Automated Insulin Delivery in Women with Pregnancy Complicated by Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid closed-loop insulin therapy has shown promise for management of type 1 diabetes during pregnancy; however, its efficacy is unclear. METHODS: In this multicenter, controlled trial, we randomly assigned pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and a glycated hemoglobin level of at least 6.5% at nine sites in the United Kingdom to receive standard insulin therapy or hybrid closed-loop therapy, with both groups using continuous glucose monitoring. The primary outcome was the percentage of time in the pregnancy-specific target glucose range (63 to 140 mg per deciliter [3.5 to 7.8 mmol per liter]) as measured by continuous glucose monitoring from 16 weeks' gestation until delivery. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary outcomes were the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state (glucose level >140 mg per deciliter), overnight time in the target range, the glycated hemoglobin level, and safety events. RESULTS: A total of 124 participants with a mean (±SD) age of 31.1±5.3 years and a mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level of 7.7±1.2% underwent randomization. The mean percentage of time that the maternal glucose level was in the target range was 68.2±10.5% in the closed-loop group and 55.6±12.5% in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference, 10.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.0 to 14.0; P<0.001). Results for the secondary outcomes were consistent with those of the primary outcome; participants in the closed-loop group spent less time in a hyperglycemic state than those in the standard-care group (difference, -10.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -13.8 to -6.6); had more overnight time in the target range (difference, 12.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 8.3 to 16.2), and had lower glycated hemoglobin levels (difference, -0.31 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.50 to -0.12). Little time was spent in a hypoglycemic state. No unanticipated safety problems associated with the use of closed-loop therapy during pregnancy occurred (6 instances of severe hypoglycemia, vs. 5 in the standard-care group; 1 instance of diabetic ketoacidosis in each group; and 12 device-related adverse events in the closed-loop group, 7 related to closed-loop therapy). CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid closed-loop therapy significantly improved maternal glycemic control during pregnancy complicated by type 1 diabetes. (Funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Program; AiDAPT ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN56898625.).

Closed-Loop Therapy and Preservation of C-Peptide Secretion in Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Whether improved glucose control with hybrid closed-loop therapy can preserve C-peptide secretion as compared with standard insulin therapy in persons with new-onset type 1 diabetes is unclear. METHODS: In a multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized trial, we assigned youths 10.0 to 16.9 years of age within 21 days after a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes to receive hybrid closed-loop therapy or standard insulin therapy (control) for 24 months. The primary end point was the area under the curve (AUC) for the plasma C-peptide level (after a mixed-meal tolerance test) at 12 months after diagnosis. The analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: A total of 97 participants (mean [±SD] age, 12±2 years) underwent randomization: 51 were assigned to receive closed-loop therapy and 46 to receive control therapy. The AUC for the C-peptide level at 12 months (primary end point) did not differ significantly between the two groups (geometric mean, 0.35 pmol per milliliter [interquartile range, 0.16 to 0.49] with closed-loop therapy and 0.46 pmol per milliliter [interquartile range, 0.22 to 0.69] with control therapy; mean adjusted difference, -0.06 pmol per milliliter [95% confidence interval {CI}, -0.14 to 0.03]). There was not a substantial between-group difference in the AUC for the C-peptide level at 24 months (geometric mean, 0.18 pmol per milliliter [interquartile range, 0.06 to 0.22] with closed-loop therapy and 0.24 pmol per milliliter [interquartile range, 0.05 to 0.30] with control therapy; mean adjusted difference, -0.04 pmol per milliliter [95% CI, -0.14 to 0.06]). The arithmetic mean glycated hemoglobin level was lower in the closed-loop group than in the control group by 4 mmol per mole (0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 0 to 8 mmol per mole [0.0 to 0.7 percentage points]) at 12 months and by 11 mmol per mole (1.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 7 to 15 mmol per mole [0.5 to 1.5 percentage points]) at 24 months. Five cases of severe hypoglycemia occurred in the closed-loop group (in 3 participants), and one occurred in the control group; one case of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group. CONCLUSIONS: In youths with new-onset type 1 diabetes, intensive glucose control for 24 months did not appear to prevent the decline in residual C-peptide secretion. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and others; CLOuD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02871089.).

Randomized Trial of Closed-Loop Control in Very Young Children with Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The possible advantage of hybrid closed-loop therapy (i.e., artificial pancreas) over sensor-augmented pump therapy in very young children with type 1 diabetes is unclear. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, crossover trial, we recruited children 1 to 7 years of age with type 1 diabetes who were receiving insulin-pump therapy at seven centers across Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom. Participants received treatment in two 16-week periods, in random order, in which the closed-loop system was compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy (control). The primary end point was the between-treatment difference in the percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was in the target range (70 to 180 mg per deciliter) during each 16-week period. The analysis was conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary end points included the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state (glucose level, >180 mg per deciliter), the glycated hemoglobin level, the mean sensor glucose level, and the percentage of time spent in a hypoglycemic state (glucose level, <70 mg per deciliter). Safety was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 74 participants underwent randomization. The mean (±SD) age of the participants was 5.6±1.6 years, and the baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 7.3±0.7%. The percentage of time with the glucose level in the target range was 8.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.4 to 9.9) higher during the closed-loop period than during the control period (P<0.001). The mean adjusted difference (closed-loop minus control) in the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state was -8.5 percentage points (95% CI, -9.9 to -7.1), the difference in the glycated hemoglobin level was -0.4 percentage points (95% CI, -0.5 to -0.3), and the difference in the mean sensor glucose level was -12.3 mg per deciliter (95% CI, -14.8 to -9.8) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). The time spent in a hypoglycemic state was similar with the two treatments (P = 0.74). The median time spent in the closed-loop mode was 95% (interquartile range, 92 to 97) over the 16-week closed-loop period. One serious adverse event of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the closed-loop period. One serious adverse event that was deemed to be unrelated to treatment occurred. CONCLUSIONS: A hybrid closed-loop system significantly improved glycemic control in very young children with type 1 diabetes, without increasing the time spent in hypoglycemia. (Funded by the European Commission and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03784027.).

Lived experience of CamAPS FX closed loop system in youth with type 1 diabetes and their parents.

AIM: To examine changes in the lived experience of type 1 diabetes after use of hybrid closed loop (CL), including the CamAPS FX CL system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The primary study was conducted as an open-label, single-period, randomized, parallel design contrasting CL versus insulin pump (with or without continuous glucose monitoring). Participants were asked to complete patient-reported outcomes before starting CL and 3 and 6 months later. Surveys assessed diabetes distress, hypoglycaemia concerns and quality of life. Qualitative focus group data were collected at the completion of the study. RESULTS: In this sample of 98 youth (age range 6-18, mean age 12.7 ± 2.8 years) and their parents, CL use was not associated with psychosocial benefits overall. However, the subgroup (n = 12) using the CamAPS FX system showed modest improvements in quality of life and parent distress, reinforced by both survey (p < .05) and focus group responses. There were no negative effects of CL use reported by study participants. CONCLUSIONS: Closed loop use via the CamAPS FX system was associated with modest improvements in aspects of the lived experience of managing type 1 diabetes in youth and their families. Further refinements of the system may optimize the user experience.

AiDAPT: automated insulin delivery amongst pregnant women with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre randomized controlled trial - study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes strive for tight glucose targets (3.5-7.8 mmol/L) to minimise the risks of obstetric and neonatal complications. Despite using diabetes technologies including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), insulin pumps and contemporary insulin analogues, most women struggle to achieve and maintain the recommended pregnancy glucose targets. This study aims to evaluate whether the use of automated closed-loop insulin delivery improves antenatal glucose levels in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicentre, open label, randomized, controlled trial of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and a HbA1c of ≥48 mmol/mol (6.5%) at pregnancy confirmation and ≤ 86 mmol/mol (10%) at randomization. Participants who provide written informed consent before 13 weeks 6 days gestation will be entered into a run-in phase to collect 96 h (24 h overnight) of CGM glucose values. Eligible participants will be randomized on a 1:1 basis to CGM (Dexcom G6) with usual insulin delivery (control) or closed-loop (intervention). The closed-loop system includes a model predictive control algorithm (CamAPS FX application), hosted on an android smartphone that communicates wirelessly with the insulin pump (Dana Diabecare RS) and CGM transmitter. Research visits and device training will be provided virtually or face-to-face in conjunction with 4-weekly antenatal clinic visits where possible. Randomization will stratify for clinic site. One hundred twenty-four participants will be recruited. This takes into account 10% attrition and 10% who experience miscarriage or pregnancy loss. Analyses will be performed according to intention to treat. The primary analysis will evaluate the change in the time spent in the target glucose range (3.5-7.8 mmol/l) between the intervention and control group from 16 weeks gestation until delivery. Secondary outcomes include overnight time in target, time above target (> 7.8 mmol/l), standard CGM metrics, HbA1c and psychosocial functioning and health economic measures. Safety outcomes include the number and severity of ketoacidosis, severe hypoglycaemia and adverse device events. DISCUSSION: This will be the largest randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of closed-loop insulin delivery during type 1 diabetes pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 56898625 Registration Date: 10 April, 2018.

Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery for Glycemic Control in Noncritical Care.

BACKGROUND: In patients with diabetes, hospitalization can complicate the achievement of recommended glycemic targets. There is increasing evidence that a closed-loop delivery system (artificial pancreas) can improve glucose control in patients with type 1 diabetes. We wanted to investigate whether a closed-loop system could also improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes who were receiving noncritical care. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label trial conducted on general wards in two tertiary hospitals located in the United Kingdom and Switzerland, we assigned 136 adults with type 2 diabetes who required subcutaneous insulin therapy to receive either closed-loop insulin delivery (70 patients) or conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy, according to local clinical practice (66 patients). The primary end point was the percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was within the target range of 100 to 180 mg per deciliter (5.6 to 10.0 mmol per liter) for up to 15 days or until hospital discharge. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was in the target range was 65.8±16.8% in the closed-loop group and 41.5±16.9% in the control group, a difference of 24.3±2.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.6 to 30.0; P<0.001); values above the target range were found in 23.6±16.6% and 49.5±22.8% of the patients, respectively, a difference of 25.9±3.4 percentage points (95% CI, 19.2 to 32.7; P<0.001). The mean glucose level was 154 mg per deciliter (8.5 mmol per liter) in the closed-loop group and 188 mg per deciliter (10.4 mmol per liter) in the control group (P<0.001). There was no significant between-group difference in the duration of hypoglycemia (as defined by a sensor glucose measurement of <54 mg per deciliter; P=0.80) or in the amount of insulin that was delivered (median dose, 44.4 U and 40.2 U, respectively; P=0.50). No episode of severe hypoglycemia or clinically significant hyperglycemia with ketonemia occurred in either trial group. CONCLUSIONS: Among inpatients with type 2 diabetes receiving noncritical care, the use of an automated, closed-loop insulin-delivery system resulted in significantly better glycemic control than conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy, without a higher risk of hypoglycemia. (Funded by Diabetes UK and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01774565 .).

Day-to-day variability of insulin requirements in the inpatient setting: Observations during fully closed-loop insulin delivery.

The aim of this study was to characterize the variability of exogenous insulin requirements during fully closed-loop insulin delivery in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes or new-onset hyperglycaemia, and to determine patient-related characteristics associated with higher variability of insulin requirements. We retrospectively analysed data from two fully closed-loop inpatient studies involving adults with type 2 diabetes or new-onset hyperglycaemia requiring insulin therapy. The coefficient of variation quantified day-to-day variability of exogenous insulin requirements during up to 15 days using fully automated closed-loop insulin delivery. Data from 535 days in 67 participants were analysed. The coefficient of variation of day-to-day exogenous insulin requirements was 30% ± 16%, and was higher between nights than between any daytime period (56% ± 29% overnight [11:00 pm to 4:59 am] compared with 41% ± 21% in the morning [5:00 am to 10:59 am], 39% ± 15% in the afternoon [11:00 am to 4:59 pm] and 45% ± 19% during the evening [5:00 pm to 10:59 pm]; all P < 0.01). There is high day-to-day variability of exogenous insulin requirements in inpatients, particularly overnight, and diabetes management approaches should account for this variability.

Hybrid closed-loop glucose control with faster insulin aspart compared with standard insulin aspart in adults with type 1 diabetes: A double-blind, multicentre, multinational, randomized, crossover study.

AIM: To evaluate the use of hybrid closed-loop glucose control with faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a double-blind, multinational, randomized, crossover study, 25 adults with T1D using insulin pump therapy (mean ± SD, age 38 ± 9 years, HbA1c 7.4% ± 0.8% [57 ± 8 mmol/mol]) underwent two 8-week periods of unrestricted living comparing hybrid closed-loop with Fiasp and hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin aspart in random order. During both interventions the CamAPS FX closed-loop system incorporating the Cambridge model predictive control algorithm was used. RESULTS: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time sensor glucose was in the target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L; primary endpoint) was not different between interventions (75% ± 8% vs. 75% ± 8% for hybrid closed-loop with Fiasp vs. hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin aspart; mean-adjusted difference -0.6% [95% CI -1.8% to 0.7%]; p < .001 for non-inferiority [non-inferiority margin 5%]). The proportion of time with sensor glucose less than 3.9 mmol/L (median [IQR] 2.4% [1.2%-3.2%] vs. 2.9% [1.7%-4.0%]; p = .01) and less than 3.0 mmol/L (median [IQR] 0.4% [0.2%-0.7%] vs. 0.7% [0.2%-0.9%]; p = .03) was reduced with Fiasp versus standard insulin aspart. There was no difference in mean glucose (8.1 ± 0.8 vs. 8.0 ± 0.8 mmol/L; p = .13) or glucose variability (SD of sensor glucose 2.9 ± 0.5 vs. 2.9 ± 0.5 mmol/L; p = .90). Total daily insulin requirements did not differ (49 ± 15 vs. 49 ± 15 units/day; p = .45). No severe hypoglycaemia or ketoacidosis occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Fiasp in the CamAPS FX closed-loop system may reduce hypoglycaemia without compromising glucose control compared with standard insulin aspart in adults with T1D.

Fully closed-loop insulin delivery improves glucose control of inpatients with type 2 diabetes receiving hemodialysis.

Inpatient diabetes management of those on hemodialysis poses a major challenge. In a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial, we compared the efficacy of fully automated closed-loop insulin delivery vs. usual care in patients undergoing hemodialysis while in hospital. Compared to control patients receiving conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy, those patients receiving closed-loop insulin delivery significantly increased the proportion of time when a continuous glucose monitor was in the target range of 5.6-10.0 mmol/l by 37.6 percent without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. Thus, closed-loop insulin delivery offers a novel way to achieve effective and safe glucose control in this vulnerable patient population.

Closed-loop insulin delivery in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, 12-week randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The achievement of glycaemic control remains challenging for patients with type 1 diabetes. We assessed the effectiveness of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in people with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, multinational, single-period, parallel randomised controlled trial, participants were recruited from diabetes outpatient clinics at four hospitals in the UK and two centres in the USA. We randomly assigned participants with type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older treated with insulin pump and with suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·5-10·0%) to receive either hybrid closed-loop therapy or sensor-augmented pump therapy over 12 weeks of free living. Training on study insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring took place over a 4-week run-in period. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned using central randomisation software. Allocation to the two study groups was unblinded, and randomisation was stratified within centre by low (<8·5%) or high (≥8·5%) HbA1c. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range of 3·9-10·0 mmol/L at 12 weeks post randomisation. Analyses of primary outcome and safety measures were done in all randomised patients. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02523131, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: From May 12, 2016, to Nov 17, 2017, 114 individuals were screened, and 86 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive hybrid closed-loop therapy (n=46) or sensor-augmented pump therapy (n=40; control group). The proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range was significantly higher in the closed-loop group (65%, SD 8) compared with the control group (54%, SD 9; mean difference in change 10·8 percentage points, 95% CI 8·2 to 13·5; p<0·0001). In the closed-loop group, HbA1c was reduced from a screening value of 8·3% (SD 0·6) to 8·0% (SD 0·6) after the 4-week run-in, and to 7·4% (SD 0·6) after the 12-week intervention period. In the control group, the HbA1c values were 8·2% (SD 0·5) at screening, 7·8% (SD 0·6) after run-in, and 7·7% (SD 0·5) after intervention; reductions in HbA1c percentages were significantly greater in the closed-loop group compared with the control group (mean difference in change 0·36%, 95% CI 0·19 to 0·53; p<0·0001). The time spent with glucose concentrations below 3·9 mmol/L (mean difference in change -0·83 percentage points, -1·40 to -0·16; p=0·0013) and above 10·0 mmol/L (mean difference in change -10·3 percentage points, -13·2 to -7·5; p<0·0001) was shorter in the closed-loop group than the control group. The coefficient of variation of sensor-measured glucose was not different between interventions (mean difference in change -0·4%, 95% CI -1·4% to 0·7%; p=0·50). Similarly, total daily insulin dose was not different (mean difference in change 0·031 U/kg per day, 95% CI -0·005 to 0·067; p=0·09) and bodyweight did not differ (mean difference in change 0·68 kg, 95% CI -0·34 to 1·69; p=0·19). No severe hypoglycaemia occurred. One diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group due to infusion set failure. Two participants in each study group had significant hyperglycaemia, and there were 13 other adverse events in the closed-loop group and three in the control group. INTERPRETATION: Hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery improves glucose control while reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia across a wide age range in patients with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes. FUNDING: JDRF, NIHR, and Wellcome Trust.

Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery during Pregnancy in Women with Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: In patients with type 1 diabetes who are not pregnant, closed-loop (automated) insulin delivery can provide better glycemic control than sensor-augmented pump therapy, but data are lacking on the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of closed-loop therapy during pregnancy. METHODS: We performed an open-label, randomized, crossover study comparing overnight closed-loop therapy with sensor-augmented pump therapy, followed by a continuation phase in which the closed-loop system was used day and night. Sixteen pregnant women with type 1 diabetes completed 4 weeks of closed-loop pump therapy (intervention) and sensor-augmented pump therapy (control) in random order. During the continuation phase, 14 of the participants used the closed-loop system day and night until delivery. The primary outcome was the percentage of time that overnight glucose levels were within the target range (63 to 140 mg per deciliter [3.5 to 7.8 mmol per liter]). RESULTS: The percentage of time that overnight glucose levels were in the target range was higher during closed-loop therapy than during control therapy (74.7% vs. 59.5%; absolute difference, 15.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 6.1 to 24.2; P=0.002). The overnight mean glucose level was lower during closed-loop therapy than during control therapy (119 vs. 133 mg per deciliter [6.6 vs. 7.4 mmol per liter], P=0.009). There were no significant differences between closed-loop and control therapy in the percentage of time in which glucose levels were below the target range (1.3% and 1.9%, respectively; P=0.28), in insulin doses, or in adverse-event rates. During the continuation phase (up to 14.6 additional weeks, including antenatal hospitalizations, labor, and delivery), glucose levels were in the target range 68.7% of the time; the mean glucose level was 126 mg per deciliter (7.0 mmol per liter). No episodes of severe hypoglycemia requiring third-party assistance occurred during either phase. CONCLUSIONS: Overnight closed-loop therapy resulted in better glucose control than sensor-augmented pump therapy in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. Women receiving day-and-night closed-loop therapy maintained glycemic control during a high proportion of the time in a period that encompassed antenatal hospital admission, labor, and delivery. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN71510001.).

Short-term fully closed-loop insulin delivery using faster insulin aspart compared with standard insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes.

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of short-term fully closed-loop insulin delivery using faster versus standard insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes. Fifteen adults with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes underwent 22 hours of closed-loop insulin delivery with either faster or standard insulin aspart in a double-blind randomized crossover design. Basal-bolus regimen was replaced by model predictive control algorithm-directed insulin delivery based on sensor glucose levels. The primary outcome was time with plasma glucose in target range (5.6-10.0 mmol/L) and did not differ between treatments (mean difference [95% CI] 3.3% [-8.2; 1.7], P = 0.17). Mean glucose and glucose variability were comparable, as was time spent below and above target range. Hypoglycaemia (<3.5 mmol/L) occurred once with faster insulin aspart and twice with standard insulin aspart. Mean total insulin dose was higher with faster insulin aspart (mean difference [95% CI] 3.7 U [0.7; 6.8], P = 0.021). No episodes of severe hypoglycaemia or other serious adverse events occurred. In conclusion, short-term fully closed-loop in type 2 diabetes may require higher dose of faster insulin aspart compared with standard insulin aspart to achieve comparable glucose control.

Mixed-meal tolerance test to assess residual beta-cell secretion: Beyond the area-under-curve of plasma C-peptide concentration.

AIMS: Residual beta-cell secretion in type 1 diabetes is commonly assessed by area-under-curve of plasma C-peptide concentration (AUCCpep ) following mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT). We aimed to investigate alternative measures of beta-cell responsiveness. METHODS: We analyzed data from 32 youth (age 7 to 17 years) undergoing MMTT within 6 months of type 1 diabetes diagnosis. We related AUCCpep with (a) validated mechanistic index of postprandial beta-cell responsiveness MI accounting for glucose level during MMTT, and (b) pragmatic marker calculated as baseline plasma C-peptide concentration corrected for baseline plasma glucose concentration. RESULTS: Postprandial responsiveness MI was correlated with age and BMI SDS (Rs = 0.66 and 0.44, P < 0.01 and P < 0.05) and was more correlated with glycated hemoglobin than AUCCpep (Rs = 0.79, P = 0.04). The pragmatic marker was highly correlated with AUCCpep (Rs = 0.94, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Postprandial responsiveness MI may be more relevant to glucose control than AUCCpep . Baseline C-peptide corrected for baseline glucose appears to be a suitable surrogate of AUCCpep if MMTT is not performed.

Reduced burden of diabetes and improved quality of life: Experiences from unrestricted day-and-night hybrid closed-loop use in very young children with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the experiences of families with very young children aged 1 to 7 years (inclusive) with type 1 diabetes using day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery. METHODS: Parents/caregivers of 20 children aged 1 to 7 years with type 1 diabetes completed a closed-loop experience survey following two 3-week periods of unrestricted day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin therapy using Cambridge FlorenceM system at home. Benefits, limitations, and improvements of closed-loop technology were explored. RESULTS: Responders reported reduced burden of diabetes management, less time spent managing diabetes, and improved quality of sleep with closed-loop. Ninety percent of the responders felt less worried about their child's glucose control using closed-loop. Size of study devices, battery performance and connectivity issues were identified as areas for improvement. Parents/caregivers wished for more options to input information to the system such as temporary glucose targets. CONCLUSIONS: Parents/caregivers of very young children reported important quality of life benefits associated with using closed-loop, supporting adoption of this technology in this population.

Hypoglycaemia incidence and recovery during home use of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes.

Glucose excursion was assessed prior to and post hypoglycaemia to increase understanding of hypoglycaemia incidence and recovery during hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery. We retrospectively analysed data from 60 adults with type 1 diabetes who received, in a crossover randomized design, day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery and insulin pump therapy, the latter with or without real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Over 4-week study periods, we identified hypoglycaemic episodes, defined as sensor glucose <3.0 mmol/L, and analysed sensor glucose relative to the onset of hypoglycaemia. We identified 377 hypoglycaemic episodes during hybrid closed-loop intervention vs 662 during control intervention (P < .001), with a predominant reduction of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. The slope of sensor glucose prior to hypoglycaemia was steeper during closed-loop intervention than during control intervention (P < .01), while insulin delivery was reduced (P < .01). During both day and night, participants recovered from hypoglycaemia faster when treated by closed-loop intervention. At 120 minutes post hypoglycaemia, sensor glucose levels were higher during closed-loop intervention compared to the control period (P < .05). In conclusion, closed-loop intervention reduces the risk of hypoglycaemia, particularly overnight, with swift recovery from hypoglycaemia leading to higher 2-hour post-hypoglycaemia glucose levels.

Impact of liver fat on the differential partitioning of hepatic triacylglycerol into VLDL subclasses on high and low sugar diets.

Dietary sugars are linked to the development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and dyslipidaemia, but it is unknown if NAFLD itself influences the effects of sugars on plasma lipoproteins. To study this further, men with NAFLD (n = 11) and low liver fat 'controls' (n = 14) were fed two iso-energetic diets, high or low in sugars (26% or 6% total energy) for 12 weeks, in a randomised, cross-over design. Fasting plasma lipid and lipoprotein kinetics were measured after each diet by stable isotope trace-labelling.There were significant differences in the production and catabolic rates of VLDL subclasses between men with NAFLD and controls, in response to the high and low sugar diets. Men with NAFLD had higher plasma concentrations of VLDL1-triacylglycerol (TAG) after the high (P<0.02) and low sugar (P<0.0002) diets, a lower VLDL1-TAG fractional catabolic rate after the high sugar diet (P<0.01), and a higher VLDL1-TAG production rate after the low sugar diet (P<0.01), relative to controls. An effect of the high sugar diet, was to channel hepatic TAG into a higher production of VLDL1-TAG (P<0.02) in the controls, but in contrast, a higher production of VLDL2-TAG (P<0.05) in NAFLD. These dietary effects on VLDL subclass kinetics could be explained, in part, by differences in the contribution of fatty acids from intra-hepatic stores, and de novo lipogenesis. The present study provides new evidence that liver fat accumulation leads to a differential partitioning of hepatic TAG into large and small VLDL subclasses, in response to high and low intakes of sugars.

Faster insulin action is associated with improved glycaemic outcomes during closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes.

We aimed to evaluate the relationship between insulin pharmacodynamics and glycaemic outcomes during closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy. We retrospectively analysed data from a multicentre randomized control trial involving 32 adults with type 1 diabetes receiving day-and-night closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy over 12 weeks. We estimated time-to-peak insulin action (t max,IA ) and insulin sensitivity ( S I ) during both interventions, and correlated these with demographic factors and glycaemic outcomes. During both interventions, t max,IA was positively correlated with pre- and post-intervention HbA1c (r = 0.50-0.52, P < .01) and mean glucose (r = 0.45-0.62, P < .05), and inversely correlated with time sensor glucose, which was in target range 3.9 to 10 mmol/L (r = -0.64 to -0.47, P < .05). Increased body mass index was associated with higher t max,I and lower S I (both P < .05). During closed-loop insulin delivery, t max,IA was positively correlated with glucose variability ( P < .05). Faster insulin action is associated with improved glycaemic control during closed-loop insulin delivery and sensor-augmented pump therapy.

Pharmacokinetics of diluted (U20) insulin aspart compared with standard (U100) in children aged 3-6 years with type 1 diabetes during closed-loop insulin delivery: a randomised clinical trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics of two different concentrations of insulin aspart (B28Asp human insulin) in children aged 3-6 years with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Young children with type 1 diabetes underwent an open-label, randomised, two-period crossover study in a clinical research facility, 2-6 weeks apart. In random order, diluted (1:5 dilution with saline [154 mmol/l NaCl]; 20 U/ml) or standard strength (100 U/ml) insulin aspart was administered via an insulin pump as a meal bolus and then overnight by closed-loop insulin delivery as determined by a model predictive algorithm. Plasma insulin was measured every 30-60 min from 17:00 hours on day 1 to 8:00 hours on day 2. We measured the time-to-peak insulin concentration (tmax), insulin metabolic clearance rate (MCR(I)) and background insulin concentration (ins(c)) using compartmental modelling. RESULTS: Eleven children (six male; age range 3.75-6.96 years, HbA1c 7.6% ± 1.3% [60 ± 14 mmol/mol], BMI standard deviation score 1.0 ± 0.8, duration of diabetes 2.2 ± 1.0 years, total daily dose 12.9 [10.6-16.5] U, fasting C-peptide concentration 5 [5-17.1] pmol/l; mean ± SD or median [interquartile range]) participated in the study. No differences between standard and diluted insulin were observed in terms of t max (59.2 ± 14.4 vs 61.6 ± 8.7) min for standard vs diluted, p = 0.59; MCR I (1.98 × 10(-2) ± 0.99 × 10(-2) vs 1.89 × 10(-2) ± 0.82 × 10(-2) 1/kg/min, p = 0.47), and ins c (34 [1-72] vs 23 [3-65] pmol/l, p = 0.66). However, t max showed less intersubject variability following administration of diluted aspart (SD 14.4 vs 8.7 min, p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Diluting insulin aspart does not change its pharmacokinetics. However, it may result in less variable absorption and could be used in young children with type 1 diabetes undergoing closed-loop insulin delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01557634. FUNDING: FUNDING was provided by the JDRF, 7th Framework Programme of the European Union, Wellcome Trust Strategic Award and the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.