Alleviating carbohydrate counting with a FiASP-plus-pramlintide closed-loop delivery system (artificial pancreas): Feasibility and pilot studies.

AIM: To assess whether a FiASP-and-pramlintide closed-loop system has the potential to replace carbohydrate counting with a simple meal announcement (SMA) strategy (meal priming bolus without carbohydrate counting) without degrading glycaemic control compared with a FiASP closed-loop system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a 24-hour feasibility study comparing a FiASP system with full carbohydrate counting (FCC) with a FiASP-and-pramlintide system with SMA. We conducted a subsequent 12-day outpatient pilot study comparing a FiASP-and-placebo system with FCC, a FiASP-and-pramlintide system with SMA, and a FiASP-and-placebo system with SMA. Basal-bolus FiASP-and-pramlintide were delivered at a fixed ratio (1 U:10 µg). Glycaemic outcomes were measured, surveys evaluated gastrointestinal symptoms and diabetes distress, and participant interviews helped establish a preliminary coding framework to assess user experience. RESULTS: Seven participants were included in the feasibility analysis. Time spent in 3.9-10 mmol/L was similar between both interventions (81%-84%). Four participants were included in the pilot analysis. Time spent in 3.9-10 mmol/L was similar between the FiASP-and-placebo with FCC and FiASP-and-pramlintide with SMA interventions (70%), but was lower in the FiASP-and-placebo with SMA intervention (60%). Time less than 3.9 mmol/L and gastrointestinal symptoms were similar across all interventions. Emotional distress was moderate at baseline, after the FiASP-and-placebo with FCC and SMA interventions, and fell after the FiASP-and-pramlintide with SMA intervention. SMA reportedly afforded participants flexibility and reduced mealtime concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The FiASP-and-pramlintide system has the potential to substitute carbohydrate counting with SMA without degrading glucose control.

Postprandial hyperglycaemia following insulin suspensions by the artificial pancreas: Implications for bolus calculators.

Conventional bolus calculators apply negative prandial corrections when premeal glucose levels are low. However, no study has evaluated the need for this negative correction with closed-loop systems. We analysed data retrospectively from a cohort study evaluating a closed-loop artificial pancreas system conducted in a diabetes camp over a period of 11 days. Meal boluses with negative correction (n = 98) of 47 participants aged 8 to 22 years were examined. If there was no insulin-on-board from previous boluses at mealtime, the postprandial hyperglycaemia rate increased with increased duration of insulin suspension (P = .03), with odds ratios being exaggerated by 17% per 10 minutes of suspension. However, if there was insulin-on-board from previous boluses, the hyperglycaemia rate did not change with increased duration of insulin suspension (P = .24). When there was no insulin-on-board, the rate of hyperglycaemia after meals preceded by no suspension was 21% (3/14), compared with 52% (12/23) and 64% (9/14) after meals preceded by suspensions of ≥50 and ≥70 minutes, respectively. Meal size did not influence these results. We conclude that, in the absence of insulin-on-board, negative prandial corrections may not be necessary following long insulin suspensions.

A pilot non-inferiority randomized controlled trial to assess automatic adjustments of insulin doses in adolescents with type 1 diabetes on multiple daily injections therapy.

BACKGROUND: Multiple daily injections (MDI) therapy for type 1 diabetes involves basal and bolus insulin doses. Non-optimal insulin doses contribute to the lack of satisfactory glycemic control. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of an algorithm that optimizes daily basal and bolus doses using glucose monitoring systems for MDI therapy users. METHODS: We performed a pilot, non-inferiority, randomized, parallel study at a diabetes camp comparing basal-bolus insulin dose adjustments made by camp physicians (PA) and a learning algorithm (LA), in children and adolescents on MDI therapy. Participants wore a glucose sensor and underwent 11 days of daily dose adjustments in either arm. Algorithm adjustments were reviewed and approved by a physician. The last 7 days were examined for outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-one youths (age 13.3 [SD, 3.7] years; 13 females; HbA1c 8.6% [SD, 1.8]) were randomized to either group (LA [n = 10] or PA [n = 11]). The algorithm made 293 adjustments with a 92% acceptance rate from the camp physicians. In the last 7 days, the time in target glucose (3.9-10 mmol/L) in LA (39.5%, SD, 20.7) was similar to PA (38.4%, SD, 15.6) (P = .89). The number of hypoglycemic events per day in LA (0.3, IQR, [0.1-0.6]) was similar to PA (0.2, IQR, [0.0-0.4]) (P = .42). There was no incidence of severe hypoglycemia nor ketoacidosis. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, glycemic outcomes in the LA group were similar to the PA group. This algorithm has the potential to facilitate MDI therapy, and longer and larger studies are warranted.

Simple meal announcements and pramlintide delivery versus carbohydrate counting in type 1 diabetes with automated fast-acting insulin aspart delivery: a randomised crossover trial in Montreal, Canada.

BACKGROUND: In type 1 diabetes, carbohydrate counting is the standard of care to determine prandial insulin needs, but it can negatively affect quality of life. We developed a novel insulin-and-pramlintide closed-loop system that replaces carbohydrate counting with simple meal announcements. METHODS: We performed a randomised crossover trial assessing 14 days of (1) insulin-and-pramlintide closed-loop system with simple meal announcements, (2) insulin-and-placebo closed-loop system with carbohydrate counting, and (3) insulin-and-placebo closed-loop system with simple meal announcements. Participants were recruited at McGill University Health Centre (Montreal, QC, Canada). Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) and adolescents (aged 12-17 years) with type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio to a sequence of the three interventions, with faster insulin aspart used in all interventions. Each intervention was separated by a 14-45-day wash-out period, during which participants reverted to their usual insulin. During simple meal announcement interventions, participants triggered a prandial bolus at mealtimes based on a programmed fixed meal size, whereas during carbohydrate counting interventions, participants manually entered the carbohydrate content of the meal and an algorithm calculated the prandial bolus based on insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio. Two primary comparisons were predefined: the percentage of time in range (glucose 3·9-10·0 mmol/L) with a non-inferiority margin of 6·25% (non-inferiority comparison); and the mean Emotional Burden subscale score of the Diabetes Distress Scale (superiority comparison), comparing the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting minus the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements. Analyses were performed on a modified intention-to-treat basis, excluding participants who did not complete all interventions. Serious adverse events were assessed in all participants. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04163874. FINDINGS: 32 participants were enrolled between Feb 14, 2020, and Oct 5, 2021; two participants withdrew before study completion. 30 participants were analysed, including 15 adults (nine female, mean age 39·4 years [SD 13·8]) and 15 adolescents (eight female, mean age 15·7 years [1·3]). Non-inferiority of the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements relative to the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting was reached (difference -5% [95% CI -9·0 to -0·7], non-inferiority p<0·0001). No statistically significant difference was found in the mean Emotional Burden score between the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements and the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting (difference 0·01 [SD 0·82], p=0·93). With the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements, 14 (47%) participants reported mild gastrointestinal symptoms and two (7%) reported moderate symptoms, compared with two (7%) participants reporting mild gastrointestinal symptoms on the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting. No serious adverse events occurred. INTERPRETATION: The insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements alleviated carbohydrate counting without degrading glucose control, although quality of life as measured by the Emotional Burden score was not improved. Longer and larger studies with this novel approach are warranted. FUNDING: Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

A Model-Based Insulin Dose Optimization Algorithm for People With Type 1 Diabetes on Multiple Daily Injections Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple daily injections (MDI) therapy is the most common treatment for type 1 diabetes (T1D) including basal insulin doses to keep glucose levels constant during fasting conditions and bolus insulin doses with meals. Optimal insulin dosing is critical to achieving satisfactory glycemia but is challenging due to inter- and intra-individual variability. Here, we present a novel model-based iterative algorithm that optimizes insulin doses using previous-day glucose, insulin, and meal data. METHODS: Our algorithm employs a maximum-a-posteriori method to estimate parameters of a model describing the effects of changes in basal-bolus insulin doses. Then, parameter estimates, their confidence intervals, and the goodness of fit, are combined to generate new recommendations. We assessed our algorithm in three ways. First, a clinical data set of 150 days (15 participants) were used to evaluate the proposed model and the estimation method. Second, 60-day simulations were performed to demonstrate the efficacy of the algorithm. Third, a sample 6-day clinical experiment is presented and discussed. RESULTS: The model fitted the clinical data well with a root-mean-square-error of 1.75 mmol/L. Simulation results showed an improvement in the time in target (3.9-10 mmol/L) from 64% to 77% and a decrease in the time in hypoglycemia (< 3.9 mmol/L) from 8.1% to 3.8%. The clinical experiment demonstrated the feasibility of the algorithm. CONCLUSION: Our algorithm has the potential to improve glycemic control in people with T1D using MDI. SIGNIFICANCE: This work is a step forward towards a decision support system that improves their quality of life.

A Meal Detection Algorithm for the Artificial Pancreas: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial in Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: We developed a meal detection algorithm for the artificial pancreas (AP+MDA) that detects unannounced meals and delivers automatic insulin boluses. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized crossover trial in 11 adolescents aged 12-18 years with HbA1c ≥7.5% who missed one or more boluses in the past 6 months. We compared 1) continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), 2) artificial pancreas (AP), and 3) AP+MDA. Participants underwent three 9-h interventions involving breakfast with a bolus and lunch without a bolus. RESULTS: In AP+MDA, the meal detection time was 40.0 (interquartile range 40.0-57.5) min. Compared with CSII, AP+MDA decreased the 4-h postlunch incremental area under the curve (iAUC) from 24.1 ± 9.5 to 15.4 ± 8.0 h ⋅ mmol/L (P = 0.03). iAUC did not differ between AP+MDA and AP (19.6 ± 10.4 h ⋅ mmol/L, P = 0.21) or between AP and CSII (P = 0.33). The AP+MDA reduced time >10 mmol/L (58.0 ± 26.6%) compared with CSII (79.6 ± 27.5%, P = 0.02) and AP (74.2 ± 20.6%, P = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: The AP+MDA improved glucose control after an unannounced meal.

The Efficacy of Basal Rate and Carbohydrate Ratio Learning Algorithm for Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery (Artificial Pancreas) in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes in a Diabetes Camp.

Background: Optimizing programmed basal rates and carbohydrate ratios may improve the performance of the artificial pancreas. We tested, in a diabetes camp, the efficacy of a learning algorithm that updates daily basal rates and carbohydrate ratios in the artificial pancreas. Materials and Methods: We conducted a randomized crossover trial in campers and counselors aged 8-21 years with type 1 diabetes on pump therapy. Participants underwent 2 days of artificial pancreas alone and 6 days of artificial pancreas with learning. During the artificial pancreas with learning, programmed basal rates and carbohydrate ratios were updated daily based on the learning algorithm's recommendations. All algorithm recommendations were reviewed for safety by camp physicians. The primary outcome was the time in target range (3.9-10 mmol/L) of the last 2 days of each intervention. Results: Thirty-four campers (age 13.9 ± 3.9, hemoglobin A1c 8.3% ± 0.2%) were included. Ninety-six percent of algorithm recommendations were approved by the camp physicians. Participants were in closed-loop mode 74% of the time. There was no difference between interventions in time in target (55%-55%; P = 0.71) nor in hypoglycemia events (0.8-0.9 events per day; P = 0.63). This was despite changes in programmed basal rate ranging from -21% to +117%, and changes in breakfast, lunch, and supper carbohydrate ratios from -17% to +40%, -36% to +37%, and -35% to +63%, respectively. Morever, postprandial hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia did not decrease in participants whose carbohydrate ratios were decreased (more insulin boluses) and increased (less insulin boluses), respectively. Conclusions: In camp settings, despite adjustments to programmed basal rates and carbohydrate ratios, the learning algorithm did not change glycemia, which may point toward limited effect of these adjustments in environments with large day-to-day variability in insulin needs. Longer randomized studies in real-world settings are required to further assess the efficacy of automatic adjustments of programmed basal rates and carbohydrate ratios.

Mortality, Length of Stay, and Cost Implications of Procedural Bleeding After Percutaneous Interventions Using Large-Bore Catheters.

Importance: Bleeding complications after percutaneous transcatheter interventions that used large-bore catheters are frequent and associated with high mortality and morbidity. Objective: To describe the incidence of bleeding complications among patients undergoing contemporary endovascular interventions involving large-bore catheters and its association with in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and health care cost. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study analyzed all 17 672 patients from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's National Inpatient Sample database who were recorded as having undergone a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (n = 3223), an endovascular aneurysm repair (n = 12 633), or a percutaneous left ventricular assist device implant (n = 1816) between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013. Bleeding complication was defined as any transfusion, any hemorrhage or hematoma, or the need for percutaneous or surgical intervention to control the bleeding event. Health care costs were determined by multiplying the total charge for each visit by the cost to charge ratios reported for each hospital code in the database. Data were collected from the database on April 29, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adjusted association between bleeding complications and mortality was determined by multivariable logistic regression. Length of stay and total health care costs were compared using multivariable linear regression between patients who did and patients who did not have bleeding complications. Results: Bleeding complications occurred in 3128 patients (17.7%) (1984 men and 1144 women, with a mean [SD] age of 75.6 [11.9] years). Bleeding was associated with higher mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 2.70; 95% CI, 2.27-3.22; P < .001) and longer hospital stay (adjusted multiplicative difference, 2.14; 95% CI, 2.06-2.16; P < .001). Median (interquartile range) total health care costs were $48 663 ($32 620-$71 547) for patients with bleeding complications compared with $29 968 ($21 924-$43 287) for patients without a bleeding complication (adjusted multiplicative difference, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.52-1.59; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Periprocedural bleeding was common among patients who underwent transcatheter intervention using large-bore catheters and was associated with a statistically significant increase in mortality, length of stay, and cost.