Efficacy of the Diabeloop closed-loop system to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes exposed to gastronomic dinners or to sustained physical exercise.

AIMS: To compare closed-loop (CL) and open-loop (OL) systems for glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) exposed to real-life challenging situations (gastronomic dinners or sustained physical exercise). METHODS: Thirty-eight adult patients with T1D were included in a three-armed randomized pilot trial (Diabeloop WP6.2 trial) comparing glucose control using a CL system with use of an OL device during two crossover 72-hour periods in one of the three following situations: large (gastronomic) dinners; sustained and repeated bouts of physical exercise (with uncontrolled food intake); or control (rest conditions). Outcomes included time in spent in the glucose ranges of 4.4-7.8 mmol/L and 3.9-10.0 mmol/L, and time in hypo- and hyperglycaemia. RESULTS: Time spent overnight in the tight range of 4.4 to 7.8 mmol/L was longer with CL (mean values: 63.2% vs 40.9% with OL; P ≤ .0001). Time spent during the day in the range of 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L was also longer with CL (79.4% vs 64.1% with OL; P ≤ .0001). Participants using the CL system spent less time during the day with hyperglycaemic excursions (glucose >10.0 mmol/L) compared to those using an OL system (17.9% vs 31.9%; P ≤ .0001), and the proportions of time spent during the day with hyperglycaemic excursions of those using the CL system in the gastronomic dinner and physical exercise subgroups were of similar magnitude to those in the control subgroup (18.1 ± 6.3%, 17.2 ± 8.1% and 18.4 ± 12.5%, respectively). Finally, times spent in hypoglycaemia were short and not significantly different among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The Diabeloop CL system is superior to OL devices in reducing hyperglycaemic excursions in patients with T1D exposed to gastronomic dinners, or exposed to physical exercise followed by uncontrolled food and carbohydrate intake.

Hospital stays and costs of telemedical monitoring versus standard follow-up for diabetic foot ulcer: an open-label randomised controlled study.

Background: Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have previously shown that telemedical monitoring of diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) reduces the number of visits to the outpatient clinic, without losing treatment efficacy or increasing costs. Here we present the results of an open-label, randomised controlled trial designed to investigate whether telemonitoring, provided by an expert nurse (with extensive experience in DFU and trained in remote monitoring), reduces the hospital stay and the associated costs for a patient with DFU (TELEPIED trial). Methods: Eligible patients (n = 180) were randomly allocated to: (i) a control group, in which they received standard care, and (ii) an intervention group, in which they received asynchronous telemedicine follow-up by the expert nurse. The primary outcome was the cumulative hospital days over 12 months. The main secondary outcomes were (i) direct healthcare costs (estimated in a collective perspective), (ii) wound healing and (iii) amputation rates. ITT (intention-to-treat) population was analysed. Findings: In the ITT population, cumulative hospital days were significantly higher in the control group (13.4 days [95% CI 9.0-17.8]) than in the intervention group (7.1 days [2.8-11.5]) (p = 0.0458, ANCOVA model). Cumulative direct costs over 12 months were 7185 € (95% CI 5144-9226) in the control group and 3471 € (95% CI 1430-5512) in the intervention group (p = 0.0120). The percentage of wounds healed and amputation rate were not significantly different between groups. Similar results were found with the PP population. Interpretation: The implementation of a telemedical intervention with an expert nurse could lead to a length of hospitalization and direct costs that were two times lower compared to conventional follow-up. This lower medical and economic burden was obtained without losing effectiveness on the rate of healing, nor increasing the amputation rate. Additional studies are required to confirm these findings. Funding: This study was designed, funded and conducted by CERITD (Study and Research Centre for Intensification of Diabetes Treatment, Evry, France), Genopole GIP, 20 rue Henri Desbruères, 91030 EVRY Cedex and Laboratoires URGO, 15 Avenue d'Iéna, 75116 Paris Cedex, France. The findings and conclusions in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the sponsor. The corresponding author (DD) certify that authors were not precluded from accessing data in the study, and they accept responsibility to submit for publication.

Télépied Study: A Single-Centre Trial in Diabetic Subjects Comparing Total Duration of Hospitalization Over a 1-Year Period Required for Complete Healing of a Foot Ulcer Using Telemedicine Management and a Referral Nurse Versus the Standard Care Pathway.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to demonstrate that the total number of days in hospital required for healing of a de novo diabetes-related foot ulcer (DFU) is lower in patients followed up using a telemedicine platform (Télépied Follow-Up group [Group 2]) than in patients followed up using standard care (Standard Follow-Up control group [Group 1]). Patients are assigned to either Group 1 or Group 2 depending on whether their first inclusion visit is during an even or odd week. Patients included in Group 1 are to be followed at spaced intervals during day hospital visits by the investigator assisted by a specialized referral nurse as part of the regular follow-up procedure (dressing changes + ulcer monitoring). Between visits, an independent nurse (IN) provides local care on a daily basis. Patients included in Group 2 have their DFU treated by a referral nurse trained at the diabetic foot unit of the investigating centre, and they are also followed up by an IN under the supervision of a referral nurse. In Group 2, monitoring of lesions is performed weekly by the referral nurse using photos of the DFU with planimetry taken by the IN and sent to the referral nurse via telemedicine software. The referral nurse can, in turn, provide guidance to the IN on the care to be provided and/or decide that a further hospital visit is needed. Both treatment groups are to be followed for 12 months or until complete healing of the ulcer. RESULTS: Recruitment for the study began in March 2017 and ended in May 2019, with the final study visit scheduled for May 2020. CONCLUSION: The aim of the Télépied study is to assess the impact of ambulatory foot ulcer management in diabetics over a 1-year period by a non-specialized IN working under the supervision of a referral nurse via telemedicine follow-up versus standard follow-up by an IN alone. The primary endpoint is the total duration of hospitalization required until full healing of the ulcer.

Closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes in real-life conditions: a 12-week multicentre, open-label randomised controlled crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop insulin delivery systems are expected to become a standard treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes. We aimed to assess whether the Diabeloop Generation 1 (DBLG1) hybrid closed-loop artificial pancreas system improved glucose control compared with sensor-assisted pump therapy. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, crossover trial, we recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with at least a 2 year history of type 1 diabetes, who had been treated with external insulin pump therapy for at least 6 months, had glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 10% or less (86 mmol/mol), and preserved hypoglycaemia awareness. After a 2-week run-in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a web-based system in randomly permuted blocks of two, to receive insulin via the hybrid closed-loop system (DBLG1; using a machine-learning-based algorithm) or sensor-assisted pump therapy over 12 weeks of free living, followed by an 8-week washout period and then the other intervention for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of time that the sensor glucose concentration was within the target range (3·9-10·0 mmol/L) during the 12 week study period. Efficacy analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned patients who completed both 12 week treatment periods. Safety analyses were done in all patients who were exposed to either of the two treatments at least once during the study. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02987556. FINDINGS: Between March 3, 2017, and June 19, 2017, 71 patients were screened, and 68 eligible patients were randomly assigned to the DBLG1 group (n=33) or the sensor-assisted pump therapy group (n=35), of whom five dropped out in the washout period (n=1 pregnancy; n=4 withdrew consent). 63 patients completed both 12 week treatment periods and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The proportion of time that the glucose concentration was within the target range was significantly higher in the DBLG1 group (68·5% [SD 9·4] than the sensor-assisted pump group (59·4% [10·2]; mean difference 9·2% [95% CI 6·4 to 11·9]; p<0·0001). Five severe hypoglycaemic episodes occurred in the DBLG1 group and three episodes occurred in the sensor-assisted pump therapy group, which were associated with hardware malfunctions or human error. INTERPRETATION: The DBLG1 system improves glucose control compared with sensor-assisted insulin pumps. This finding supports the use of closed-loop technology combined with appropriate health care organisation in adults with type 1 diabetes. FUNDING: French Innovation Fund, Diabeloop.