Efficacy and safety of baricitinib or ravulizumab in adult patients with severe COVID-19 (TACTIC-R): a randomised, parallel-arm, open-label, phase 4 trial.

BACKGROUND: From early in the COVID-19 pandemic, evidence suggested a role for cytokine dysregulation and complement activation in severe disease. In the TACTIC-R trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of baricitinib, an inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) and JAK2, and ravulizumab, a monoclonal inhibitor of complement C5 activation, as an adjunct to standard of care for the treatment of adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS: TACTIC-R was a phase 4, randomised, parallel-arm, open-label platform trial that was undertaken in the UK with urgent public health designation to assess the potential of repurposing immunosuppressants for the treatment of severe COVID-19, stratified by a risk score. Adult participants (aged ≥18 years) were enrolled from 22 hospitals across the UK. Patients with a risk score indicating a 40% risk of admission to an intensive care unit or death were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to standard of care alone, standard of care with baricitinib, or standard of care with ravulizumab. The composite primary outcome was the time from randomisation to incidence (up to and including day 14) of the first event of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, cardiovascular organ support, or renal failure. The primary interim analysis was triggered when 125 patient datasets were available up to day 14 in each study group and we included in the analysis all participants who were randomly assigned. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04390464). FINDINGS: Between May 8, 2020, and May 7, 2021, 417 participants were recruited and randomly assigned to standard of care alone (145 patients), baricitinib (137 patients), or ravulizumab (135 patients). Only 54 (39%) of 137 patients in the baricitinib group received the maximum 14-day course, whereas 132 (98%) of 135 patients in the ravulizumab group received the intended dose. The trial was stopped after the primary interim analysis on grounds of futility. The estimated hazard ratio (HR) for reaching the composite primary endpoint was 1·11 (95% CI 0·62-1·99) for patients on baricitinib compared with standard of care alone, and 1·53 (0·88-2·67) for ravulizumab compared with standard of care alone. 45 serious adverse events (21 deaths) were reported in the standard-of-care group, 57 (24 deaths) in the baricitinib group, and 60 (18 deaths) in the ravulizumab group. INTERPRETATION: Neither baricitinib nor ravulizumab, as administered in this study, was effective in reducing disease severity in patients selected for severe COVID-19. Safety was similar between treatments and standard of care. The short period of dosing with baricitinib might explain the discrepancy between our findings and those of other trials. The therapeutic potential of targeting complement C5 activation product C5a, rather than the cleavage of C5, warrants further evaluation. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, UK National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Eli Lilly and Company, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, and Addenbrooke's Charitable Trust.

Targeting patient recovery priorities in degenerative cervical myelopathy: design and rationale for the RECEDE-Myelopathy trial-study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common and disabling condition of symptomatic cervical spinal cord compression secondary to degenerative changes in spinal structures leading to a mechanical stress injury of the spinal cord. RECEDE-Myelopathy aims to test the disease-modulating activity of the phosphodiesterase 3/phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor Ibudilast as an adjuvant to surgical decompression in DCM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: RECEDE-Myelopathy is a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Participants will be randomised to receive either 60-100 mg Ibudilast or placebo starting within 10 weeks prior to surgery and continuing for 24 weeks after surgery for a maximum of 34 weeks. Adults with DCM, who have a modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score 8-14 inclusive and are scheduled for their first decompressive surgery are eligible for inclusion. The coprimary endpoints are pain measured on a visual analogue scale and physical function measured by the mJOA score at 6 months after surgery. Clinical assessments will be undertaken preoperatively, postoperatively and 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. We hypothesise that adjuvant therapy with Ibudilast leads to a meaningful and additional improvement in either pain or function, as compared with standard routine care. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical trial protocol V.2.2 October 2020. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from HRA-Wales.The results will be presented at an international and national scientific conferences and in a peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN16682024.

Rituximab versus azathioprine for maintenance of remission for patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis and relapsing disease: an international randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Following induction of remission with rituximab in anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV) relapse rates are high, especially in patients with history of relapse. Relapses are associated with increased exposure to immunosuppressive medications, the accrual of damage and increased morbidity and mortality. The RITAZAREM trial compared the efficacy of repeat-dose rituximab to daily oral azathioprine for prevention of relapse in patients with relapsing AAV in whom remission was reinduced with rituximab. METHODS: RITAZAREM was an international randomised controlled, open-label, superiority trial that recruited 188 patients at the time of an AAV relapse from 29 centres in seven countries between April 2013 and November 2016. All patients received rituximab and glucocorticoids to reinduce remission. Patients achieving remission by 4 months were randomised to receive rituximab intravenously (1000 mg every 4 months, through month 20) (85 patients) or azathioprine (2 mg/kg/day, tapered after month 24) (85 patients) and followed for a minimum of 36 months. The primary outcome was time to disease relapse (either major or minor relapse). RESULTS: Rituximab was superior to azathioprine in preventing relapse: HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.61, p<0.001. 19/85 (22%) patients in the rituximab group and 31/85 (36%) in the azathioprine group experienced at least one serious adverse event during the treatment period. There were no differences in rates of hypogammaglobulinaemia or infection between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Following induction of remission with rituximab, fixed-interval, repeat-dose rituximab was superior to azathioprine for preventing disease relapse in patients with AAV with a prior history of relapse. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01697267; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier.

Rituximab as therapy to induce remission after relapse in ANCA-associated vasculitis.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of rituximab and glucocorticoids as therapy to induce remission after relapse in ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) in a prospective observational cohort of patients enrolled into the induction phase of the RITAZAREM trial. METHODS: Patients relapsing with granulomatosis with polyangiitis or microscopic polyangiitis were prospectively enrolled and received remission-induction therapy with rituximab (4×375 mg/m2) and a higher or lower dose glucocorticoid regimen, depending on physician choice: reducing from either 1 mg/kg/day or 0.5 mg/kg/day to 10 mg/day by 4 months. Patients in this cohort achieving remission were subsequently randomised to receive one of two regimens to prevent relapse. RESULTS: 188 patients were studied: 95/188 (51%) men, median age 59 years (range 19-89), prior disease duration 5.0 years (range 0.4-34.5). 149/188 (79%) had previously received cyclophosphamide and 67/188 (36%) rituximab. 119/188 (63%) of relapses had at least one major disease activity item, and 54/188 (29%) received the higher dose glucocorticoid regimen. 171/188 (90%) patients achieved remission by 4 months. Only six patients (3.2% of the study population) did not achieve disease control at month 4. Four patients died in the induction phase due to pneumonia (2), cerebrovascular accident (1), and active vasculitis (1). 41 severe adverse events occurred in 27 patients, including 13 severe infections. CONCLUSIONS: This large prospective cohort of patients with relapsing AAV treated with rituximab in conjunction with glucocorticoids demonstrated a high level of efficacy for the reinduction of remission in patients with AAV who have relapsed, with a similar safety profile to previous studies.

Closing the loop overnight at home setting: psychosocial impact for adolescents with type 1 diabetes and their parents.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and their parents taking part in an overnight closed loop study at home, using qualitative and quantitative research methods. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Adolescents aged 12-18 years on insulin pump therapy were recruited to a pilot closed loop study in the home setting. Following training on the use of a study insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), participants were randomized to receive either real-time CGM combined with overnight closed loop or real-time CGM alone followed by the alternative treatment for an additional 21 days with a 2-3-week washout period in between study arms. Semistructured interviews were performed to explore participants' perceptions of the impact of the closed loop technology. At study entry and again at the end of each 21-day crossover arm of the trial, participants completed the Diabetes Technology Questionnaire (DTQ) and Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS; also completed by parents). RESULTS: 15 adolescents and 13 parents were interviewed. Key positive themes included reassurance/peace of mind, confidence, 'time off' from diabetes demands, safety, and improved diabetes control. Key negative themes included difficulties with calibration, alarms, and size of the devices. DTQ results reflected these findings. HFS scores were mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Closed loop insulin delivery represents cutting-edge technology in the treatment of T1DM. Results indicate that the psychological and physical benefits of the closed loop system outweighed the practical challenges reported. Further research from longitudinal studies is required to determine the long-term psychosocial benefit of the closed loop technology.

Day and night home closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes: three-center randomized crossover study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of day and night closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes under free-living conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Seventeen adults with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy (means ± SD age 34 ± 9 years, HbA1c 7.6 ± 0.8%, and duration of diabetes 19 ± 9 years) participated in an open-label multinational three-center crossover study. In a random order, participants underwent two 8-day periods (first day at the clinical research facility followed by 7 days at home) of sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy (SAP) or automated closed-loop insulin delivery. The primary end point was the time when sensor glucose was in target range between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L during the 7-day home phase. RESULTS: During the home phase, the percentage of time when glucose was in target range was significantly higher during closed-loop compared with SAP (median 75% [interquartile range 61-79] vs. 62% [53-70], P = 0.005). Mean glucose (8.1 vs. 8.8 mmol/L, P = 0.027) and time spent above target (P = 0.013) were lower during closed loop, while time spent below target was comparable (P = 0.339). Increased time in target was observed during both daytime (P = 0.017) and nighttime (P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SAP, 1 week of closed-loop insulin delivery at home reduces mean glucose and increases time in target without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia in adults with relatively well-controlled type 1 diabetes.

Home use of closed-loop insulin delivery for overnight glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a 4-week, multicentre, randomised crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop insulin delivery is a promising option to improve glycaemic control and reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia. We aimed to assess whether overnight home use of automated closed-loop insulin delivery would improve glucose control. METHODS: We did this open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled, crossover study between Dec 1, 2012, and Dec 23, 2014, recruiting patients from three centres in the UK. Patients aged 18 years or older with type 1 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive 4 weeks of overnight closed-loop insulin delivery (using a model-predictive control algorithm to direct insulin delivery), then 4 weeks of insulin pump therapy (in which participants used real-time display of continuous glucose monitoring independent of their pumps as control), or vice versa. Allocation to initial treatment group was by computer-generated permuted block randomisation. Each treatment period was separated by a 3-4 week washout period. The primary outcome was time spent in the target glucose range of 3·9-8·0 mmol/L between 0000 h and 0700 h. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01440140. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 25 participants to initial treatment in either the closed-loop group or the control group, patients were later crossed over into the other group; one patient from the closed-loop group withdrew consent after randomisation, and data for 24 patients were analysed. Closed loop was used over a median of 8·3 h (IQR 6·0-9·6) on 555 (86%) of 644 nights. The proportion of time when overnight glucose was in target range was significantly higher during the closed-loop period compared to during the control period (mean difference between groups 13·5%, 95% CI 7·3-19·7; p=0·0002). We noted no severe hypoglycaemic episodes during the control period compared with two episodes during the closed-loop period; these episodes were not related to closed-loop algorithm instructions. INTERPRETATION: Unsupervised overnight closed-loop insulin delivery at home is feasible and could improve glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes. FUNDING: Diabetes UK.

Evaluating the Performance of a Novel Embedded Closed-loop System.

The objective was to assess the reliability of a novel automated closed-loop glucose control system developed within the AP@home consortium in adults with type 1 diabetes. Eight adults with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy (3 men; ages 40.5 ± 14.3 years; HbA1c 8.2 ± 0.8%) participated in an open-label, single-center, single-arm, 12-hour overnight study performed at the clinical research facility. A standardized evening meal (80 g CHO) accompanied by prandial insulin boluses were given at 19:00 followed by an optional snack of 15 g at 22:00 without insulin bolus. Automated closed-loop glucose control was started at 19:00 and continued until 07:00 the next day. Basal insulin delivery (Accu-Chek Spirit, Roche) was automatically adjusted by Cambridge model predictive control algorithm, running on a purpose-built embedded device, based on real-time continuous glucose monitor readings (Dexcom G4 Platinum). Closed-loop system was operational as intended over 99% of the time. Overnight plasma glucose levels (22:00 to 07:00) were within the target range (3.9 to 8.0 mmol/l) for 75.4% (37.5, 92.9) of the time without any time spent in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/l). Mean overnight glucose was 7.8 ± 1.3 mmol/l. For the entire 12-hour closed-loop period (19:00 until 07:00) plasma glucose levels were within the target range (3.9 to 10.0 mmol/l) for 84.4% (63.3, 100) of time. There were no adverse events noted during the trial. We observed a high degree of reliability of the automated closed-loop system. The time spent in target glucose level overnight was comparable to results of previously published studies. Further developments to miniaturize the system for home studies are warranted.

Overnight closed-loop insulin delivery in young people with type 1 diabetes: a free-living, randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate feasibility, safety, and efficacy of overnight closed-loop insulin delivery in free-living youth with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Overnight closed loop was evaluated at home by 16 pump-treated adolescents with type 1 diabetes aged 12-18 years. Over a 3-week period, overnight insulin delivery was directed by a closed-loop system, and on another 3-week period sensor-augmented therapy was applied. The order of interventions was random. The primary end point was time when adjusted sensor glucose was between 3.9 and 8.0 mmol/L from 2300 to 0700 h. RESULTS: Closed loop was constantly applied over at least 4 h on 269 nights (80%); sensor data were collected over at least 4 h on 282 control nights (84%). Closed loop increased time spent with glucose in target by a median 15% (interquartile range -9 to 43; P < 0.001). Mean overnight glucose was reduced by a mean 14 (SD 58) mg/dL (P < 0.001). Time when glucose was <70 mg/dL was low in both groups, but nights with glucose <63 mg/dL for at least 20 min were less frequent during closed loop (10 vs. 17%; P = 0.01). Despite lower total daily insulin doses by a median 2.3 (interquartile range -4.7 to 9.3) units (P = 0.009), overall 24-h glucose was reduced by a mean 9 (SD 41) mg/dL (P = 0.006) during closed loop. CONCLUSIONS: Unsupervised home use of overnight closed loop in adolescents with type 1 diabetes is safe and feasible. Glucose control was improved during the day and night with fewer episodes of nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Accuracy of subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring in critically ill adults: improved sensor performance with enhanced calibrations.

OBJECTIVE: Accurate real-time continuous glucose measurements may improve glucose control in the critical care unit. We evaluated the accuracy of the FreeStyle(®) Navigator(®) (Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA) subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device in critically ill adults using two methods of calibration. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In a randomized trial, paired CGM and reference glucose (hourly arterial blood glucose [ABG]) were collected over a 48-h period from 24 adults with critical illness (mean±SD age, 60±14 years; mean±SD body mass index, 29.6±9.3 kg/m(2); mean±SD Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score, 12±4 [range, 6-19]) and hyperglycemia. In 12 subjects, the CGM device was calibrated at variable intervals of 1-6 h using ABG. In the other 12 subjects, the sensor was calibrated according to the manufacturer's instructions (1, 2, 10, and 24 h) using arterial blood and the built-in point-of-care glucometer. RESULTS: In total, 1,060 CGM-ABG pairs were analyzed over the glucose range from 4.3 to 18.8 mmol/L. Using enhanced calibration median (interquartile range) every 169 (122-213) min, the absolute relative deviation was lower (7.0% [3.5, 13.0] vs. 12.8% [6.3, 21.8], P<0.001), and the percentage of points in the Clarke error grid Zone A was higher (87.8% vs. 70.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Accuracy of the Navigator CGM device during critical illness was comparable to that observed in non-critical care settings. Further significant improvements in accuracy may be obtained by frequent calibrations with ABG measurements.

Feasibility of closed-loop insulin delivery in type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: Closed-loop insulin delivery offers a promising treatment option, but to date, it has only been evaluated in type 1 diabetes. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of fully closed-loop subcutaneous insulin delivery in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twelve subjects (seven males, age 57.2 years, BMI 30.5 kg/m2) with noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes (HbA1c 8.4% [68 mmol/mol], diabetes duration 7.6 years) underwent two 24-h visits (closed-loop and control) in a randomized crossover design. During closed-loop visits, the subjects' routine diabetes therapy was replaced with model predictive control algorithm-driven subcutaneous insulin pump delivery based on real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Meals were unannounced, and no additional insulin was administered for carbohydrates consumed. During control visits, the usual diabetes regimen was continued (metformin 92%, sulfonylureas 58%, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors 33%). On both visits, subjects consumed matched 50- to 80-g carbohydrate meals and optional 15-g carbohydrate snacks and remained largely sedentary. Plasma glucose measurements evaluated closed-loop performance. RESULTS: Compared with conventional therapy, 24 h of closed-loop insulin delivery increased overall the median time in target plasma glucose (3.9-8.0 mmol/L) from 24 to 40% (P = 0.016), despite sensor under-reading by a median of 1.2 mmol/L. The benefit of the closed-loop system was more prominent overnight, with greater time in target glucose (median 78 vs. 35%; P = 0.041) and less time in hyperglycemia (22 vs. 65%; P = 0.041). There was no hypoglycemia during either intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A closed-loop system without meal announcement and using subcutaneous insulin delivery in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes appears feasible and safe. Improvement in postprandial glucose control may require further optimization of system performance.

Day and night closed-loop control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a comparison of two closed-loop algorithms driving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus patient self-management.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two validated closed-loop (CL) algorithms versus patient self-control with CSII in terms of glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was a multicenter, randomized, three-way crossover, open-label trial in 48 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus for at least 6 months, treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Blood glucose was controlled for 23 h by the algorithm of the Universities of Pavia and Padova with a Safety Supervision Module developed at the Universities of Virginia and California at Santa Barbara (international artificial pancreas [iAP]), by the algorithm of University of Cambridge (CAM), or by patients themselves in open loop (OL) during three hospital admissions including meals and exercise. The main analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Main outcome measures included time spent in target (glucose levels between 3.9 and 8.0 mmol/L or between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L after meals). RESULTS: Time spent in the target range was similar in CL and OL: 62.6% for OL, 59.2% for iAP, and 58.3% for CAM. While mean glucose level was significantly lower in OL (7.19, 8.15, and 8.26 mmol/L, respectively) (overall P = 0.001), percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) was almost threefold reduced during CL (6.4%, 2.1%, and 2.0%) (overall P = 0.001) with less time ≤2.8 mmol/L (overall P = 0.038). There were no significant differences in outcomes between algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: Both CAM and iAP algorithms provide safe glycemic control.

Feasibility of fully automated closed-loop glucose control using continuous subcutaneous glucose measurements in critical illness: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Closed-loop (CL) systems modulate insulin delivery according to glucose levels without nurse input. In a prospective randomized controlled trial, we evaluated the feasibility of an automated closed-loop approach based on subcutaneous glucose measurements in comparison with a local sliding-scale insulin-therapy protocol. METHODS: Twenty-four critically ill adults (predominantly trauma and neuroscience patients) with hyperglycemia (glucose, ≥10 mM) or already receiving insulin therapy, were randomized to receive either fully automated closed-loop therapy (model predictive control algorithm directing insulin and 20% dextrose infusion based on FreeStyle Navigator continuous subcutaneous glucose values, n = 12) or a local protocol (n = 12) with intravenous sliding-scale insulin, over a 48-hour period. The primary end point was percentage of time when arterial blood glucose was between 6.0 and 8.0 mM. RESULTS: The time when glucose was in the target range was significantly increased during closed-loop therapy (54.3% (44.1 to 72.8) versus 18.5% (0.1 to 39.9), P = 0.001; median (interquartile range)), and so was time in wider targets, 5.6 to 10.0 mM and 4.0 to 10.0 mM (P ≤ 0.002), reflecting a reduced glucose exposure >8 and >10 mM (P ≤ 0.002). Mean glucose was significantly lower during CL (7.8 (7.4 to 8.2) versus 9.1 (8.3 to 13.0] mM; P = 0.001) without hypoglycemia (<4 mM) during either therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Fully automated closed-loop control based on subcutaneous glucose measurements is feasible and may provide efficacious and hypoglycemia-free glucose control in critically ill adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT01440842.

Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring during exercise in type 1 diabetes pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Performance of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) may be lower when glucose levels are changing rapidly, such as occurs during physical activity. Our aim was to evaluate accuracy of a current-generation CGM during moderate-intensity exercise in type 1 diabetes (T1D) pregnancy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: As part of a study of 24-h closed-loop insulin delivery in 12 women with T1D (disease duration, 17.6 years; glycosylated hemoglobin, 6.4%) during pregnancy (gestation, 21 weeks), we evaluated the Freestyle Navigator(®) sensor (Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA) during afternoon (15:00-18:00 h) and morning (09:30-12:30 h) exercise (55 min of brisk walking on a treadmill followed by a 2-h recovery), compared with sedentary conditions (18:00-09:00 h). Plasma (reference) glucose, measured at regular 15-30-min intervals with the YSI Ltd. (Fleet, United Kingdom) model YSI 2300 analyzer, was used to assess CGM performance. RESULTS: Sensor accuracy, as indicated by the larger relative absolute difference (RAD) between paired sensor and reference glucose values, was lower during exercise compared with rest (median RAD, 11.8% vs. 18.4%; P<0.001). These differences remained significant when correcting for plasma glucose relative rate of change (P<0.001). Analysis by glucose range showed lower accuracy during hypoglycemia for both sedentary (median RAD, 24.4%) and exercise (median RAD, 32.1%) conditions. Using Clarke error grid analysis, 96% of CGM values were clinically safe under resting conditions compared with only 87% during exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with sedentary conditions, accuracy of the Freestyle Navigator CGM was lower during moderate-intensity exercise in pregnant women with T1D. This difference was particularly marked in hypoglycemia and could not be solely explained by the glucose rate of change associated with physical activity.

Physical activity energy expenditure and glucose control in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes: is 30 minutes of daily exercise enough?

OBJECTIVE: To describe activity patterns in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and evaluate the impact of increased structured physical activity on glucose control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) and glucose levels (continuous glucose monitoring) were measured in 10 pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (age 33.2 years, gestation 20 weeks, BMI 27.9 kg/m(2), diabetes duration 16.6 years, HbA1c 6.5% [48 mmol/mol], insulin pump duration 2.4 years) during a day at home (free-living) and during a 24-h visit incorporating controlled diet and structured physical activity with light intensity activity (three 20-min self-paced walks) and moderate intensity activity (two 50-min sessions of brisk treadmill walking). PAEE was evaluated through individually calibrated combined heart rate and movement sensing. RESULTS: Free-living PAEE was comparable to that under controlled study conditions (3.8 and 5.1 kcal/kg/day, P = 0.241), with women achieving near to the recommended 30 min of moderate physical activity (median 27 min [interquartile range 14-68]). During the free-living period, more time was spent in light activity (10.3 vs. 7.2 h, P = 0.005), with less sedentary time (13.0 vs. 14.9 h, P = 0.047) and less moderate activity (27 vs. 121 min, P = 0.022). The free-living 24-h mean glucose levels by continuous glucose monitoring were significantly higher (7.7 vs. 6.0 mmol/L, P = 0.028). The effect of controlled diet and exercise persisted overnight, with significantly less time spent hyperglycemic (19 vs. 0%, P = 0.028) and less glucose variability (glucose SD 1.3 vs. 0.7 mmol/L, P = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: A controlled diet and structured physical activity program may assist women with type 1 diabetes in achieving optimal glucose control during pregnancy.

Assessing performance of closed-loop insulin delivery systems by continuous glucose monitoring: drawbacks and way forward.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) levels can accurately assess glycemic control while directing closed-loop insulin delivery. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Data were analyzed retrospectively from 33 subjects with type 1 diabetes who underwent closed-loop and conventional pump therapy on two separate nights. Glycemic control was evaluated by reference plasma glucose and contrasted against three methods based on Navigator (Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA) CGM levels. RESULTS: Glucose mean and variability were estimated by unmodified CGM levels with acceptable clinical accuracy. Time when glucose was in target range was overestimated by CGM during closed-loop nights (CGM vs. plasma glucose median [interquartile range], 86% [65-97%] vs. 75% [59-91%]; P=0.04) but not during conventional pump therapy (57% [32-72%] vs. 51% [29-68%]; P=0.82) providing comparable treatment effect (mean [SD], 28% [29%] vs. 23% [21%]; P=0.11). Using the CGM measurement error of 15% derived from plasma glucose-CGM pairs (n=4,254), stochastic interpretation of CGM gave unbiased estimate of time in target during both closed-loop (79% [62-86%] vs. 75% [59-91%]; P=0.24) and conventional pump therapy (54% [33-66%] vs. 51% [29-68%]; P=0.44). Treatment effect (23% [24%] vs. 23% [21%]; P=0.96) and time below target were accurately estimated by stochastic CGM. Recalibrating CGM using reference plasma glucose values taken at the start and end of overnight closed-loop was not superior to stochastic CGM. CONCLUSIONS: CGM is acceptable to estimate glucose mean and variability, but without adjustment it may overestimate benefit of closed-loop. Stochastic CGM provided unbiased estimate of time when glucose is in target and below target and may be acceptable for assessment of closed-loop in the outpatient setting.

Closed-loop basal insulin delivery over 36 hours in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of closed-loop basal insulin delivery during sleep and after regular meals and unannounced periods of exercise. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twelve adolescents with type 1 diabetes (five males; mean age 15.0 [SD 1.4] years; HbA1c 7.9 [0.7]%; BMI 21.4 [2.6] kg/m(2)) were studied at a clinical research facility on two occasions and received, in random order, either closed-loop basal insulin delivery or conventional pump therapy for 36 h. During closed-loop insulin delivery, pump basal rates were adjusted every 15 min according to a model predictive control algorithm informed by subcutaneous sensor glucose levels. During control visits, subjects' standard infusion rates were applied. Prandial insulin boluses were given before main meals (50-80 g carbohydrates) but not before snacks (15-30 g carbohydrates). Subjects undertook moderate-intensity exercise, not announced to the algorithm, on a stationary bicycle at a 140 bpm heart rate in the morning (40 min) and afternoon (20 min). Primary outcome was time when plasma glucose was in the target range (71-180 mg/dL). RESULTS: Closed-loop basal insulin delivery increased percentage time when glucose was in the target range (median 84% [interquartile range 78-88%] vs. 49% [26-79%], P = 0.02) and reduced mean plasma glucose levels (128 [19] vs. 165 [55] mg/dL, P = 0.02). Plasma glucose levels were in the target range 100% of the time on 17 of 24 nights during closed-loop insulin delivery. Hypoglycemia occurred on 10 occasions during control visits and 9 occasions during closed-loop delivery (5 episodes were exercise related, and 4 occurred within 2.5 h of prandial bolus). CONCLUSIONS: Day-and-night closed-loop basal insulin delivery can improve glucose control in adolescents. However, unannounced moderate-intensity exercise and excessive prandial boluses pose challenges to hypoglycemia-free closed-loop basal insulin delivery.

Evaluating the accuracy and large inaccuracy of two continuous glucose monitoring systems.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the accuracy and large inaccuracy of the Freestyle Navigator (FSN) (Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA) and Dexcom SEVEN PLUS (DSP) (Dexcom, Inc., San Diego, CA) continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems during closed-loop studies. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Paired CGM and plasma glucose values (7,182 data pairs) were collected, every 15-60 min, from 32 adults (36.2±9.3 years) and 20 adolescents (15.3±1.5 years) with type 1 diabetes who participated in closed-loop studies. Levels 1, 2, and 3 of large sensor error with increasing severity were defined according to absolute relative deviation greater than or equal to ±40%, ±50%, and ±60% at a reference glucose level of ≥6 mmol/L or absolute deviation greater than or equal to ±2.4 mmol/L,±3.0 mmol/L, and ±3.6 mmol/L at a reference glucose level of <6 mmol/L. RESULTS: Median absolute relative deviation was 9.9% for FSN and 12.6% for DSP. Proportions of data points in Zones A and B of Clarke error grid analysis were similar (96.4% for FSN vs. 97.8% for DSP). Large sensor over-reading, which increases risk of insulin over-delivery and hypoglycemia, occurred two- to threefold more frequently with DSP than FSN (once every 2.5, 4.6, and 10.7 days of FSN use vs. 1.2, 2.0, and 3.7 days of DSP use for Level 1-3 errors, respectively). At levels 2 and 3, large sensor errors lasting 1 h or longer were absent with FSN but persisted with DSP. CONCLUSIONS: FSN and DSP differ substantially in the frequency and duration of large inaccuracy despite only modest differences in conventional measures of numerical and clinical accuracy. Further evaluations are required to confirm that FSN is more suitable for integration into closed-loop delivery systems.