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.

Predictive hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia minimization: In-home double-blind randomized controlled evaluation in children and young adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this trial was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a predictive hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia minimization (PHHM) system vs predictive low glucose suspension (PLGS) alone in optimizing overnight glucose control in children 6 to 14 years old. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twenty-eight participants 6 to 14 years old with T1D duration ≥1 year with daily insulin therapy ≥12 months and on insulin pump therapy for ≥6 months were randomized per night into PHHM mode or PLGS-only mode for 42 nights. The primary outcome was percentage of time in sensor-measured range 70 to 180 mg/dL in the overnight period. RESULTS: The addition of automated insulin delivery with PHHM increased time in target range (70-180 mg/dL) from 66 ± 11% during PLGS nights to 76 ± 9% during PHHM nights (P<.001), without increasing hypoglycemia as measured by time below various thresholds. Average morning blood glucose improved from 176 ± 28 mg/dL following PLGS nights to 154 ± 19 mg/dL following PHHM nights (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The PHHM system was effective in optimizing overnight glycemic control, significantly increasing time in range, lowering mean glucose, and decreasing glycemic variability compared to PLGS alone in children 6 to 14 years old.

Safety and prescribing recommendations for verapamil in newly diagnosed pediatric type 1 diabetes (T1D): The CLVer experience.

Objectives: To report the safety and side effects associated with taking verapamil for beta-cell preservation in children with newly-diagnosed T1D. Research Design and Methods: Eighty-eight participants aged 8.5 to 17.9 years weighing ≥ 30 kg were randomly assigned to verapamil (N = 47) or placebo (N = 41) within 31 days of T1D diagnosis and followed for 12 months from diagnosis, main CLVer study. Drug dosing was weight-based with incremental increases to full dosage. Side effect monitoring included serial measurements of pulse, blood pressure, liver enzymes, and electrocardiograms (ECGs). At study end, participants were enrolled in an observational extension study (CLVerEx), which is ongoing. No study drug is provided during the extension, but participants may use verapamil if prescribed by their diabetes care team. Results: Overall rates of adverse events were low and comparable between verapamil and placebo groups. There was no difference in the frequency of liver function abnormalities. Three CLVer participants reduced or discontinued medication due to asymptomatic ECG changes. One CLVerEx participant (18 years old), treated with placebo during CLVer, who had not had a monitoring ECG, experienced complete AV block with a severe hypotensive episode 6 weeks after reaching his maximum verapamil dose following an inadvertent double dose on the day of the event. Conclusions: The use of verapamil in youth newly-diagnosed with T1D appears generally safe and well tolerated with appropriate monitoring. We strongly recommend monitoring for potential side effects including an ECG at screening and an additional ECG once full dosage is reached.ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04233034.

Impact of a Novel Diabetes Support System on a Cohort of Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes Treated With Multiple Daily Injections: A Multicenter Randomized Study.

OBJECTIVE: Achieving optimal glycemic control for many individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) remains challenging, even with the advent of newer management tools, including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Modern management of T1D generates a wealth of data; however, use of these data to optimize glycemic control remains limited. We evaluated the impact of a CGM-based decision support system (DSS) in patients with T1D using multiple daily injections (MDI). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The studied DSS included real-time dosing advice and retrospective therapy optimization. Adults and adolescents (age >15 years) with T1D using MDI were enrolled at three sites in a 14-week randomized controlled trial of MDI + CGM + DSS versus MDI + CGM. All participants (N = 80) used degludec basal insulin and Dexcom G5 CGM. CGM-based and patient-reported outcomes were analyzed. Within the DSS group, ad hoc analysis further contrasted active versus nonactive DSS users. RESULTS: No significant differences were detected between experimental and control groups (e.g., time in range [TIR] +3.3% with CGM vs. +4.4% with DSS). Participants in both groups reported lower HbA1c (-0.3%; P = 0.001) with respect to baseline. While TIR may have improved in both groups, it was statistically significant only for DSS; the same was apparent for time spent <60 mg/dL. Active versus nonactive DSS users showed lower risk of and exposure to hypoglycemia with system use. CONCLUSIONS: Our DSS seems to be a feasible option for individuals using MDI, although the glycemic benefits associated with use need to be further investigated. System design, therapy requirements, and target population should be further refined prior to use in clinical care.

Safety and Performance of the Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ Automated Insulin Delivery System in Toddlers and Preschoolers.

Background: Glycemic control is particularly challenging for toddlers and preschoolers with type 1 diabetes (T1D), and data on the use of closed-loop systems in this age range are limited. Materials and Methods: We studied use of a modified investigational version of the Tandem t:slim X2 Control-IQ system in children aged 2 to 5 years during 48 h in an outpatient supervised hotel (SH) setting followed by 3 days of home use to examine the safety of this system in young children. Meals and snacks were not restricted and boluses were estimated per parents' usual routine. At least 30 min of daily exercise was required during the SH phase. All participants were remotely monitored by study staff while on closed-loop in addition to monitoring by at least one parent throughout the study. Results: Twelve participants diagnosed with T1D for at least 3 months with mean age 4.7 ± 1.0 years (range 2.0-5.8 years) and hemoglobin A1c of 7.3% ± 0.8% were enrolled at three sites. With use of Control-IQ, the percentage of participants meeting our prespecified goals of less than 6% time below 70 mg/dL and less than 40% time above 180 mg/dL increased from 33% to 83%. Control-IQ use significantly improved percent time in range (70-180 mg/dL) compared to baseline (71.3 ± 12.5 vs. 63.7 ± 15.1, P = 0.016). All participants completed the study with no adverse events. Conclusions: In this brief pilot study, use of the modified Control-IQ system was safe in 2-5-year-old children with T1D and improved glycemic control.

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.