Evaluation of an Automated Priming Bolus for Improving Prandial Glucose Control in Full Closed Loop Delivery.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) is widely available to people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), providing superior glycemic control versus traditional methods. The next generation of AID devices focus on minimizing user/device interactions, especially around meals ("full closed loop," [FCL]). Our goal was to assess the postprandial glycemic impact of the bolus priming system (BPS), an algorithm delivering fixed insulin doses based on the likelihood of a meal having occurred, in conjunction with UVA's latest AID. Method: Eleven adults with T1D participated in a supervised randomized-crossover trial assessing glycemic control during two 24-h sessions with identical meals and activity-with and without BPS. On the day in-between study sessions, participants underwent food and activity challenges to test BPS safety and robustness. Continuous glucose monitor (CGM) outcomes and total insulin doses were assessed overall and following meals with potential for BPS to dose additional insulin (CGM >90 mg/dL for 1 h prior). Results: Daytime CGM outcomes were similar with and without BPS: time-in-range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL 70.6% [62.2-76.5] versus 65.7% [58.6%-80.6%]; time-below-range <70 mg/dL 0% [0-2.1] versus 0% [0-1.3]; respectively. Insulin delivery during 3 h postprandial was indistinguishable 33.5 U [26.4-47.0] versus 35.7 U [28.7-44.9]. Among 43 out of 66 meals with potential to trigger BPS (24/19 BPS/no-BPS), postprandial incremental area-under-the-curve (iAUC) was lower for BPS versus no-BPS (2530 ± 1934 versus 3228 ± 2029, P = 0.047), but CGM outcomes were inconclusive: 4-h-TIR 51.2% [19.8-83.3] versus 40.2% [20.8-56.3] (P = 0.24). There were no severe adverse events. Conclusion: While there was no difference in TIR, when BPS was active an improved postprandial AUC in FCL was obtained via earlier insulin injection.

Neural-Net Artificial Pancreas: A Randomized Crossover Trial of a First-in-Class Automated Insulin Delivery Algorithm.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) is now integral to the clinical practice of type 1 diabetes (T1D). The objective of this pilot-feasibility study was to introduce a new regulatory and clinical paradigm-a Neural-Net Artificial Pancreas (NAP)-an encoding of an AID algorithm into a neural network that approximates its action and assess NAP versus the original AID algorithm. Methods: The University of Virginia Model-Predictive Control (UMPC) algorithm was encoded into a neural network, creating its NAP approximation. Seventeen AID users with T1D were recruited and 15 participated in two consecutive 20-h hotel sessions, receiving in random order either NAP or UMPC. Their demographic characteristics were ages 22-68 years old, duration of diabetes 7-58 years, gender 10/5 female/male, White Non-Hispanic/Black 13/2, and baseline glycated hemoglobin 5.4%-8.1%. Results: The time-in-range (TIR) difference between NAP and UMPC, adjusted for entry glucose level, was 1 percentage point, with absolute TIR values of 86% (NAP) and 87% (UMPC). The two algorithms achieved similar times <70 mg/dL of 2.0% versus 1.8% and coefficients of variation of 29.3% (NAP) versus 29.1 (UMPC)%. Under identical inputs, the average absolute insulin-recommendation difference was 0.031 U/h. There were no serious adverse events on either controller. NAP had sixfold lower computational demands than UMPC. Conclusion: In a randomized crossover study, a neural-network encoding of a complex model-predictive control algorithm demonstrated similar performance, at a fraction of the computational demands. Regulatory and clinical doors are therefore open for contemporary machine-learning methods to enter the AID field. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT05876273.

Assessment of Meal Anticipation for Improving Fully Automated Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Meals are a consistent challenge to glycemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Our objective was to assess the glycemic impact of meal anticipation within a fully automated insulin delivery (AID) system among adults with T1D. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We report the results of a randomized crossover clinical trial comparing three modalities of AID systems: hybrid closed loop (HCL), full closed loop (FCL), and full closed loop with meal anticipation (FCL+). Modalities were tested during three supervised 24-h admissions, where breakfast, lunch, and dinner were consumed per participant's home schedule, at a fixed time, and with a 1.5-h delay, respectively. Primary outcome was the percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) during the breakfast postprandial period for FCL+ versus FCL. RESULTS: Thirty-five adults with T1D (age 44.5 ± 15.4 years; HbA1c 6.7 ± 0.9%; n = 23 women and n = 12 men) were randomly assigned. TIR for the 5-h period after breakfast was 75 ± 23%, 58 ± 21%, and 63 ± 19% for HCL, FCL, and FCL+, respectively, with no significant difference between FCL+ and FCL. For the 2 h before dinner, time below range (TBR) was similar for FCL and FCL+. For the 5-h period after dinner, TIR was similar for FCL+ and FCL (71 ± 34% vs. 72 ± 29%; P = 1.0), whereas TBR was reduced in FCL+ (median 0% [0-0%] vs. 0% [0-0.8%]; P = 0.03). Overall, 24-h control for HCL, FCL, and FCL+ was 86 ± 10%, 77 ± 11%, and 77 ± 12%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although postprandial control remained optimal with hybrid AID, both fully AID solutions offered overall TIR >70% with similar or lower exposure to hypoglycemia. Anticipation did not significantly improve postprandial control in AID systems but also did not increase hypoglycemic risk when meals were delayed.

Safety and Feasibility Evaluation of Step Count Informed Meal Boluses in Type 1 Diabetes: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity can cause glucose fluctuations both during and after it is performed, leading to hurdles in optimal insulin dosing in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). We conducted a pilot clinical trial assessing the safety and feasibility of a physical activity-informed mealtime insulin bolus advisor that adjusts the meal bolus according to previous physical activity, based on step count data collected through an off-the-shelf physical activity tracker. METHODS: Fifteen adults with T1D, each using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and an insulin pump with carbohydrate counting, completed two randomized crossover daily visits. Participants performed a 30 to 45-minute brisk walk before lunch and lunchtime insulin boluses were calculated based on either their standard therapy (ST) or the physical activity-informed bolus method. Post-lunch glycemic excursions were assessed using CGM readings. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between visits in the time spent in hypoglycemia in the post-lunch period (median [IQR] standard: 0 [0]% vs physical activity-informed: 0 [0]%, P = NS). Standard therapy bolus yielded a higher time spent in 70 to 180 mg/dL target range (mean ± standard: 77% ± 27% vs physical activity-informed: 59% ± 31%, P = .03) yet, it was associated with a steeper negative slope in the early postprandial phase (P = .032). CONCLUSIONS: Use of step count to adjust mealtime insulin following a walking bout has proved to be safe and feasible in a cohort of 15 T1D subjects. Physical activity-informed insulin dosing of meals eaten soon after a walking bout has a potential of mitigating physical activity related glucose reduction in the early postprandial phase.

Anticipation of Historical Exercise Patterns by a Novel Artificial Pancreas System Reduces Hypoglycemia During and After Moderate-Intensity Physical Activity in People with Type 1 Diabetes.

Objective: Physical activity is a major challenge to glycemic control for people with type 1 diabetes. Moderate-intensity exercise often leads to steep decreases in blood glucose and hypoglycemia that closed-loop control systems have so far failed to protect against, despite improving glycemic control overall. Research Design and Methods: Fifteen adults with type 1 diabetes (42 ± 13.5 years old; hemoglobin A1c 6.6% ± 1.0%; 10F/5M) participated in a randomized crossover clinical trial comparing two hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems, a state-of-the-art hybrid model predictive controller and a modified system designed to anticipate and detect unannounced exercise (APEX), during two 32-h supervised admissions with 45 min of planned moderate activity, following 4 weeks of data collection. Primary outcome was the number of hypoglycemic episodes during exercise. Continuous glucose monitor (CGM)-based metrics and hypoglycemia are also reported across the entire admissions. Results: The APEX system reduced hypoglycemic episodes overall (9 vs. 33; P = 0.02), during exercise (5 vs. 13; P = 0.04), and in the 4 h following (2 vs. 11; P = 0.02). Overall CGM median percent time <70 mg/dL decreased as well (0.3% vs. 1.6%; P = 0.004). This protection was obtained with no significant increase in time >180 mg/dL (18.5% vs. 16.6%, P = 0.15). Overnight control was notable for both systems with no hypoglycemia, median percent in time 70-180 mg/dL at 100% and median percent time 70-140 mg/dL at ∼96% for both. Conclusions: A new closed-loop system capable of anticipating and detecting exercise was proven to be safe and feasible and outperformed a state-of-the-art HCL, reducing participants' exposure to hypoglycemia during and after moderate-intensity physical activity. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03859401.

Advanced Closed-Loop Control System Improves Postprandial Glycemic Control Compared With a Hybrid Closed-Loop System Following Unannounced Meal.

OBJECTIVE: Meals are a major hurdle to glycemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Our objective was to test a fully automated closed-loop control (CLC) system in the absence of announcement of carbohydrate ingestion among adolescents with T1D, who are known to commonly omit meal announcement. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Eighteen adolescents with T1D (age 15.6 ± 1.7 years; HbA1c 7.4 ± 1.5%; 9 females/9 males) participated in a randomized crossover clinical trial comparing our legacy hybrid CLC system (Unified Safety System Virginia [USS]-Virginia) with a novel fully automated CLC system (RocketAP) during two 46-h supervised admissions (each with one announced and one unannounced dinner), following 2 weeks of data collection. Primary outcome was the percentage time-in-range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) following the unannounced meal, with secondary outcomes related to additional continuous glucose monitoring-based metrics. RESULTS: Both TIR and time-in-tight-range 70-140 mg/dL (TTR) were significantly higher using RocketAP than using USS-Virginia during the 6 h following the unannounced meal (83% [interquartile range 64-93] vs. 53% [40-71]; P = 0.004 and 49% [41-59] vs. 27% [22-36]; P = 0.002, respectively), primarily driven by reduced time-above-range (TAR >180 mg/dL: 17% [1.3-34] vs. 47% [28-60]), with no increase in time-below-range (TBR <70 mg/dL: 0% median for both). RocketAP also improved control following the announced meal (mean difference TBR: -0.7%, TIR: +7%, TTR: +6%), overall (TIR: +5%, TAR: -5%, TTR: +8%), and overnight (TIR: +7%, TTR: +19%, TAR: -5%). RocketAP delivered less insulin overall (78 ± 23 units vs. 85 ± 20 units, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A new fully automated CLC system with automatic prandial dosing was proven to be safe and feasible and outperformed our legacy USS-Virginia in an adolescent population with and without meal announcement.

Evening and overnight closed-loop control versus 24/7 continuous closed-loop control for type 1 diabetes: a randomised crossover trial.

Background: Automated closed-loop control (CLC), known as the "artificial pancreas" is emerging as a treatment option for Type 1 Diabetes (T1D), generally superior to sensor-augmented insulin pump (SAP) treatment. It is postulated that evening-night (E-N) CLC may account for most of the benefits of 24-7 CLC; however, a direct comparison has not been done. Methods: In this trial (NCT02679287), adults with T1D were randomised 1:1 to two groups, which followed different sequences of four 8-week sessions, resulting in two crossover designs comparing SAP vs E-N CLC and E-N CLC vs 24-7 CLC, respectively. Eligibility: T1D for at least 1 year, using an insulin pump for at least six months, ages 18 years or older. Primary hypothesis: E-N CLC compared to SAP will decrease percent time <70mg/dL (3.9mmol/L) measured by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) without deterioration in HbA1c. Secondary Hypotheses: 24-7 CLC compared to SAP will increase CGM-measured time in target range (TIR, 70-180mg/dL; 3.9-10mmol/L) and will reduce glucose variability during the day. Findings: Ninety-three participants were randomised and 80 were included in the analysis, ages 18-69 years; HbA1c levels 5.4-10.6%; 66% female. Compared to SAP, E-N CLC reduced overall time <70mg/dL from 4.0% to 2.2% () resulting in an absolute difference of 1.8% (95%CI: 1.2-2.4%), p<0.0001. This was accompanied by overall reduction in HbA1c from 7.4% at baseline to 7.1% at the end of study, resulting in an absolute difference of 0.3% (95% CI: 0.1-0.4%), p<0.0001. There were 5 severe hypoglycaemia adverse events attributed to user-directed boluses without malfunction of the investigational device, and no diabetic ketoacidosis events. Interpretation: In type 1 diabetes, evening-night closed-loop control was superior to sensor-augmented pump therapy, achieving most of the glycaemic benefits of 24-7 closed-loop.

The Use of a Smart Bolus Calculator Informed by Real-time Insulin Sensitivity Assessments Reduces Postprandial Hypoglycemia Following an Aerobic Exercise Session in Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Insulin dosing in type 1 diabetes (T1D) is oftentimes complicated by fluctuating insulin requirements driven by metabolic and psychobehavioral factors impacting individuals' insulin sensitivity (IS). In this context, smart bolus calculators that automatically tailor prandial insulin dosing to the metabolic state of a person can improve glucose management in T1D. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Fifteen adults with T1D using continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin pumps completed two 24-h admissions in a hotel setting. During the admissions, participants engaged in an early afternoon 45-min aerobic exercise session, after which they received a standardized dinner meal. The dinner bolus was computed using a standard bolus calculator or smart bolus calculator informed by real-time IS estimates. Glucose control was assessed in the 4 h following dinner using CGMs and was compared between the two admissions. RESULTS: The IS-informed bolus calculator allowed for a reduction in postprandial hypoglycemia as quantified by the low blood glucose index (2.02 vs. 3.31, P = 0.006) and percent time <70 mg/dL (8.48% vs. 15.18%, P = 0.049), without increasing hyperglycemia (high blood glucose index: 3.13 vs. 2.09, P = 0.075; percent time >180 mg/dL: 13.24% vs. 10.42%, P = 0.5; percent time >250 mg/dL: 2.08% vs. 1.19%, P = 0.317). In addition, the number of hypoglycemia rescue treatments was reduced from 12 to 7 with the use of the system. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that the proposed IS-informed bolus calculator is safe and feasible in adults with T1D, appropriately reducing postprandial hypoglycemia following an exercise-induced IS increase.

Hybrid Closed-Loop Control Is Safe and Effective for People with Type 1 Diabetes Who Are at Moderate to High Risk for Hypoglycemia.

Background: Typically, closed-loop control (CLC) studies excluded patients with significant hypoglycemia. We evaluated the effectiveness of hybrid CLC (HCLC) versus sensor-augmented pump (SAP) in reducing hypoglycemia in this high-risk population. Methods: Forty-four subjects with type 1 diabetes, 25 women, 37 ± 2 years old, HbA1c 7.4% ± 0.2% (57 ± 1.5 mmol/mol), diabetes duration 19 ± 2 years, on insulin pump, were enrolled at the University of Virginia (N = 33) and Stanford University (N = 11). Eligibility: increased risk of hypoglycemia confirmed by 1 week of blinded continuous glucose monitor (CGM); randomized to 4 weeks of home use of either HCLC or SAP. Primary/secondary outcomes: risk for hypoglycemia measured by the low blood glucose index (LBGI)/CGM-based time in ranges. Results: Values reported: mean ± standard deviation. From baseline to the final week of study: LBGI decreased more on HCLC (2.51 ± 1.17 to 1.28 ± 0.5) than on SAP (2.1 ± 1.05 to 1.79 ± 0.98), P < 0.001; percent time below 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) decreased on HCLC (7.2% ± 5.3% to 2.0% ± 1.4%) but not on SAP (5.8% ± 4.7% to 4.8% ± 4.5%), P = 0.001; percent time within the target range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10 mmol/L) increased on HCLC (67.8% ± 13.5% to 78.2% ± 10%) but decreased on SAP (65.6% ± 12.9% to 59.6% ± 16.5%), P < 0.001; percent time above 180 mg/dL (10 mmol/L) decreased on HCLC (25.1% ± 15.3% to 19.8% ± 10.1%) but increased on SAP (28.6% ± 14.6% to 35.6% ± 17.6%), P = 0.009. Mean glucose did not change significantly on HCLC (144.9 ± 27.9 to 143.8 ± 14.4 mg/dL [8.1 ± 1.6 to 8.0 ± 0.8 mmol/L]) or SAP (152.5 ± 24.3 to 162.4 ± 28.2 [8.5 ± 1.4 to 9.0 ± 1.6]), P = ns. Conclusions: Compared with SAP therapy, HCLC reduced the risk and frequency of hypoglycemia, while improving time in target range and reducing hyperglycemia in people at moderate to high risk of hypoglycemia.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Insulin Informed Advisory System with Automated Titration and Dosing of Insulin Reduces Glucose Variability in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Glucose variability (GV) remains a key limiting factor in the success of diabetes management. While new technologies, for example, accurate continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and connected insulin delivery devices, are now available, current treatment standards fail to leverage the wealth of information generated. Expert systems, from automated insulin delivery to advisory systems, are a key missing element to richer, more personalized, glucose management in diabetes. METHODS: Twenty four subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), 15 women, 37 ± 11 years of age, hemoglobin A1c 7.2% ± 1%, total daily insulin (TDI) 46.7 ± 22.3 U, using either an insulin pump or multiple daily injections with carbohydrate counting, completed two randomized crossover 48-h visits at the University of Virginia, wearing Dexcom G4 CGM, and using either usual care or the UVA decision support system (DSS). DSS consisted of a combination of automated insulin titration, bolus calculation, and CHO treatment advice. During each admission, participants were exposed to a variety of meal sizes and contents and two 45-min bouts of exercise. GV and glucose control were assessed using CGM. RESULTS: The use of DSS significantly reduced GV (coefficient of variation: 0.36 ± 08. vs. 0.33 ± 0.06, P = 0.045) while maintaining glycemic control (average CGM: 155.2 ± 27.1 mg/dL vs. 155.2 ± 23.2 mg/dL), by reducing hypoglycemia exposure (%<70 mg/dL: 3.8% ± 4.6% vs. 1.8% ± 2%, P = 0.018), with nonsignificant trends toward reduction of significant hyperglycemia overnight (%>250 mg/dL: 5.3% ± 9.5% vs. 1.9% ± 4.6%) and at mealtime (11.3% ± 14.8% vs. 5.8% ± 9.1%). CONCLUSIONS: A CGM/insulin informed advisory system proved to be safe and feasible in a cohort of 24 T1DM subjects. Use of the system may result in reduced GV and improved protection against hypoglycemia.