Alleviating carbohydrate counting with a FiASP-plus-pramlintide closed-loop delivery system (artificial pancreas): Feasibility and pilot studies.

AIM: To assess whether a FiASP-and-pramlintide closed-loop system has the potential to replace carbohydrate counting with a simple meal announcement (SMA) strategy (meal priming bolus without carbohydrate counting) without degrading glycaemic control compared with a FiASP closed-loop system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a 24-hour feasibility study comparing a FiASP system with full carbohydrate counting (FCC) with a FiASP-and-pramlintide system with SMA. We conducted a subsequent 12-day outpatient pilot study comparing a FiASP-and-placebo system with FCC, a FiASP-and-pramlintide system with SMA, and a FiASP-and-placebo system with SMA. Basal-bolus FiASP-and-pramlintide were delivered at a fixed ratio (1 U:10 µg). Glycaemic outcomes were measured, surveys evaluated gastrointestinal symptoms and diabetes distress, and participant interviews helped establish a preliminary coding framework to assess user experience. RESULTS: Seven participants were included in the feasibility analysis. Time spent in 3.9-10 mmol/L was similar between both interventions (81%-84%). Four participants were included in the pilot analysis. Time spent in 3.9-10 mmol/L was similar between the FiASP-and-placebo with FCC and FiASP-and-pramlintide with SMA interventions (70%), but was lower in the FiASP-and-placebo with SMA intervention (60%). Time less than 3.9 mmol/L and gastrointestinal symptoms were similar across all interventions. Emotional distress was moderate at baseline, after the FiASP-and-placebo with FCC and SMA interventions, and fell after the FiASP-and-pramlintide with SMA intervention. SMA reportedly afforded participants flexibility and reduced mealtime concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The FiASP-and-pramlintide system has the potential to substitute carbohydrate counting with SMA without degrading glucose control.

Reducing the need for carbohydrate counting in type 1 diabetes using closed-loop automated insulin delivery (artificial pancreas) and empagliflozin: A randomized, controlled, non-inferiority, crossover pilot trial.

AIM: To assess whether adding empagliflozin to closed-loop automated insulin delivery could reduce the need for carbohydrate counting in type 1 diabetes (T1D) without worsening glucose control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an open-label, crossover, non-inferiority trial, 30 adult participants with T1D underwent outpatient automated insulin delivery interventions with three random sequences of prandial insulin strategy days: carbohydrate counting, simple meal announcement (no carbohydrate counting) and no meal announcement. During each sequence of prandial insulin strategies, participants were randomly assigned empagliflozin (25 mg/day) or not, and crossed over to the comparator. Mean glucose for carbohydrate counting without empagliflozin (control) was compared with no meal announcement with empagliflozin (in the primary non-inferiority comparison) and simple meal announcement with empagliflozin (in the conditional primary non-inferiority comparison). RESULTS: Participants were aged 40 ± 15 years, had 27 ± 15 years diabetes duration and HbA1c of 7.6% ± 0.7% (59 ± 8 mmol/mol). The system with no meal announcement and empagliflozin was not non-inferior (and thus reasonably considered inferior) to the control arm (mean glucose 10.0 ± 1.6 vs. 8.5 ± 1.5 mmol/L; non-inferiority p = .94), while simple meal announcement and empagliflozin was non-inferior (8.5 ± 1.4 mmol/L; non-inferiority p = .003). Use of empagliflozin on the background of automated insulin delivery with carbohydrate counting was associated with lower mean glucose, corresponding to a 14% greater time in the target range. While no ketoacidosis was observed, mean fasting ketones levels were higher on empagliflozin (0.22 ± 0.18 vs. 0.13 ± 0.11 mmol/L; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin added to automated insulin delivery has the potential to eliminate the need for carbohydrate counting and improves glycaemic control in conjunction with carbohydrate counting, but does not allow for the elimination of meal announcement.

Fully Automated Artificial Pancreas for Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Using Multiple Hormones: Exploratory Experiments.

OBJECTIVES: A fully automated insulin-pramlintide-glucagon artificial pancreas that alleviates the burden of carbohydrate counting without degrading glycemic control was iteratively enhanced until convergence through pilot experiments on adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Nine participants (age, 37±13 years; glycated hemoglobin, 7.7±0.7%) completed two 27-hour interventions: a fully automated multihormone artificial pancreas and a comparator insulin-alone artificial pancreas with carbohydrate counting. The baseline algorithm was a model-predictive controller that administered insulin and pramlintide in a fixed ratio, with boluses triggered by a glucose threshold, and administered glucagon in response to low glucose levels. RESULTS: The baseline multihormone dosing algorithm resulted in noninferior time in target range (3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L) (71%) compared with the insulin-alone arm (70%) in 2 participants, with minimal glucagon delivery. The algorithm was modified to deliver insulin and pramlintide more aggressively to increase time in range and maximize the benefits of glucagon. The modified algorithm displayed a similar time in range for the multihormone arm (79%) compared with the insulin-alone arm (83%) in 2 participants, but with undesired glycemic fluctuations. Subsequently, we reduced the glucose threshold that triggers glucagon boluses. This resulted in inferior glycemic control for the multihormone arm (81% vs 91%) in 2 participants. Thereafter, a model-based meal-detection algorithm to deliver insulin and pramlintide boluses closer to mealtimes was added and glucagon was removed. The final dual-hormone system had comparable time in range (81% vs 83%) in the last 3 participants. CONCLUSION: The final version of the fully automated system that delivered insulin and pramlintide warrants a randomized controlled trial.

A fully artificial pancreas versus a hybrid artificial pancreas for type 1 diabetes: a single-centre, open-label, randomised controlled, crossover, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: For people with type 1 diabetes, there is currently no automated insulin delivery system that does not require meal input. We aimed to assess the efficacy of a novel faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) plus pramlintide fully closed-loop system that does not require meal input. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised controlled, crossover, non-inferiority trial we compared the Fiasp (Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark) plus pramlintide closed-loop system with no meal input (fully artificial pancreas) and the Fiasp-alone closed-loop system with precise carbohydrate counting (hybrid artificial pancreas). Adults (≥18 years) who had a clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes for at least 12 months, had glycated haemoglobin 12% or lower, and had been on insulin pump therapy for at least 6 months were enrolled at McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. The Fiasp plus pramlintide fully closed-loop system delivered pramlintide in a basal-bolus manner with a fixed ratio of 10 µg:U relative to insulin. A research staff member counted the carbohydrate content of meals to input in the hybrid closed-loop system. Participants completed the two full-day crossover interventions in a random order allocated by a computer-generated code implementing a blocked randomisation (block size of four). The primary outcome was the percentage of time spent within the glucose target range (3·9-10·0 mmol/L), with a 6% non-inferiority margin, assessed in all participants who completed both interventions. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03800875. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2019, and Sept 19, 2020, we enrolled 28 adults, of whom 24 completed both interventions and were included in analyses. The percentage of time spent in the target range was 74·3% (IQR 61·5-82·8) with the fully closed-loop system versus 78·1% (66·3-87·5) with the hybrid Fiasp-alone closed-loop system (paired difference 2·6%, 95% CI -2·4 to 12·2; non-inferiority p=0·28). Eight (33%) participants had at least one hypoglycaemia event (<3·3 mmol/L) with the fully closed-loop system compared with 14 (58%) participants with the hybrid closed-loop system (2200-2200 h). Non-mild nausea was reported by three (13%) participants and non-mild bloating by one (4%) participant with the fully closed-loop system compared with zero participants with the hybrid closed-loop system. INTERPRETATION: The Fiasp plus pramlintide fully closed-loop system was not non-inferior to the Fiasp-alone hybrid closed-loop system for the overall percentage of time in the glucose target range. However, participants still spent a high percentage of time within the target range with the fully-closed loop system. Outpatient studies comparing the fully closed-loop hybrid systems with patient-estimated, rather than precise, carbohydrate counting are warranted. FUNDING: Diabetes Canada.