes duration, insulin total daily dose, or HbA1c at baseline. After education, median (interquartile range) CGM time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was 54% (47, 62) for those using MDIs and 56% (48, 66) for those using pump (P = 0.40). All CGM metrics were equivalent for 24 h/day for MDI and pump users. Overnight, those using MDIs (vs. pump) spent more time with glucose <54 mg/dL (<3.0 mmol/L): 1.4% (0.1, 5.1) versus 0.5% (0.0, 2.0), respectively (P = 0.012). They also had more CGM hypoglycemia episodes (121 vs. 54, respectively; incidence rate ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.48 [1.51, 4.06]; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Adults with type 1 diabetes using pumps versus MDIs in conjunction with SMBG experienced less nocturnal hypoglycemia, measured by masked CGM, after equivalent diabetes and dietary education in conjunction with insulin dosage calculator provision to all. However, both groups had equivalent TIR. This observation may reflect advantages afforded by flexibility in basal insulin delivery provided by pumps.

Six Months of Hybrid Closed-Loop Versus Manual Insulin Delivery With Fingerprick Blood Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate glycemic and psychosocial outcomes with hybrid closed-loop (HCL) versus user-determined insulin dosing with multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump (i.e., standard therapy for most adults with type 1 diabetes). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes using MDI or insulin pump without continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) were randomized to 26 weeks of HCL (Medtronic 670G) or continuation of current therapy. The primary outcome was masked CGM time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL) during the final 3 weeks. RESULTS: Participants were randomized to HCL (n = 61) or control (n = 59). Baseline mean (SD) age was 44.2 (11.7) years, HbA1c was 7.4% (0.9%) (57 [10] mmol/mol), 53% were women, and 51% used MDI. HCL TIR increased from (baseline) 55% (13%) to (26 weeks) 70% (10%) with the control group unchanged: (baseline) 55% (12%) and (26 weeks) 55% (13%) (difference 15% [95% CI 11, 19]; P < 0.0001). For HCL, HbA1c was lower (median [95% CI] difference -0.4% [-0.6, -0.2]; -4 mmol/mol [-7, -2]; P < 0.0001) and diabetes-specific positive well-being was higher (difference 1.2 [95% CI 0.4, 1.9]; P < 0.0048) without a deterioration in diabetes distress, perceived sleep quality, or cognition. Seventeen (9 device-related) versus 13 serious adverse events occurred in the HCL and control groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with type 1 diabetes, 26 weeks of HCL improved TIR, HbA1c, and their sense of satisfaction from managing their diabetes compared with those continuing with user-determined insulin dosing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. For most people living with type 1 diabetes globally, this trial demonstrates that HCL is feasible, acceptable, and advantageous.

Effect of 6 months of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Manual determination of insulin dosing largely fails to optimise glucose control in type 1 diabetes. Automated insulin delivery via closed-loop systems has improved glucose control in short-term studies. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of 6 months' closed-loop compared with manually determined insulin dosing on time-in-target glucose range in adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This open-label, seven-centre, randomised controlled parallel group clinical trial will compare home-based hybrid closed-loop versus standard diabetes therapy in Australia. Adults aged ≥25 years with type 1 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy (via multiple daily injections or insulin pump, total enrolment target n=120) will undertake a run-in period including diabetes and carbohydrate-counting education, clinical optimisation and baseline data collection. Participants will then be randomised 1:1 either to 26 weeks of MiniMed 670G hybrid closed-loop system therapy (Medtronic, Northridge, CA, USA) or continuation of their current diabetes therapy. The hybrid closed-loop system delivers insulin automatically to address basal requirements and correct to target glucose level, while bolus doses for meals require user initiation and carbohydrate estimation. Analysis will be intention to treat, with the primary outcome time in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) during the final 3 weeks of intervention. Secondary outcomes include: other CGM parameters, HbA1c, severe hypoglycaemia, psychosocial well-being, sleep, cognition, electrocardiography, costs, quality of life, biomarkers of vascular health and hybrid closed-loop system performance. Semistructured interviews will assess the expectations and experiences of a subgroup of hybrid closed-loop users. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has Human Research Ethics Committee approval. The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Results will be disseminated at scientific conferences and via peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617000520336; Pre-results.

"It Is Definitely a Game Changer": A Qualitative Study of Experiences with In-home Overnight Closed-Loop Technology Among Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: This qualitative study explored trial participants' experiences of four nights of in-home closed loop. METHODS: Sixteen adults with type 1 diabetes, who completed a randomized crossover trial, were interviewed after four consecutive nights of closed-loop. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with a coding framework developed to identify the main themes. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 42 ± 10 years, nine were women; mean diabetes duration was 27 ± 7 years, and all were using insulin pumps. Overall, first impressions were positive. Participants found closed-loop easy to use and understand. Most experienced more stable overnight glucose levels, although for some these were similar to usual care or higher than they expected. Compared with their usual treatment, they noticed the proactive nature of the closed-loop, being able to predict trends and deliver micro amounts of insulin. Most reported technical glitches or inconveniences during one or more nights, such as transmission problems, problematic connectivity between devices, ongoing alarms despite addressing low glucose levels, and sensor inaccuracy. Remote monitoring by the trial team and their own hypoglycemic awareness contributed to feelings of trust and safety. Although rare, safety concerns were raised, related to feeling unsure whether the system would respond in time to falling glucose levels. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides relevant insights for implementation of closed-loop in the real world. For people with diabetes who are less familiar with technology, remote monitoring for the first few days may provide reassurance, strengthen their trust/skills, and make closed-loop an acceptable option for more people with type 1 diabetes.

Glycemia, Treatment Satisfaction, Cognition, and Sleep Quality in Adults and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes When Using a Closed-Loop System Overnight Versus Sensor-Augmented Pump with Low-Glucose Suspend Function: A Randomized Crossover Study.

BACKGROUND: We compared glycemia, treatment satisfaction, sleep quality, and cognition using a nighttime Android-based hybrid closed-loop system (Android-HCLS) with sensor-augmented pump with low-glucose suspend function (SAP-LGS) in people with type 1 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An open-label, prospective, randomized crossover study of 16 adults (mean [SD] age 42.1 [9.6] years) and 12 adolescents (15.2 [1.6] years) was conducted. All participants completed four consecutive nights at home with Android-HCLS (proportional integral derivative with insulin feedback algorithm; Medtronic) and SAP-LGS. PRIMARY OUTCOME: percent continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) time (00:00-08:00 h) within target range (72-144 mg/dL). Secondary endpoints: percent CGM time above target (>144 mg/dL); below target (<72 mg/dL); glycemic variability (SD); symptomatic hypoglycemia; adult treatment satisfaction; sleep quality; and cognitive function. RESULTS: The primary outcome for all participants was not statistically different between Android-HCLS and SAP-LGS (mean [SD] 59.4 [17.9]% vs. 53.1 [18]%; p = 0.14). Adults had greater percent time within target range (57.7 [18.6]% vs. 44.5 [14.5]%; p < 0.006); less time above target (42.0 [18.7]% vs. 52.6 [16.5]%; p = 0.034); lower glycemic variability (35 [10.7] mg/dL vs. 46 [10.7] mg/dL; p = 0.003); and less (median [IQR]) time below target (0.0 [0.0-0.4]% vs. 0.80 [0.0-3.9]%; p = 0.025). In adolescents, time below target was lower with Android-HCLS vs. SAP-LGS (0.0 [0.0-0.0]% vs. 1.8 [0.1-7.9]%; p = 0.011). Nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia was less (1 vs. 10; p = 0.007) in adolescents, but not adults (5 vs. 13; p = 0.059). In adults, treatment satisfaction increased by 10 points (p < 0.02). Sleep quality and cognition did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Android-HCLS in both adults and adolescents reduced nocturnal hypoglycemia and, in adults, improved overnight time in target range and treatment satisfaction compared with SAP-LGS.

Persistent syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion following traumatic brain injury.

UNLABELLED: The syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion (SIADH) can occur following traumatic brain injury (TBI), but is usually transient. There are very few case reports describing chronic SIADH and all resolved within 12 months, except for one case complicated by meningo-encephalitis. Persistent symptomatic hyponatremia due to chronic SIADH was present for 4 years following a TBI in a previously well 32-year-old man. Hyponatremia consistent with SIADH initially occurred in the immediate period following a high-speed motorbike accident in 2010. There were associated complications of post-traumatic amnesia and mild cognitive deficits. Normalization of serum sodium was achieved initially with fluid restriction. However, this was not sustained and he subsequently required a permanent 1.2 l restriction to maintain near normal sodium levels. Multiple episodes of acute symptomatic hyponatremia requiring hospitalization occurred over the following years when he repeatedly stopped the fluid restriction. Given the ongoing nature of his hyponatremia and difficulties complying with strict fluid restriction, demeclocycline was commenced in 2014. Normal sodium levels without fluid restriction have been maintained for 6 months since starting demeclocycline. This case illustrates an important long-term effect of TBI, the challenges of complying with permanent fluid restrictions and the potential role of demeclocycline in patients with chronic hyponatremia due to SIADH. LEARNING POINTS: Hyponatraemia due to SIADH commonly occurs after TBI, but is usually mild and transient.Chronic hyponatraemia due to SIADH following TBI is a rare but important complication.It likely results from damage to the pituitary stalk or posterior pituitary causing inappropriate non-osmotic hypersecretion of ADH.First line management of SIADH is generally fluid restriction, but hypertonic saline may be required in severe cases. Adherence to long-term fluid restriction is challenging. Other options include oral urea, vasopressin receptor antagonists and demeclocycline.While effective, oral urea is poorly tolerated and vasopressin receptor antagonists are currently not licensed for use in Australia or the USA beyond 30 days due to insufficient long-term safety data and specific concerns of hepatotoxicity.Demeclocycline is an effective, well-tolerated and safe option for management of chronic hyponatraemia due to SIADH.

Quantifying the acute changes in glucose with exercise in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The acute impact of different types of physical activity on glycemic control in type 1 diabetes has not been well quantified. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to estimate the rate of change (RoC) in glucose concentration induced acutely during the performance of structured exercise and at recovery in subjects with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: We searched for original articles in the PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. Search terms included type 1 diabetes, blood glucose, physical activity, and exercise. Eligible studies (randomized controlled trials and non-randomized experiments) encompassed controlled physical activity sessions (continuous moderate [CONT], intermittent high intensity [IHE], resistance [RESIST], and/or a resting reference [REST]) and reported excursions in glucose concentration during exercise and after its cessation. Data were extracted by graph digitization to compute two RoC measures from population profiles: RoCE during exercise and RoCR in recovery. RESULTS: Ten eligible studies were found from 540 publications. Meta-analyses of exercise modalities versus rest yielded the following: RoCE -4.43 mmol/L h(-1) (p < 0.00001, 95% confidence interval [CI] -6.06 to -2.79) and RoCR +0.70 mmol/L h(-1) (p = 0.46, 95% CI -1.14 to +2.54) for CONT vs. REST; RoCE -5.25 mmol/L·h(-1) (p < 0.00001, 95 % CI -7.02 to -3.48) and RoCR +0.72 mmol/L h(-1) (p = 0.71, 95% CI -3.10 to +4.54) for IHE vs. REST; RoCE -2.61 mmol/L h(-1) (p = 0.30, 95% CI -7.55 to +2.34) and RoCR -0.02 mmol/L h(-1) (p = 1.00, 95% CI -7.58 to +7.53) for RESIST vs. REST. CONCLUSIONS: Novel RoC magnitudes RoCE, RoCR reflected rapid decays of glycemia during CONT exercise and gradual recoveries immediately afterwards. RESIST showed more constrained decays, whereas discrepancies were found for IHE.

Pharmacokinetics of insulin lispro in type 2 diabetes during closed-loop insulin delivery.

Insulin pharmacokinetics is not well understood during continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in type 2 diabetes (T2D). We analyzed data collected in 11 subjects with T2D [6 male, 9 white European and two of Indian ethnicity; age 59.7(12.1) years, BMI 30.1(3.9) kg/m(2), fasting C-peptide 1002.2(365.8) pmol/l, fasting plasma glucose 9.6(2.2) mmol/l, diabetes duration 8.0(6.2) years and HbA1c 8.3(0.8)%; mean(SD)] who underwent a 24-h study investigating closed-loop insulin delivery at the Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility, Cambridge, UK. Subcutaneous delivery of insulin lispro was modulated every 15 min according to a model predictive control algorithm. Two complementary insulin assays facilitated discrimination between exogenous (lispro) and endogenous plasma insulin concentrations measured every 15-60 min. Lispro pharmacokinetics was represented by a linear two-compartment model whilst parameters were estimated using a Bayesian approach applying a closed-form model solution. The time-to-peak of lispro absorption (t(max)) was 109.6 (75.5-120.5) min [median (interquartile range)] and the metabolic clearance rate (MCR(I)) 1.26 (0.87-1.56)×10(-2) l/kg/min. MCR(I) was negatively correlated with fasting C-peptide (r(s)=-0.84; P=.001) and with fasting plasma insulin concentration (r(s)=-0.79; P=.004). In conclusion, compartmental modelling adequately represents lispro kinetics during continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in T2D. Fasting plasma C-peptide or fasting insulin may be predictive of lispro metabolic clearance rate in T2D but further investigations are warranted.

Home use of closed-loop insulin delivery for overnight glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a 4-week, multicentre, randomised crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop insulin delivery is a promising option to improve glycaemic control and reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia. We aimed to assess whether overnight home use of automated closed-loop insulin delivery would improve glucose control. METHODS: We did this open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled, crossover study between Dec 1, 2012, and Dec 23, 2014, recruiting patients from three centres in the UK. Patients aged 18 years or older with type 1 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive 4 weeks of overnight closed-loop insulin delivery (using a model-predictive control algorithm to direct insulin delivery), then 4 weeks of insulin pump therapy (in which participants used real-time display of continuous glucose monitoring independent of their pumps as control), or vice versa. Allocation to initial treatment group was by computer-generated permuted block randomisation. Each treatment period was separated by a 3-4 week washout period. The primary outcome was time spent in the target glucose range of 3·9-8·0 mmol/L between 0000 h and 0700 h. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01440140. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 25 participants to initial treatment in either the closed-loop group or the control group, patients were later crossed over into the other group; one patient from the closed-loop group withdrew consent after randomisation, and data for 24 patients were analysed. Closed loop was used over a median of 8·3 h (IQR 6·0-9·6) on 555 (86%) of 644 nights. The proportion of time when overnight glucose was in target range was significantly higher during the closed-loop period compared to during the control period (mean difference between groups 13·5%, 95% CI 7·3-19·7; p=0·0002). We noted no severe hypoglycaemic episodes during the control period compared with two episodes during the closed-loop period; these episodes were not related to closed-loop algorithm instructions. INTERPRETATION: Unsupervised overnight closed-loop insulin delivery at home is feasible and could improve glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes. FUNDING: Diabetes UK.

Overnight closed-loop insulin delivery in young people with type 1 diabetes: a free-living, randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate feasibility, safety, and efficacy of overnight closed-loop insulin delivery in free-living youth with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Overnight closed loop was evaluated at home by 16 pump-treated adolescents with type 1 diabetes aged 12-18 years. Over a 3-week period, overnight insulin delivery was directed by a closed-loop system, and on another 3-week period sensor-augmented therapy was applied. The order of interventions was random. The primary end point was time when adjusted sensor glucose was between 3.9 and 8.0 mmol/L from 2300 to 0700 h. RESULTS: Closed loop was constantly applied over at least 4 h on 269 nights (80%); sensor data were collected over at least 4 h on 282 control nights (84%). Closed loop increased time spent with glucose in target by a median 15% (interquartile range -9 to 43; P < 0.001). Mean overnight glucose was reduced by a mean 14 (SD 58) mg/dL (P < 0.001). Time when glucose was <70 mg/dL was low in both groups, but nights with glucose <63 mg/dL for at least 20 min were less frequent during closed loop (10 vs. 17%; P = 0.01). Despite lower total daily insulin doses by a median 2.3 (interquartile range -4.7 to 9.3) units (P = 0.009), overall 24-h glucose was reduced by a mean 9 (SD 41) mg/dL (P = 0.006) during closed loop. CONCLUSIONS: Unsupervised home use of overnight closed loop in adolescents with type 1 diabetes is safe and feasible. Glucose control was improved during the day and night with fewer episodes of nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Accuracy of subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring in critically ill adults: improved sensor performance with enhanced calibrations.

OBJECTIVE: Accurate real-time continuous glucose measurements may improve glucose control in the critical care unit. We evaluated the accuracy of the FreeStyle(®) Navigator(®) (Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA) subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device in critically ill adults using two methods of calibration. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In a randomized trial, paired CGM and reference glucose (hourly arterial blood glucose [ABG]) were collected over a 48-h period from 24 adults with critical illness (mean±SD age, 60±14 years; mean±SD body mass index, 29.6±9.3 kg/m(2); mean±SD Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score, 12±4 [range, 6-19]) and hyperglycemia. In 12 subjects, the CGM device was calibrated at variable intervals of 1-6 h using ABG. In the other 12 subjects, the sensor was calibrated according to the manufacturer's instructions (1, 2, 10, and 24 h) using arterial blood and the built-in point-of-care glucometer. RESULTS: In total, 1,060 CGM-ABG pairs were analyzed over the glucose range from 4.3 to 18.8 mmol/L. Using enhanced calibration median (interquartile range) every 169 (122-213) min, the absolute relative deviation was lower (7.0% [3.5, 13.0] vs. 12.8% [6.3, 21.8], P<0.001), and the percentage of points in the Clarke error grid Zone A was higher (87.8% vs. 70.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Accuracy of the Navigator CGM device during critical illness was comparable to that observed in non-critical care settings. Further significant improvements in accuracy may be obtained by frequent calibrations with ABG measurements.

Feasibility of closed-loop insulin delivery in type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: Closed-loop insulin delivery offers a promising treatment option, but to date, it has only been evaluated in type 1 diabetes. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of fully closed-loop subcutaneous insulin delivery in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twelve subjects (seven males, age 57.2 years, BMI 30.5 kg/m2) with noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes (HbA1c 8.4% [68 mmol/mol], diabetes duration 7.6 years) underwent two 24-h visits (closed-loop and control) in a randomized crossover design. During closed-loop visits, the subjects' routine diabetes therapy was replaced with model predictive control algorithm-driven subcutaneous insulin pump delivery based on real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Meals were unannounced, and no additional insulin was administered for carbohydrates consumed. During control visits, the usual diabetes regimen was continued (metformin 92%, sulfonylureas 58%, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors 33%). On both visits, subjects consumed matched 50- to 80-g carbohydrate meals and optional 15-g carbohydrate snacks and remained largely sedentary. Plasma glucose measurements evaluated closed-loop performance. RESULTS: Compared with conventional therapy, 24 h of closed-loop insulin delivery increased overall the median time in target plasma glucose (3.9-8.0 mmol/L) from 24 to 40% (P = 0.016), despite sensor under-reading by a median of 1.2 mmol/L. The benefit of the closed-loop system was more prominent overnight, with greater time in target glucose (median 78 vs. 35%; P = 0.041) and less time in hyperglycemia (22 vs. 65%; P = 0.041). There was no hypoglycemia during either intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A closed-loop system without meal announcement and using subcutaneous insulin delivery in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes appears feasible and safe. Improvement in postprandial glucose control may require further optimization of system performance.

Day and night closed-loop control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a comparison of two closed-loop algorithms driving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus patient self-management.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two validated closed-loop (CL) algorithms versus patient self-control with CSII in terms of glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was a multicenter, randomized, three-way crossover, open-label trial in 48 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus for at least 6 months, treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Blood glucose was controlled for 23 h by the algorithm of the Universities of Pavia and Padova with a Safety Supervision Module developed at the Universities of Virginia and California at Santa Barbara (international artificial pancreas [iAP]), by the algorithm of University of Cambridge (CAM), or by patients themselves in open loop (OL) during three hospital admissions including meals and exercise. The main analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Main outcome measures included time spent in target (glucose levels between 3.9 and 8.0 mmol/L or between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L after meals). RESULTS: Time spent in the target range was similar in CL and OL: 62.6% for OL, 59.2% for iAP, and 58.3% for CAM. While mean glucose level was significantly lower in OL (7.19, 8.15, and 8.26 mmol/L, respectively) (overall P = 0.001), percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) was almost threefold reduced during CL (6.4%, 2.1%, and 2.0%) (overall P = 0.001) with less time ≤2.8 mmol/L (overall P = 0.038). There were no significant differences in outcomes between algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: Both CAM and iAP algorithms provide safe glycemic control.

Restoration of self-awareness of hypoglycemia in adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes: hyperinsulinemic-hypoglycemic clamp substudy results from the HypoCOMPaSS trial.

OBJECTIVE: Impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) and defective counterregulation significantly increase severe hypoglycemia risk in type 1 diabetes (T1D). We evaluated restoration of IAH/defective counterregulation by a treatment strategy targeted at hypoglycemia avoidance in adults with T1D with IAH (Gold score ≥4) participating in the U.K.-based multicenter HypoCOMPaSS randomized controlled trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Eighteen subjects with T1D and IAH (mean ± SD age 50 ± 9 years, T1D duration 35 ± 10 years, HbA1c 8.1 ± 1.0% [65 ± 10.9 mmol/mol]) underwent stepped hyperinsulinemic-hypoglycemic clamp studies before and after a 6-month intervention. The intervention comprised the HypoCOMPaSS education tool in all and randomized allocation, in a 2 × 2 factorial study design, to multiple daily insulin analog injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy and conventional glucose monitoring or real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Symptoms, cognitive function, and counterregulatory hormones were measured at each glucose plateau (5.0, 3.8, 3.4, 2.8, and 2.4 mmol/L), with each step lasting 40 min with subjects kept blinded to their actual glucose value throughout clamp studies. RESULTS: After intervention, glucose concentrations at which subjects first felt hypoglycemic increased (mean ± SE from 2.6 ± 0.1 to 3.1 ± 0.2 mmol/L, P = 0.02), and symptom and plasma metanephrine responses to hypoglycemia were higher (median area under curve for symptoms, 580 [interquartile range {IQR} 420-780] vs. 710 [460-1,260], P = 0.02; metanephrine, 2,412 [-3,026 to 7,279] vs. 5,180 [-771 to 11,513], P = 0.01). Glycemic threshold for deterioration of cognitive function measured by four-choice reaction time was unchanged, while the color-word Stroop test showed a degree of adaptation. CONCLUSIONS: Even in long-standing T1D, IAH and defective counterregulation may be improved by a clinical strategy aimed at hypoglycemia avoidance.

Feasibility of fully automated closed-loop glucose control using continuous subcutaneous glucose measurements in critical illness: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Closed-loop (CL) systems modulate insulin delivery according to glucose levels without nurse input. In a prospective randomized controlled trial, we evaluated the feasibility of an automated closed-loop approach based on subcutaneous glucose measurements in comparison with a local sliding-scale insulin-therapy protocol. METHODS: Twenty-four critically ill adults (predominantly trauma and neuroscience patients) with hyperglycemia (glucose, ≥10 mM) or already receiving insulin therapy, were randomized to receive either fully automated closed-loop therapy (model predictive control algorithm directing insulin and 20% dextrose infusion based on FreeStyle Navigator continuous subcutaneous glucose values, n = 12) or a local protocol (n = 12) with intravenous sliding-scale insulin, over a 48-hour period. The primary end point was percentage of time when arterial blood glucose was between 6.0 and 8.0 mM. RESULTS: The time when glucose was in the target range was significantly increased during closed-loop therapy (54.3% (44.1 to 72.8) versus 18.5% (0.1 to 39.9), P = 0.001; median (interquartile range)), and so was time in wider targets, 5.6 to 10.0 mM and 4.0 to 10.0 mM (P ≤ 0.002), reflecting a reduced glucose exposure >8 and >10 mM (P ≤ 0.002). Mean glucose was significantly lower during CL (7.8 (7.4 to 8.2) versus 9.1 (8.3 to 13.0] mM; P = 0.001) without hypoglycemia (<4 mM) during either therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Fully automated closed-loop control based on subcutaneous glucose measurements is feasible and may provide efficacious and hypoglycemia-free glucose control in critically ill adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT01440842.