Association between attendance at an American diabetes camp and improvements in glycaemic control and treatment satisfaction.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have evaluated glycaemic control using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in individuals before and after attendance at a diabetes camp or by comparing control groups at home to control groups at camp. METHODS: Youth (6-17 years) with T1D and receiving insulin therapy were enrolled at a week-long diabetes camp. They participated in three clinic visits: at the start of a week at home, by initiating a Dexcom G6 CGM system; at the start of a week at camp, where the home week G6 was removed and a camp week G6 was inserted; and after camp, where the camp week G6 was removed. We administered Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) surveys at the second and third visits. Participants with <80% CGM data coverage or who did not complete all PAID surveys were excluded from analysis. We compared glycaemic control and PAID scores between the week at home and week at camp. RESULTS: Of 76 enrolled campers, 69 completed the study and 52 had results that qualified for analysis. The mean participant age was 12.5 ± 2.2 years. Camp was associated with significantly improved treatment satisfaction, time in desired glucose range and insulin sensitivity. Time in hyperglycaemia and basal insulin requirements decreased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes camp is associated with significant improvements in diabetes treatment satisfaction and glycaemic control compared to home care.

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.

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.

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.

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.).

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.

Obtaining surrogate consent for a minimal-risk research study in the intensive care unit setting.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining surrogate consent for clinical research studies conducted in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting is logistically challenging. PURPOSE: To determine whether differences in proportions consenting to trial enrollment existed among patients eligible to consent directly versus those requiring surrogate decision makers in a minimal-risk study to evaluate the accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring in the ICU setting. METHODS: Low initial enrollment rates prompted a detailed tracking of the screening and consent process. We analyzed the subset of eligible patients identified during a single year to document whether they were approached about trial enrollment, whether they consented or declined, the reasons for declining, and the method of consent (self or surrogate). The proportion of participants who consented and the reasons for declining were compared for self-consenting and surrogate-consenting participants. RESULTS: Of the 3041 patients screened, one-third (n = 982) were eligible; 119 of the 982 were approached regarding enrollment. Absence of a surrogate accounted for the majority of eligible patients (726; 84%) not approached. The most common reasons for refusal in the self versus surrogate groups included feeling overwhelmed (13% vs 24%), fear of discomfort (22% vs 12%), and fear of risk (7% vs 4%). Of the 57 eligible patients capable of consenting directly, 11 (19%) enrolled versus 12 (19%) of the 62 who required surrogate consent. When recruitment hours were expanded to include evening time, more eligible patients or their surrogates could be approached than during the day-shift hours alone. Consent was obtained for a larger proportion of potential participants with a history of diabetes (40%) than for those without a history of diabetes (14%). LIMITATIONS: The findings are from a subset of the entire study sample; data were available only for participants who could be approached, who may have differed from those who could not be approached. CONCLUSIONS: Surrogate and self-consent rates were similar. Surrogate unavailability was a major barrier to enrollment; overlap of staffing with usual visiting hours should be considered when planning trials in the ICU.

Blood glucose control in type 1 diabetes with a bihormonal bionic endocrine pancreas.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether safe and effective glycemic control could be achieved in type 1 diabetes using a bihormonal bionic endocrine pancreas driven by a continuous glucose monitor in experiments lasting more than two days and including six high-carbohydrate meals and exercise as challenges to glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Six subjects with type 1 diabetes and no endogenous insulin secretion participated in two 51-h experiments. Blood glucose was managed with a bionic endocrine pancreas controlling subcutaneous delivery of insulin and glucagon with insulin pumps. A partial meal-priming bolus of insulin (0.035 units/kg/meal, then 0.05 units/kg/meal in repeat experiments) was administered at the beginning of each meal (on average 78 ± 12 g of carbohydrates per meal were consumed). Plasma glucose (PG) control was evaluated with a reference quality measurement on venous blood every 15 min. RESULTS: The overall mean PG was 158 mg/dL, with 68% of PG values in the range of 70-180 mg/dL. There were no significant differences in mean PG between larger and smaller meal-priming bolus experiments. Hypoglycemia (PG <70 mg/dL) was rare, with eight incidents during 576 h of closed-loop control (0.7% of total time). During 192 h of nighttime control, mean PG was 123 mg/dL, with 93% of PG values in the range of 70-180 mg/dL and only one episode of mild hypoglycemia (minimum PG 62 mg/dL). CONCLUSIONS: A bihormonal bionic endocrine pancreas achieved excellent glycemic control with minimal hypoglycemia over the course of two days of continuous use despite high-carbohydrate meals and exercise. A trial testing a wearable version of the system under free-living conditions is justified.