An Automated Insulin Delivery System with Automatic Meal Bolus Based on a Hand-Gesturing Algorithm.

Background: Carbohydrate counting (CC) and meal announcements, before eating, introduce a significant burden for individuals managing type 1 diabetes (T1D). An automated insulin delivery system with automatic bolusing that eliminates the need for CC and premeal bolusing (i.e., a hands-free closed-loop [HFCL] system) was assessed in a feasibility trial of adults with T1D. Methods: The system included the MiniMed™ 780G pump and a smartphone-paired smartwatch with the Klue application (Klue, Inc.) that detects eating and drinking gestures. A smartphone algorithm converted gestures into carb amounts that were transmitted to the pump for automatic bolusing. For 5 days, participants (N = 17, 18-75 years of age) used the system at home with meal announcements based on traditional CC, with the Klue application disabled (Home-stay phase). Thereafter, participants moved to a supervised hotel setting, where the Klue application was enabled for 5 days and meals were not announced (Hotel-stay phase). Participants consumed the same eight test meals (six solid and two liquid) of varying caloric and carb size at the same time and day of the week for both phases, and glycemic metrics were compared. Otherwise, there were no other meal restrictions. Results: The overall time in range (70-180 mg/dL) was 83.4% ± 7.0% and 80.6% ± 6.7% for the Home-stay and Hotel-stay, respectively (P = 0.08). The average time at <70 mg/dL was 3.1% and 3.0% (P = 0.9144), respectively, and the average time at >180 mg/dL was 13.5% and 16.3% (P = 0.1046), respectively. Postprandial glycemia following low-carb test meals was similar between the two phases. The system's ability to accommodate high-carb meals was somewhat limited. There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis. Conclusion: Preliminary findings show that a HFCL system was safe and maintained overall glycemic control, similar to that observed with traditional CC and manual meal bolusing. By eliminating these daily T1D burdens, a HFCL system may improve quality of life for individuals with T1D. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04964128.

Improved Satisfaction While Maintaining Safety and High Time in Range (TIR) With a Medtronic Investigational Enhanced Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (e-AHCL) System.

OBJECTIVE: To determine feasibility and compare acceptance of an investigational Medtronic enhanced advanced hybrid closed-loop (e-AHCL) system in adults with type 1 diabetes with earlier iterations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This nonrandomized three-stage (12 weeks each) exploratory study compared e-AHCL (Bluetooth-enabled MiniMed 780G insulin pump with automatic data upload [780G] incorporating an updated algorithm; calibration-free all-in-one disposable sensor; 7-day infusion set) preceded by a run-in (non-Bluetooth 780G [670G V4.0 insulin pump] requiring manual data upload; Guardian Sensor 3 [GS3] requiring calibration; 3-day infusion set), stage 1 (780G; GS3; 3-day infusion set), and stage 2 (780G; calibration-free Guardian Sensor 4; 3-day infusion set). Treatment satisfaction was assessed by Diabetes Technology Questionnaire (DTQ)-current (primary outcome) and other validated treatment satisfaction tools with glucose outcomes by continuous glucose monitoring metrics. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 22 (11 women) participants (baseline HbA1c 6.7%/50 mmol/mol) completed the study. DTQ-current scores favored e-AHCL (123.1 [17.8]) versus run-in (101.6 [24.2]) and versus stage 1 (110.6 [20.8]) (both P < 0.001) but did not differ from stage 2 (119.4 [16.0]; P = 0.271). Diabetes Medication System Rating Questionnaire short-form scores for "Convenience and Efficacy" favored e-AHCL over run-in and all stages. Percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL was greater with e-AHCL versus run-in and stage 2 (+2.9% and +3.6%, respectively; both P < 0.001). Percent times of <70 mg/dL for e-AHCL were significantly lower than run-in, stage 1, and stage 2 (-0.9%, -0.6%, and -0.5%, respectively; all P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: e-AHCL was feasible. User satisfaction increased compared with earlier Medtronic HCL iterations without compromising glucose control.

A Peek Under the Hood: Explaining the MiniMed™ 780G Algorithm with Meal Detection Technology.

The MiniMed™ 780G system (780G) received Conformité Européenne mark in June 2020 and was, recently, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (April 2023). Clinical trials and real-world analyses have demonstrated MiniMed™ 780G system safety and effectiveness and that glycemic outcomes (i.e., time in range) improve with recommended settings use. In this publication, we will explain the iterative development of the 780G algorithm and how this technology has simplified diabetes management.

Safety and Glycemic Outcomes During the MiniMedTM Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Pivotal Trial in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes.

Background: During MiniMed™ advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) use by adolescents and adults in the pivotal trial, glycated hemoglobin (A1C) was significantly reduced, time spent in range (TIR) was significantly increased, and there were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). The present study investigated the same primary safety and effectiveness endpoints during AHCL use by a younger cohort with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: An intention-to-treat population (N = 160, aged 7-17 years) with T1D was enrolled in a single-arm study at 13 investigational centers. There was a run-in period (∼25 days) using HCL or sensor-augmented pump with/without predictive low-glucose management, followed by a 3-month study period with AHCL activated at two glucose targets (GTs; 100 and 120 mg/dL) for ∼45 days each. The mean ± standard deviation values of A1C, TIR, mean sensor glucose (SG), coefficient of variation (CV) of SG, time at SG ranges, and insulin delivered between run-in and study were analyzed (Wilcoxon signed-rank test or t-test). Results: Compared with baseline, AHCL use was associated with reduced A1C from 7.9 ± 0.9% (N = 160) to 7.4 ± 0.7% (N = 136) (P < 0.001) and overall TIR increased from the run-in 59.4 ± 11.8% to 70.3 ± 6.5% by end of study (P < 0.001), without change in CV, time spent below range (TBR) <70 mg/dL, or TBR <54 mg/dL. Relative to longer active insulin time (AIT) settings (N = 52), an AIT of 2 h (N = 19) with the 100 mg/dL GT increased mean TIR to 73.4%, reduced TBR <70 mg/dL from 3.5% to 2.2%, and reduced time spent above range (TAR) >180 mg/dL from 28.7% to 24.4%. During AHCL use, there was no severe hypoglycemia or DKA. Conclusions: In children and adolescents with T1D, MiniMed AHCL system use was safe, A1C was lower, and TIR was increased. The lowest GT and shortest AIT were associated with the highest TIR and lowest TBR and TAR, all of which met consensus-recommended glycemic targets. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03959423.

Unannounced Meal Challenges Using an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System.

Background: The advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm combines automated basal rates and corrections yet requires meal announcement for optimal outcomes. We aimed to compare the performance of the MiniMed™ 780G AHCL algorithm with and without meal announcement. Methods: In a single-arm study involving 14 adults with type 1 diabetes, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of AHCL when meals were not announced. Participants stayed at a supervised environment for 5 days, during which the outcomes of not announcing meals (≤80 g of carbohydrate) were assessed. Next, participants entered a 90-day at-home "unannounced" phase, during which all meals (≤80 g of carbohydrate) were unannounced, followed by a 90-day at-home phase in which all meals were announced. Results: Time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was lower in the unannounced versus announced periods (67.5% ± 12.5% vs. 77.7% ± 9.5%; P < 0.01, respectively), with more time spent in hyperglycemia range 180-250 mg/dL (22.7% ± 7.7% vs. 15.7% ± 7.2%) and >250 mg/dL (7.9% ± 6.4% vs. 3.6% ± 2.7%), but less time in hypoglycemia range 54-70 mg/dL (1.6% ± 1% vs. 2.8% ± 1.8%) and <54 mg/dL (0.3% ± 0.4% vs. 0.7% ± 0.9%). Not announcing meals containing up to 60 g of carbohydrate did not lead to increase in postprandial extreme dysglycemia >250 mg/dL, and up to 20 g of unannounced carbohydrates did not significantly change the TIR 70-180 mg/dL compared with full announcement. Conclusion: The AHCL system is optimized for use with meal announcement. While not announcing meals of ≤80 g carbohydrates appears to be safe, it results in suboptimal postprandial glycemic control, especially with high-carbohydrate meals. Not announcing small meals (≤20 g carbohydrate) does not deteriorate glycemic control. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04479826.

In Silico Evaluation of the Medtronic 780G System While Using the GS3 and Its Calibration-Free Successor, the G4S Sensor.

In silico simulation studies using 5807 virtual patients with insulin dependent diabetes have been conducted to estimate the risk and efficacy with the closed-loop 780G pump when switching between Medtronic Guardian Sensor 3 (GS3) and Medtronic Guardian 4 Sensor (G4S), next generation calibration free glucose sensor. To demonstrate by utilizing a case study that captures the merits of in silico studies with single hormone insulin dependent virtual patients that include variability in pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, age, gender, insulin sensitivity and BMIs. Also, to show that in silico studies can uniquely isolate the effect of a single variable on clinical outcomes. Simulation studies results were compared to clinical and commercial data and were separated by age groups and pump settings. The commercial data, the clinical study data and the simulation studies predicted that switching between GS3 to G4S will introduce a change in glucose average, percentage time between 70 and 180 mg/dL, and percentage time below 70 mg/dL of: 5.2, 3.4, and 3.1 mg/dL, - 1.1, 0.2, and - 1.1%, and - 0.6, - 1.0, and - 0.3%, respectively. We demonstrated that our simulation studies were able to predict the difference in glycemic outcomes when switching between different sensors in real world setting, better than a small clinical controlled study. As predicted, switching between GS3 and G4S sensors with the 780G system does not introduce clinical risk and maintain the clinical outcomes of the sensor. We demonstrated the ability of insulin dependent diabetes virtual patients to predict clinical outcomes and to augment or even replace some small clinical studies.

Late Afternoon Vigorous Exercise Increases Postmeal but Not Overnight Hypoglycemia in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Managed with Automated Insulin Delivery.

Aim: To compare evening and overnight hypoglycemia risk after late afternoon exercise with a nonexercise control day in adults with type 1 diabetes using automated insulin delivery (AID). Methods: Thirty adults with type 1 diabetes using AID (Minimed 670G) performed in random order 40 min high intensity interval aerobic exercise (HIE), resistance (RE), and moderate intensity aerobic exercise (MIE) exercise each separated by >1 week. The closed-loop set-point was temporarily increased 2 h pre-exercise and a snack eaten if plasma glucose was ≤126 mg/dL pre-exercise. Exercise commenced at ∼16:00. A standardized meal was eaten at ∼20:40. Hypoglycemic events were defined as a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) reading <70 mg/dL for ≥15 min. Four-hour postevening meal and overnight (00:00-06:00) CGM metrics for exercise were compared with the prior nonexercise day. Results: There was no severe hypoglycemia. Between 00:00 and 06:00, the proportion of nights with hypoglycemia did not differ postexercise versus control for HIE (18% vs. 11%; P = 0.688), RE (4% vs. 14%; P = 0.375), and MIE (7% vs. 14%; P = 0.625). Time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL), >75% for all nights, did not differ between exercise conditions and control. Hypoglycemia episodes postmeal after exercise versus control did not differ for HIE (22% vs. 7%; P = 0.219) and MIE (10% vs. 14%; P > 0.999), but were greater post-RE (39% vs. 10%; P = 0.012). Conclusions: Overnight TIR was excellent with AID without increased hypoglycemia postexercise between 00:00 and 06:00 compared with nonexercise days. In contrast, hypoglycemia risk was increased after the first meal post-RE, suggesting the importance of greater vigilance and specific guidelines for meal-time dosing, particularly with vigorous RE. ACTRN12618000905268.

Safety and Glycemic Outcomes During the MiniMed™ Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Pivotal Trial in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Introduction: This trial assessed safety and effectiveness of an advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system with automated basal (Auto Basal) and automated bolus correction (Auto Correction) in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Materials and Methods: This multicenter single-arm study involved an intent-to-treat population of 157 individuals (39 adolescents aged 14-21 years and 118 adults aged ≥22-75 years) with T1D. Study participants used the MiniMed™ AHCL system during a baseline run-in period in which sensor-augmented pump +/- predictive low glucose management or Auto Basal was enabled for ∼14 days. Thereafter, Auto Basal and Auto Correction were enabled for a study phase (∼90 days), with glucose target set to 100 or 120 mg/dL for ∼45 days, followed by the other target for ∼45 days. Study endpoints included safety events and change in mean A1C, time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) and time below range (TBR, <70 mg/dL). Run-in and study phase values were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test or paired t-test. Results: Overall group time spent in closed loop averaged 94.9% ± 5.4% and involved only 1.2 ± 0.8 exits per week. Compared with run-in, AHCL reduced A1C from 7.5% ± 0.8% to 7.0% ± 0.5% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, n = 155), TIR increased from 68.8% ± 10.5% to 74.5% ± 6.9% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test), and TBR reduced from 3.3% ± 2.9% to 2.3% ± 1.7% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Similar benefits to glycemia were observed for each age group and were more pronounced for the nighttime (12 AM-6 AM). The 100 mg/dL target increased TIR to 75.4% (n = 155), which was further optimized at a lower active insulin time (AIT) setting (i.e., 2 h), without increasing TBR. There were no severe hypoglycemic or diabetic ketoacidosis events during the study phase. Conclusions: These findings show that the MiniMed AHCL system is safe and allows for achievement of recommended glycemic targets in adolescents and adults with T1D. Adjustments in target and AIT settings may further optimize glycemia and improve user experience. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03959423.

Improved technology satisfaction and sleep quality with Medtronic MiniMed® Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop delivery compared to predictive low glucose suspend in people with Type 1 Diabetes in a randomized crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Automated insulin delivery aims to lower treatment burden and improve quality of life as well as glycemic outcomes. METHODS: We present sub-study data from a dual-center, randomized, open-label, two-sequence crossover study in automated insulin delivery naïve users, comparing Medtronic MiniMed® Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) to Sensor Augmented Pump therapy with Predictive Low Glucose Management (SAP + PLGM). At the end of each 4-week intervention, impacts on quality of life, sleep and treatment satisfaction were compared using seven age-appropriate validated questionnaires given to patients or caregivers. RESULTS: 59/60 people completed the study (mean age 23.3 ± 14.4yrs). Statistically significant differences favoring AHCL were demonstrated in several scales (data shown as mean ± SE). In adults (≥ 18yrs), technology satisfaction favored AHCL over PLGM as shown by a higher score in the DTSQs during AHCL (n = 28) vs SAP + PLGM (n = 29) (30.9 ± 0.7 vs 27.9 ± 0.7, p = 0.004) and DTSQc AHCL (n = 29) vs SAP + PLGM (n = 30) (11.7 ± 0.9 vs 9.2 ± 0.8, p = 0.032). Adolescents (aged 13-17yrs) also showed a higher DTSQc score during AHCL (n = 16) versus SAP + PLGM (n = 15) (14.8 ± 0.7 vs 12.1 ± 0.8, p = 0.024). The DTQ "change" score (n = 59) favored AHCL over SAP + PLGM (3.5 ± 0.0 vs 3.3 ± 0.0, p < 0.001). PSQI was completed in those > 16 years (n = 36) and demonstrated improved sleep quality during AHCL vs SAP + PLGM (4.8 ± 0.3 vs 5.7 ± 0.3, p = 0.048) with a total score > 5 indicating poor quality sleep. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that AHCL compared to SAP + PLGM mode has the potential to increase treatment satisfaction and improve subjective sleep quality in adolescents and adults with T1D.

Comparable Glucose Control with Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart Versus Insulin Aspart Using a Second-Generation Hybrid Closed-Loop System During Exercise.

Background: This study compared glucose control with fast-acting insulin aspart (FiAsp) versus insulin aspart following moderate-intensity exercise (MIE) and high-intensity exercise (HIE) using a second-generation closed-loop (CL) system in people with type 1 diabetes. Materials and Methods: This randomized crossover study compared FiAsp versus insulin aspart over four sessions during MIE and HIE with CL insulin delivery by the MiniMed™ Advanced hybrid CL system. Participants were randomly assigned FiAsp and insulin aspart each for 6 weeks and within each period performed, in random order, 40 min MIE (∼50% VO2max) and HIE (6 × 2 min ∼80% VO2max; 5 min recovery). The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) time in range (TIR, 3.9-10.0 mM) for 24 h following exercise. Results: Sixteen adults (9 male; age 48 [37, 57] years; hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 7.0 [6.4, 7.2] %; duration diabetes 30 [17, 41] years) were recruited. In the 24 h postexercise, median TIR was >81%, time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mM) was <4%, and time in hyperglycemia (>10 mM) was <17% for both exercise conditions and insulin formations, with no significant differences between insulins (P > 0.05). In the 2 h postexercise and overnight, the TIR approached 100% for all conditions. Conclusions: There were no differences in TIR during and 24 h after MIE or HIE when comparing insulin aspart with FiAsp delivered by a second-generation CL system. Insulin formulations with an offset in action greater than FiAsp are needed to provide a meaningful improvement in CL glucose control with exercise. Clinical Trial Registration number: ACTRN12619000469112.

Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart Versus Insulin Aspart Using a Second-Generation Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized, Open-Label, Crossover Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate glucose control using fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) compared with insulin aspart (IAsp) delivered by the MiniMed Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) system in adults with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, crossover study, participants were assigned to receive faster aspart or IAsp in random order. Stages 1 and 2 comprised of 6 weeks in closed loop, preceded by 2 weeks in open loop. This was followed by stage 3, whereby participants changed directly back to the insulin formulation used in stage 1 for 1 week in closed loop. Participants chose their own meals except for two standardized meal tests, a missed meal bolus and late meal bolus. The primary outcome was the percentage of time sensor glucose values were from 70 to 180 mg/dL (time in range; [TIR]). RESULTS: Twenty-five adults (52% male) were recruited; the median (interquartile range) age was 48 (37, 57) years, and the median HbA1c was 7.0% (6.6, 7.2) (53 [49, 55] mmol/mol). Faster aspart demonstrated greater overall TIR compared with IAsp (82.3% [78.5, 83.7] vs. 79.6% [77.0, 83.4], respectively; mean difference 1.9% [0.5, 3.3]; P = 0.007). Four-hour postprandial glucose TIR was higher using faster aspart compared with IAsp for all meals combined (73.6% [69.4, 80.2] vs. 72.1% [64.5, 78.5], respectively; median difference 3.5% [1.0, 7.3]; P = 0.003). There was no ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: Faster aspart safely improved glucose control compared with IAsp in a group of adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes using AHCL. The modest improvement was mainly related to mealtime glycemia. While the primary outcome demonstrated statistical significance, the clinical impact may be small, given an overall difference in TIR of 1.9%.

Fast-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp®) improves glycemic outcomes when used with MiniMedTM 670G hybrid closed-loop system in simulated trials compared to NovoLog®.

INTRODUCTION: Medtronic has developed a virtual patient simulator for modeling and predicting insulin therapy outcomes for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). An enhanced simulator was created to estimate outcomes when using the MiniMedTM 670G system with standard NovoLog® (EU: NovoRapid, US: NovoLog) versus Fiasp ® by using clinical data. METHODS: Sixty-seven participants' PK profiles were generated per type of insulin (Total of 134 PK profiles). 7,485 virtual patients' PK measurements was matched with one of the 67 NovoLog® PK Tmax values. These 7,485 virtual patients were then simulated using the Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G algorithm following an in-silico protocol of 90 days: 14 days in open loop (Manual Mode) followed by 76 days in closed loop (Auto Mode). Simulation study was repeated with each NovoLog® PK profile being replaced by its corresponding Fiasp® PK profile in the same virtual patient. To validate our in-silico analysis, we compared the results of "actual" 19 "real life" patients from a clinical study RESULTS: Simulated overall and postprandial glycemic outcomes improved in all age groups with Fiasp®. The percentage of time in the euglycemic range increased by about ~2.2% with Fiasp®, in all age groups (p < 0.01). The percentage of time spent at <70 mg/dL was reduced by about ~0.6% with insulin Fiasp® (p < 0.01) and the mean glucose was reduced by about 1.3 mg/dL (p < 0.01), excluding those age <7 years. The simulated mean postprandial SG was reduced by ~5 mg/dL, a significant difference for all age groups. A clinical study results showed similar improvements with MiniMedTM 670G system when switching from NovoLog® to Fiasp®. CONCLUSIONS: The simulation studies indicate that using Fiasp® in place of NovoLog® with the MiniMedTM 670G system will significantly improve the time spent in the healthy, euglycemic range and reduce exposure to hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia in most patients.

Improved Glycemic Outcomes With Medtronic MiniMed Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Delivery: Results From a Randomized Crossover Trial Comparing Automated Insulin Delivery With Predictive Low Glucose Suspend in People With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To study the MiniMed Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) system, which includes an algorithm with individualized basal target set points, automated correction bolus function, and improved Auto Mode stability. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This dual-center, randomized, open-label, two-sequence crossover study in automated-insulin-delivery-naive participants with type 1 diabetes (aged 7-80 years) compared AHCL to sensor-augmented pump therapy with predictive low glucose management (SAP + PLGM). Each study phase was 4 weeks, preceded by a 2- to 4-week run-in and separated by a 2-week washout. RESULTS: The study was completed by 59 of 60 people (mean age 23.3 ± 14.4 years). Time in target range (TIR) 3.9-10 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL) favored AHCL over SAP + PLGM (70.4 ± 8.1% vs. 57.9 ± 11.7%) by 12.5 ± 8.5% (P < 0.001), with greater improvement overnight (18.8 ± 12.9%, P < 0.001). All age-groups (children [7-13 years], adolescents [14-21 years], and adults [>22 years]) demonstrated improvement, with adolescents showing the largest improvement (14.4 ± 8.4%). Mean sensor glucose (SG) at run-in was 9.3 ± 0.9 mmol/L (167 ± 16.2 mg/dL) and improved with AHCL (8.5 ± 0.7 mmol/L [153 ± 12.6 mg/dL], P < 0.001), but deteriorated during PLGM (9.5 ± 1.1 mmol/L [17 ± 19.8 mg/dL], P < 0.001). TIR was optimal when the algorithm set point was 5.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) compared with 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL), 72.0 ± 7.9% vs. 64.6 ± 6.9%, respectively, with no additional hypoglycemia. Auto Mode was active 96.4 ± 4.0% of the time. The percentage of hypoglycemia at baseline (<3.9 mmol/L [70 mg/dL] and ≤3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) was 3.1 ± 2.1% and 0.5 ± 0.6%, respectively. During AHCL, the percentage time at <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) improved to 2.1 ± 1.4% (P = 0.034) and was statistically but not clinically reduced for ≤3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) (0.5 ± 0.5%; P = 0.025). There was one episode of mild diabetic ketoacidosis attributed to an infusion set failure in combination with an intercurrent illness, which occurred during the SAP + PLGM arm. CONCLUSIONS: AHCL with automated correction bolus demonstrated significant improvement in glucose control compared with SAP + PLGM. A lower algorithm SG set point during AHCL resulted in greater TIR, with no increase in hypoglycemia.

Feasibility Study of a Hybrid Closed-Loop System with Automated Insulin Correction Boluses.

Background: The Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G system adjusts basal insulin delivery in response to continuous glucose monitoring levels and is already in use in clinical practice. We tested the home-based feasibility of the new MiniMed advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system, which includes several algorithm enhancements and an optional autocorrection bolus mode. Methods: Twelve adolescents and young adults (eight females) with type 1 diabetes [median (interquartile range)] aged 16.6 (15.9, 18.2) years and diabetes duration of 7.1 (4.7, 8.8) years] participated in this single-arm study. The first stage was a 6-day open-loop run-in period, with the predictive low-glucose suspend feature on. This was followed by 6 days/5 nights in a supervised hotel setting, using the AHCL system, including closed-loop challenges (missed meal bolus, late meal bolus, and physical activity); and finally, 3 weeks with unrestricted home use. Glycemic parameters were compared between the open-loop and closed-loop periods. Results: Participants spent 93.3% (4.7) of the time in SmartGuard™ Auto Mode. Hemoglobin A1C levels decreased from median (interquartile range) 7.1% (6.7, 7.9) at baseline to 6.8% (6.6, 7.4) at study end, after 4 weeks (P = 0.0027). Time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) was 68.4% (10.6) and time below 70 mg/dL was 4% (3.5) during open-loop; and 74% (6.1) and 2.6% (1.9), respectively, during the closed-loop at home phase (P = 0.06, P = 0.27). TIR increased during the nighttime, from 64.6% (17.4) to 80.7% (7.8), P = 0.007, without change in time below 70 mg/dL (P = 0.15). No serious adverse events occurred. Conclusions: The new AHCL system demonstrated safety and effectiveness in controlling day and night glucose levels.

Sensor-Augmented Pump-Based Customized Mathematical Model for Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Simulations using mathematical models are important for studying, developing, and improving therapies for people with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: The Medtronic CareLink® database was used to create virtual patients with a variety of inter-insulin sensitivities, meal absorption rates, pharmacokinetics, age, and gender. In addition, intra-insulin sensitivities of the virtual patients change over a 24-h cycle. RESULTS: A total of 2087 virtual patients were developed. The time percentage between 70 and 180 mg/dL of the CareLink uploads and the simulated virtual patients was 72.4% (18.6) and 74.1% (16.9), respectively. The time percentage <70 mg/dL of the real continuous glucose monitoring from CareLink uploads and the simulated virtual patients was 1% (2.4) and 1.7% (4.1), respectively. A simulation study with the virtual patients predicted the glycemic distribution after 2 h of insulin suspension as reported in the ASPIRE (Automation to Simulate Pancreatic Insulin Response) clinical trial. The 3 months outcomes of Medtronic's hybrid closed-loop 670G system pivotal trial were also predicted in a simulation study. The time percentage <70 mg/dL was 3.4% and 3.1%, and the time percentage between 71 and 180 mg/dL was 73.8% and 77.7% for 93 pivotal study adults (>18 years) and 90 adult (>28 years) virtual patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Medtronic CareLink database was utilized to generate a large number of virtual patients with a variety of insulin sensitivities, pharmacokinetics, and meal absorption rates. This new simulation model can be potentially used to evaluate and prognosticate the outcomes of studies of artificial pancreas algorithms and systems.

Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Undertaking High-Intensity Interval Exercise Versus Moderate-Intensity Exercise: A Randomized, Crossover Study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare closed-loop glucose control for people with type 1 diabetes undertaking high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE) versus moderate-intensity exercise (MIE). METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes established on insulin pumps undertook HIIE and MIE stages in random order during automated insulin delivery via a closed-loop system (Medtronic). Frequent venous sampling for glucose, lactate, ketones, insulin, catecholamines, cortisol, growth hormone, and glucagon levels was performed. The primary outcome was plasma glucose <4.0 mmol/L for ≥15 min, from exercise commencement to 120 min postexercise. Secondary outcomes included continuous glucose monitoring and biochemical parameters. RESULTS: Twelve adults (age mean ± standard deviation 40 ± 13 years) were recruited; all completed the study. Plasma glucose of one participant fell to 3.4 mmol/L following MIE completion; no glucose levels were <4.0 mmol/L for HIIE (primary outcome). There were no glucose excursions >15.0 mmol/L for either stage. Mean (±standard error) plasma glucose did not differ between stages pre-exercise; was higher during exercise in HIIE than MIE (11.3 ± 0.5 mmol/L vs. 9.7 ± 0.6 mmol/L, respectively; P < 0.001); and remained higher until 60 min postexercise. There were no differences in circulating free insulin before, during, or postexercise. During HIIE compared with MIE, there were greater increases in lactate (P < 0.001), catecholamines (all P < 0.05), and cortisol (P < 0.001). Ketones increased more with HIIE than MIE postexercise (P = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings suggest that closed-loop glucose control is safe for people undertaking HIIE and MIE. However, the management of the postexercise rise in ketones secondary to counter-regulatory hormone-induced insulin resistance observed with HIIE may represent a challenge for closed-loop systems.

"It Is Definitely a Game Changer": A Qualitative Study of Experiences with In-home Overnight Closed-Loop Technology Among Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: This qualitative study explored trial participants' experiences of four nights of in-home closed loop. METHODS: Sixteen adults with type 1 diabetes, who completed a randomized crossover trial, were interviewed after four consecutive nights of closed-loop. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with a coding framework developed to identify the main themes. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 42 ± 10 years, nine were women; mean diabetes duration was 27 ± 7 years, and all were using insulin pumps. Overall, first impressions were positive. Participants found closed-loop easy to use and understand. Most experienced more stable overnight glucose levels, although for some these were similar to usual care or higher than they expected. Compared with their usual treatment, they noticed the proactive nature of the closed-loop, being able to predict trends and deliver micro amounts of insulin. Most reported technical glitches or inconveniences during one or more nights, such as transmission problems, problematic connectivity between devices, ongoing alarms despite addressing low glucose levels, and sensor inaccuracy. Remote monitoring by the trial team and their own hypoglycemic awareness contributed to feelings of trust and safety. Although rare, safety concerns were raised, related to feeling unsure whether the system would respond in time to falling glucose levels. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides relevant insights for implementation of closed-loop in the real world. For people with diabetes who are less familiar with technology, remote monitoring for the first few days may provide reassurance, strengthen their trust/skills, and make closed-loop an acceptable option for more people with type 1 diabetes.

Glucose Outcomes with the In-Home Use of a Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery System in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of the in-home use of a hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system that automatically increases, decreases, and suspends insulin delivery in response to continuous glucose monitoring were investigated. METHODS: Adolescents (n = 30, ages 14-21 years) and adults (n = 94, ages 22-75 years) with type 1 diabetes participated in a multicenter (nine sites in the United States, one site in Israel) pivotal trial. The Medtronic MiniMed® 670G system was used during a 2-week run-in phase without HCL control, or Auto Mode, enabled (Manual Mode) and, thereafter, with Auto Mode enabled during a 3-month study phase. A supervised hotel stay (6 days/5 nights) that included a 24-h frequent blood sample testing with a reference measurement (i-STAT) occurred during the study phase. RESULTS: Adolescents (mean ± standard deviation [SD] 16.5 ± 2.29 years of age and 7.7 ± 4.15 years of diabetes) used the system for a median 75.8% (interquartile range [IQR] 68.0%-88.4%) of the time (2977 patient-days). Adults (mean ± SD 44.6 ± 12.79 years of age and 26.4 ± 12.43 years of diabetes) used the system for a median 88.0% (IQR 77.6%-92.7%) of the time (9412 patient-days). From baseline run-in to the end of study phase, adolescent and adult HbA1c levels decreased from 7.7% ± 0.8% to 7.1% ± 0.6% (P < 0.001) and from 7.3% ± 0.9% to 6.8% ± 0.6% (P < 0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test), respectively. The proportion of overall in-target (71-180 mg/dL) sensor glucose (SG) values increased from 60.4% ± 10.9% to 67.2% ± 8.2% (P < 0.001) in adolescents and from 68.8% ± 11.9% to 73.8% ± 8.4% (P < 0.001) in adults. During the hotel stay, the proportion of in-target i-STAT® blood glucose values was 67.4% ± 27.7% compared to SG values of 72.0% ± 11.6% for adolescents and 74.2% ± 17.5% compared to 76.9% ± 8.3% for adults. There were no severe hypoglycemic or diabetic ketoacidosis events in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: HCL therapy was safe during in-home use by adolescents and adults and the study phase demonstrated increased time in target, and reductions in HbA1c, hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, compared to baseline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02463097.

Exploration of the Performance of a Hybrid Closed Loop Insulin Delivery Algorithm That Includes Insulin Delivery Limits Designed to Protect Against Hypoglycemia.

BACKGROUND: Hypoglycemia remains a risk for closed loop insulin delivery particularly following exercise or if the glucose sensor is inaccurate. The aim of this study was to test whether an algorithm that includes a limit to insulin delivery is effective at protecting against hypoglycemia under those circumstances. METHODS: An observational study on 8 participants with type 1 diabetes was conducted, where a hybrid closed loop system (HCL) (Medtronic™ 670G) was challenged with hypoglycemic stimuli: exercise and an overreading glucose sensor. RESULTS: There was no overnight or exercise-induced hypoglycemia during HCL insulin delivery. All daytime hypoglycemia was attributable to postmeal bolused insulin in those participants with a more aggressive carbohydrate factor. CONCLUSION: HCL systems rely on accurate carbohydrate ratios and carbohydrate counting to avoid hypoglycemia. The algorithm that was tested against moderate exercise and an overreading glucose sensor performed well in terms of hypoglycemia avoidance. Algorithm refinement continues in preparation for long-term outpatient trials.