Explore the vast range of titles available.

Closed-loop systems link continuous glucose measurements to insulin delivery. We aimed to establish whether closed-loop insulin delivery could control overnight blood glucose in young people. We undertook three randomised crossover studies in 19 patients aged 5–18 years with type 1 diabetes of duration 6·4 years (SD 4·0). We compared standard continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and closed-loop delivery (n=13; APCam01); closed-loop delivery after rapidly and slowly absorbed meals (n=7; APCam02); and closed-loop delivery and standard treatment after exercise (n=10; APCam03). Allocation was by computer-generated random code. Participants were masked to plasma and sensor glucose. In APCam01, investigators were masked to plasma glucose. During closed-loop nights, glucose measurements were fed every 15 min into a control algorithm calculating rate of insulin infusion, and a nurse adjusted the insulin pump. During control nights, patients' standard pump settings were applied. Primary outcomes were time for which plasma glucose concentration was 3·91–8·00 mmol/L or 3·90 mmol/L or lower. Analysis was per protocol. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN18155883. 17 patients were studied for 33 closed-loop and 21 continuous infusion nights. Primary outcomes did not differ significantly between treatment groups in APCam01 (12 analysed; target range, median 52% [IQR 43–83] closed loop vs 39% [15–51] standard treatment, p=0·06; ≤3·90 mmol/L, 1% [0–7] vs 2% [0–41], p=0·13), APCam02 (six analysed; target range, rapidly 53% [48–57] vs slowly absorbed meal 55% [37–64], p=0·97; ≤3·90 mmol/L, 0% [0–4] vs 0% [0–0], p=0·16]), and APCam03 (nine analysed; target range 78% [60–92] closed loop vs 43% [25–65] control, p=0·0245, not significant at corrected level; ≤3·90 mmol/L, 10% [2–15] vs 6% [0–44], p=0·27). A secondary analysis of pooled data documented increased time in the target range (60% [51–88] vs 40% [18–61]; p=0·0022) and reduced time for which glucose concentrations were 3·90 mmol/L or lower (2·1% (0·0–10·0) vs 4·1% (0·0–42·0); p=0·0304). No events with plasma glucose concentration lower than 3·0 mmol/L were recorded during closed-loop delivery, compared with nine events during standard treatment. Closed-loop systems could reduce risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation; European Foundation for Study of Diabetes; Medical Research Council Centre for Obesity and Related Metabolic Diseases; National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.

IntroductionDiabetes management in very young children remains challenging. Glycaemic targets are achieved at the expense of high parental diabetes management burden and frequent hypoglycaemia, impacting quality of life for the whole family. Our objective is to assess whether automated insulin delivery can improve glycaemic control and alleviate the burden of diabetes management in this particular age group.Methods and analysisThe study adopts an open-label, multinational, multicentre, randomised, crossover design and aims to randomise 72 children aged 1–7 years with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy. Following screening, participants will receive training on study insulin pump and study continuous glucose monitoring devices. Participants will be randomised to 16-week use of the hybrid closed-loop system (intervention period) or to 16-week use of sensor-augmented pump therapy (control period) with 1–4 weeks washout period before crossing over to the other arm. The order of the two study periods will be random. The primary endpoint is the between-group difference in time spent in the target glucose range from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L based on sensor glucose readings during the 16-week study periods. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Key secondary endpoints are between group differences in time spent above and below target glucose range, glycated haemoglobin and average sensor glucose. Participants’ and caregivers’ experiences will be evaluated using questionnaires and qualitative interviews, and sleep quality will be assessed. A health economic analysis will be performed.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been obtained from Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee (UK), Ethics Committees of the University of Innsbruck, the University of Vienna and the University of Graz (Austria), Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Leipzig (Germany) and Comité National d’Ethique de Recherche (Luxembourg). The results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Trial registration numberNCT03784027.

The achievement of glycaemic control remains challenging for patients with type 1 diabetes. We assessed the effectiveness of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in people with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older. In this open-label, multicentre, multinational, single-period, parallel randomised controlled trial, participants were recruited from diabetes outpatient clinics at four hospitals in the UK and two centres in the USA. We randomly assigned participants with type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older treated with insulin pump and with suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·5–10·0%) to receive either hybrid closed-loop therapy or sensor-augmented pump therapy over 12 weeks of free living. Training on study insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring took place over a 4-week run-in period. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned using central randomisation software. Allocation to the two study groups was unblinded, and randomisation was stratified within centre by low (<8·5%) or high (≥8·5%) HbA1c. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range of 3·9–10·0 mmol/L at 12 weeks post randomisation. Analyses of primary outcome and safety measures were done in all randomised patients. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02523131, and is closed to accrual. From May 12, 2016, to Nov 17, 2017, 114 individuals were screened, and 86 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive hybrid closed-loop therapy (n=46) or sensor-augmented pump therapy (n=40; control group). The proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range was significantly higher in the closed-loop group (65%, SD 8) compared with the control group (54%, SD 9; mean difference in change 10·8 percentage points, 95% CI 8·2 to 13·5; p<0·0001). In the closed-loop group, HbA1c was reduced from a screening value of 8·3% (SD 0·6) to 8·0% (SD 0·6) after the 4-week run-in, and to 7·4% (SD 0·6) after the 12-week intervention period. In the control group, the HbA1c values were 8·2% (SD 0·5) at screening, 7·8% (SD 0·6) after run-in, and 7·7% (SD 0·5) after intervention; reductions in HbA1c percentages were significantly greater in the closed-loop group compared with the control group (mean difference in change 0·36%, 95% CI 0·19 to 0·53; p<0·0001). The time spent with glucose concentrations below 3·9 mmol/L (mean difference in change −0·83 percentage points, −1·40 to −0·16; p=0·0013) and above 10·0 mmol/L (mean difference in change −10·3 percentage points, −13·2 to −7·5; p<0·0001) was shorter in the closed-loop group than the control group. The coefficient of variation of sensor-measured glucose was not different between interventions (mean difference in change −0·4%, 95% CI −1·4% to 0·7%; p=0·50). Similarly, total daily insulin dose was not different (mean difference in change 0·031 U/kg per day, 95% CI −0·005 to 0·067; p=0·09) and bodyweight did not differ (mean difference in change 0·68 kg, 95% CI −0·34 to 1·69; p=0·19). No severe hypoglycaemia occurred. One diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group due to infusion set failure. Two participants in each study group had significant hyperglycaemia, and there were 13 other adverse events in the closed-loop group and three in the control group. Hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery improves glucose control while reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia across a wide age range in patients with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes. JDRF, NIHR, and Wellcome Trust.

In a trial involving youths with new-onset type 1 diabetes, intensive glucose control with hybrid closed-loop therapy for 24 months did not preserve C-peptide secretion as compared with standard insulin therapy.

In two randomized trials conducted under home conditions, investigators compared closed-loop insulin delivery with sensor-augmented pump therapy in adults and in children and adolescents for 12 weeks. The closed-loop approach improved glucose control and reduced hypoglycemia. Intensive insulin therapy is the standard of care for type 1 diabetes but is limited by the risk of hypoglycemia, 1 which leads to failure in achieving treatment goals for most patients in all age groups. 2 , 3 Among patients with type 1 diabetes, hypoglycemia is common, has a major effect on patients’ quality of life and psychological well-being, 4 and may cause seizures, which is of particular concern during the overnight hours in children and adolescents. 5 New approaches (e.g., continuous glucose monitoring) can improve glycemic control when the patient wears the sensors on a regular basis. 6 , 7 If insulin delivery is linked . . .

Objective To compare the safety and efficacy of overnight closed loop delivery of insulin (artificial pancreas) with conventional insulin pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes.Design Two sequential, open label, randomised controlled crossover, single centre studies.Setting Clinical research facility.Participants 24 adults (10 men, 14 women) with type 1 diabetes, aged 18-65, who had used insulin pump therapy for at least three months: 12 were tested after consuming a medium sized meal and the other 12 after consuming a larger meal accompanied by alcohol.Intervention During overnight closed loop delivery, sensor measurements of glucose were fed into a computer algorithm, which advised on insulin pump infusion rates at 15 minute intervals. During control nights, conventional insulin pump settings were applied. One study compared closed loop delivery of insulin with conventional pump therapy after a medium sized evening meal (60 g of carbohydrates) at 1900, depicting the scenario of “eating in.” The other study was carried out after a later large evening meal (100 g of carbohydrates) at 2030, accompanied by white wine (0.75 g/kg ethanol) and depicted the scenario of “eating out.”Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the time plasma glucose levels were in target (3.91-8.0 mmol/L) during closed loop delivery and a comparable control period. Secondary outcomes included pooled data analysis and time plasma glucose levels were below target (≤3.9 mmol/L).Results For the eating in scenario, overnight closed loop delivery of insulin increased the time plasma glucose levels were in target by a median 15% (interquartile range 3-35%), P=0.002. For the eating out scenario, closed loop delivery increased the time plasma glucose levels were in target by a median 28% (2-39%), P=0.01. Analysis of pooled data showed that the overall time plasma glucose was in target increased by a median 22% (3-37%) with closed loop delivery (P<0.001). Closed loop delivery reduced overnight time spent hypoglycaemic (plasma glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L) by a median 3% (0-20%), P=0.04, and eliminated plasma glucose concentrations below 3.0 mmol/L after midnight.Conclusion These two small crossover trials suggest that closed loop delivery of insulin may improve overnight control of glucose levels and reduce the risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00910767 and NCT00944619.

Objective To evaluate the experiences of families with very young children aged 1 to 7 years (inclusive) with type 1 diabetes using day‐and‐night hybrid closed‐loop insulin delivery. Methods Parents/caregivers of 20 children aged 1 to 7 years with type 1 diabetes completed a closed‐loop experience survey following two 3‐week periods of unrestricted day‐and‐night hybrid closed‐loop insulin therapy using Cambridge FlorenceM system at home. Benefits, limitations, and improvements of closed‐loop technology were explored. Results Responders reported reduced burden of diabetes management, less time spent managing diabetes, and improved quality of sleep with closed‐loop. Ninety percent of the responders felt less worried about their child's glucose control using closed‐loop. Size of study devices, battery performance and connectivity issues were identified as areas for improvement. Parents/caregivers wished for more options to input information to the system such as temporary glucose targets. Conclusions Parents/caregivers of very young children reported important quality of life benefits associated with using closed‐loop, supporting adoption of this technology in this population.

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of closed-loop basal insulin delivery during sleep and after regular meals and unannounced periods of exercise. 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). 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). 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.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated closed-loop insulin delivery with a model predictive control (MPC) algorithm during early (12-16 weeks) and late gestation (28-32 weeks) in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Ten women with type 1 diabetes (age 31 years, diabetes duration 19 years, BMI 24.1 kg/m², booking A1C 6.9%) were studied over 24 h during early (14.8 weeks) and late pregnancy (28.0 weeks). A nurse adjusted the basal insulin infusion rate from continuous glucose measurements (CGM), fed into the MPC algorithm every 15 min. Mean glucose and time spent in target (63-140 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (>140 to ≥180 mg/dL), and hypoglycemic (<63 to [less-than or equal to]50 mg/dL) were calculated using plasma and sensor glucose measurements. Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare glucose control during early and late gestation. RESULTS: During closed-loop insulin delivery, median (interquartile range) plasma glucose levels were 117 (100.8-154.8) mg/dL in early and 126 (109.8-140.4) mg/dL in late gestation (P = 0.72). The overnight mean (interquartile range) plasma glucose time in target was 84% (50-100%) in early and 100% (94-100%) in late pregnancy (P = 0.09). Overnight mean (interquartile range) time spent hyperglycemic (>140 mg/dL) was 7% (0-40%) in early and 0% (0-6%) in late pregnancy (P = 0.25) and hypoglycemic (<63 mg/dL) was 0% (0-3%) and 0% (0-0%), respectively (P = 0.18). Postprandial glucose control, glucose variability, insulin infusion rates, and CGM sensor accuracy were no different in early or late pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: MPC algorithm performance was maintained throughout pregnancy, suggesting that overnight closed-loop insulin delivery could be used safely during pregnancy. More work is needed to achieve optimal postprandial glucose control.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of closed-loop insulin delivery in well-controlled pregnant women with type 1 diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 12 women with type 1 diabetes (aged 32.9 years, diabetes duration 17.6 years, BMI 27.1 kg/m2, and HbA1c 6.4%) were randomly allocated to closed-loop or conventional CSII. They performed normal daily activities (standardized meals, snacks, and exercise) for 24 h on two occasions at 19 and 23 weeks’ gestation. Plasma glucose time in target (63–140 mg/dL) and time spent hypoglycemic were calculated. RESULTS: Plasma glucose time in target was comparable for closed-loop and conventional CSII (median [interquartile range]: 81 [59–87] vs. 81% [54–90]; P = 0.75). Less time was spent hypoglycemic (<45 mg/dL [0.0 vs. 0.3%]; P = 0.04), with a lower low blood glucose index (2.4 [0.9–3.5] vs. 3.3 [1.9–5.1]; P = 0.03), during closed-loop insulin delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Closed-loop insulin delivery was as effective as conventional CSII, with less time spent in extreme hypoglycemia.