Home use of a bihormonal bionic pancreas versus insulin pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre randomised crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of a continuous, day-and-night automated glycaemic control system using insulin and glucagon has not been shown in a free-living, home-use setting. We aimed to assess whether bihormonal bionic pancreas initialised only with body mass can safely reduce mean glycaemia and hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes who were living at home and participating in their normal daily routines without restrictions on diet or physical activity. METHODS: We did a random-order crossover study in volunteers at least 18 years old who had type 1 diabetes and lived within a 30 min drive of four sites in the USA. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) in blocks of two using sequentially numbered sealed envelopes to glycaemic regulation with a bihormonal bionic pancreas or usual care (conventional or sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy) first, followed by the opposite intervention. Both study periods were 11 days in length, during which time participants continued all normal activities, including athletics and driving. The bionic pancreas was initialised with only the participant's body mass. Autonomously adaptive dosing algorithms used data from a continuous glucose monitor to control subcutaneous delivery of insulin and glucagon. The coprimary outcomes were the mean glucose concentration and time with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) glucose concentration less than 3·3 mmol/L, analysed over days 2-11 in participants who completed both periods of the study. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092220. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 43 participants between May 6, 2014, and July 3, 2015, 39 of whom completed the study: 20 who were assigned to bionic pancreas first and 19 who were assigned to the comparator first. The mean CGM glucose concentration was 7·8 mmol/L (SD 0·6) in the bionic pancreas period versus 9·0 mmol/L (1·6) in the comparator period (difference 1·1 mmol/L, 95% CI 0·7-1·6; p<0·0001), and the mean time with CGM glucose concentration less than 3·3 mmol/L was 0·6% (0·6) in the bionic pancreas period versus 1·9% (1·7) in the comparator period (difference 1·3%, 95% CI 0·8-1·8; p<0·0001). The mean nausea score on the Visual Analogue Scale (score 0-10) was greater during the bionic pancreas period (0·52 [SD 0·83]) than in the comparator period (0·05 [0·17]; difference 0·47, 95% CI 0·21-0·73; p=0·0024). Body mass and laboratory parameters did not differ between periods. There were no serious or unexpected adverse events in the bionic pancreas period of the study. INTERPRETATION: Relative to conventional and sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy, the bihormonal bionic pancreas, initialised only with participant weight, was able to achieve superior glycaemic regulation without the need for carbohydrate counting. Larger and longer studies are needed to establish the long-term benefits and risks of automated glycaemic management with a bihormonal bionic pancreas. FUNDING: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health, and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

Outpatient glycemic control with a bionic pancreas in type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of automated glycemic management have not been tested in multiday studies under unrestricted outpatient conditions. METHODS: In two random-order, crossover studies with similar but distinct designs, we compared glycemic control with a wearable, bihormonal, automated, "bionic" pancreas (bionic-pancreas period) with glycemic control with an insulin pump (control period) for 5 days in 20 adults and 32 adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. The automatically adaptive algorithm of the bionic pancreas received data from a continuous glucose monitor to control subcutaneous delivery of insulin and glucagon. RESULTS: Among the adults, the mean plasma glucose level over the 5-day bionic-pancreas period was 138 mg per deciliter (7.7 mmol per liter), and the mean percentage of time with a low glucose level (<70 mg per deciliter [3.9 mmol per liter]) was 4.8%. After 1 day of automatic adaptation by the bionic pancreas, the mean (±SD) glucose level on continuous monitoring was lower than the mean level during the control period (133±13 vs. 159±30 mg per deciliter [7.4±0.7 vs. 8.8±1.7 mmol per liter], P<0.001) and the percentage of time with a low glucose reading was lower (4.1% vs. 7.3%, P=0.01). Among the adolescents, the mean plasma glucose level was also lower during the bionic-pancreas period than during the control period (138±18 vs. 157±27 mg per deciliter [7.7±1.0 vs. 8.7±1.5 mmol per liter], P=0.004), but the percentage of time with a low plasma glucose reading was similar during the two periods (6.1% and 7.6%, respectively; P=0.23). The mean frequency of interventions for hypoglycemia among the adolescents was lower during the bionic-pancreas period than during the control period (one per 1.6 days vs. one per 0.8 days, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with an insulin pump, a wearable, automated, bihormonal, bionic pancreas improved mean glycemic levels, with less frequent hypoglycemic episodes, among both adults and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01762059 and NCT01833988.).

Metabolic effects of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in obese adolescents and young adults.

Weight loss surgery is an increasingly common treatment option for obese adolescents, but data are limited regarding the metabolic effects of surgical weight loss procedures. We performed a retrospective review of the electronic medical record to determine metabolic outcomes for 24 adolescents and young adults ages 15 to 22 years undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass from 2009 to 2011 as well as 24 age-, sex-, and BMI-matched controls. During a median follow-up of 6 months after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, fasting glucose, hemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein, triglyceride, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein decreased significantly. Changes in these measures were not significantly associated with age or extent of weight loss.

A Comparison of Time Delay in Three Continuous Glucose Monitors for Adolescents and Adults.

BACKGROUND: The physiologic delay in glucose diffusion from the blood to the interstitial fluid and instrumental factors contribute to the delay between changes in plasma glucose (PG) and measurements made by continuous glucose monitors (CGMs). This study compared the duration of this delay for three CGMs. METHODS: A total of 24 healthy adolescent and adult subjects with type 1 diabetes wore three CGM devices simultaneously for 48 hours: Dexcom G4 Platinum, Abbott Navigator, and Medtronic Enlite. The time delay between PG and CGM-estimated plasma glucose (CGMG) was estimated by comparing time-shifted CGMG with reference PG taken every 15 minutes. RESULTS: The delay estimated by our approach was larger for the Navigator than for the G4 Platinum in adolescents (7.7 ± 1.1 versus 5.6 ± 0.9 min, P = .0396) and adults (10.9 ± 1.1 versus 8.1 ± 0.7 min, P = .0107). The delay was nominally longer for the Navigator than for the Enlite in both the adolescent (7.7 ± 1.1 versus 4.3 ± 1.0 min, P = .0728) and adult (10.9 ± 1.1 versus 8.3 ± 0.9 min, P = .111) populations, but these differences were not statistically significant. There was no difference in the delay between G4 Platinum and Enlite. Adolescents had shorter delays than adults for all three devices. There was a significant correlation between longer delay and increasing age for the G4 Platinum and Navigator. CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in the estimated PG to CGMG time delays between CGM devices in the same subjects. The delay between PG and CGMG is smaller for adolescents than for adults. The PG-to-CGMG time delay is influenced by both instrument and host factors.

Comparative Accuracy of 17 Point-of-Care Glucose Meters.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of point-of-care blood glucose (BG) meters is important for the detection of dysglycemia, calculation of insulin doses, and the calibration of continuous glucose monitors. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of commercially available glucose meters in a challenging laboratory study using samples with a wide range of reference BG and hemoglobin values. METHODS: Fresh, discarded blood samples from a hospital STAT laboratory were either used without modification, spiked with a glucose solution, or incubated at 37°C to produce 347 samples with an even distribution across reference BG levels from 20 to 440 mg/dl and hemoglobin values from 9 to 16 g/dl. We measured the BG of each sample with 17 different commercially available glucose meters and the reference method (YSI 2300) at the same time. We determined the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) for each glucose meter, overall and stratified by reference BG and by hemoglobin level. RESULTS: The accuracy of different meters widely, exhibiting a range of MARDs from 5.6% to 20.8%. Accuracy was lower in the hypoglycemic range, but was not consistently lower in samples with anemic blood hemoglobin levels. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of commercially available glucose meters varies widely. Although the sample mix in this study was much more challenging than those that would be collected under most use conditions, some meters were robust to these challenges and exhibited high accuracy in this setting. These data on relative accuracy and robustness to challenging samples may be useful in informing the choice of a glucose meter.

Day and night glycaemic control with a bionic pancreas versus conventional insulin pump therapy in preadolescent children with type 1 diabetes: a randomised crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of continuous, multiday, automated glycaemic management has not been tested in outpatient studies of preadolescent children with type 1 diabetes. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a bihormonal bionic pancreas versus conventional insulin pump therapy in this population of patients in an outpatient setting. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, crossover study, we enrolled preadolescent children (aged 6-11 years) with type 1 diabetes (diagnosed for ≥1 year) who were on insulin pump therapy, from two diabetes camps in the USA. With the use of sealed envelopes, participants were randomly assigned in blocks of two to either 5 days with the bionic pancreas or conventional insulin pump therapy (control) as the first intervention, followed by a 3 day washout period and then 5 days with the other intervention. Study allocation was not masked. The autonomously adaptive algorithm of the bionic pancreas received data from a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device to control subcutaneous delivery of insulin and glucagon. Conventional insulin pump therapy was administered by the camp physicians and other clinical staff in accordance with their established protocols; participants also wore a CGM device during the control period. The coprimary outcomes, analysed by intention to treat, were mean CGM-measured glucose concentration and the proportion of time with a CGM-measured glucose concentration below 3·3 mmol/L, on days 2-5. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02105324. FINDINGS: Between July 20, and Aug 19, 2014, 19 children with a mean age of 9·8 years (SD 1·6) participated in and completed the study. The bionic pancreas period was associated with a lower mean CGM-measured glucose concentration on days 2-5 than was the control period (7·6 mmol/L [SD 0·6] vs 9·3 mmol/L [1·7]; p=0·00037) and a lower proportion of time with a CGM-measured glucose concentration below 3·3 mmol/L on days 2-5 (1·2% [SD 1·1] vs 2·8% [1·2]; p<0·0001). The median number of carbohydrate interventions given per participant for hypoglycaemia on days 1-5 (ie, glucose <3·9 mmol/L) was lower during the bionic pancreas period than during the control period (three [range 0-8] vs five [0-14]; p=0·037). No episodes of severe hypoglycaemia were recorded. Medium-to-large concentrations of ketones (range 0·6-3·6 mmol/dL) were reported on seven occasions in five participants during the control period and on no occasion during the bionic pancreas period (p=0·063). INTERPRETATION: The improved mean glycaemia and reduced hypoglycaemia with the bionic pancreas relative to insulin pump therapy in preadolescent children with type 1 diabetes in a diabetes camp setting is a promising finding. Studies of a longer duration during which children use the bionic pancreas during their normal routines at home and school should be done to investigate the potential for use of the bionic pancreas in real-world settings. FUNDING: The Leona M and Harry B Helmsley Charitable Trust and the US National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Autonomous and continuous adaptation of a bihormonal bionic pancreas in adults and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

CONTEXT: A challenge for automated glycemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D) is the large variation in insulin needs between individuals and within individuals at different times in their lives. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study was to test the ability of a third-generation bihormonal bionic pancreas algorithm, initialized with only subject weight; to adapt automatically to the different insulin needs of adults and adolescents; and to evaluate the impact of optional, automatically adaptive meal-priming boluses. DESIGN: This was a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: The study was conducted at an inpatient clinical research center. PATIENTS: Twelve adults and 12 adolescents with T1D participated in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects in each age group were randomized to automated glycemic control for 48 hours with or without automatically adaptive meal-priming boluses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean plasma glucose (PG), time with PG less than 60 mg/dL, and insulin total daily dose were measured. RESULTS: The 48-hour mean PG values with and without adaptive meal-priming boluses were 132 ± 9 vs 146 ± 9 mg/dL (P = .03) in adults and 162 ± 6 vs 175 ± 9 mg/dL (P = .01) in adolescents. Adaptive meal-priming boluses improved mean PG without increasing time spent with PG less than 60 mg/dL: 1.4% vs 2.3% (P = .6) in adults and 0.1% vs 0.1% (P = 1.0) in adolescents. Large increases in adaptive meal-priming boluses and shifts in the timing and size of automatic insulin doses occurred in adolescents. Much less adaptation occurred in adults. There was nearly a 4-fold variation in the total daily insulin dose across all cohorts (0.36-1.41 U/kg · d). CONCLUSIONS: A single control algorithm, initialized only with subject weight, can quickly adapt to regulate glycemia in patients with TID and highly variable insulin requirements.