Daniela Elleri

Overnight closed loop insulin delivery (artificial pancreas) in adults with type 1 diabetes: crossover randomised controlled studies

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.

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.

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/m2) 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.

Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery During Pregnancy Complicated by Type 1 Diabetes

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 ≤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.

Safety and Efficacy of 24-H Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Well-Controlled Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes A randomized crossover case series

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.

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.

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 Closed-Loop Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

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.

Closed-loop insulin delivery for treatment of type 1 diabetes

Type 1 diabetes is one of the most common endocrine problems in childhood and adolescence, and remains a serious chronic disorder with increased morbidity and mortality, and reduced quality of life. Technological innovations positively affect the management of type 1 diabetes. Closed-loop insulin delivery (artificial pancreas) is a recent medical innovation, aiming to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia while achieving tight control of glucose. Characterized by real-time glucose-responsive insulin administration, closed-loop systems combine glucose-sensing and insulin-delivery components. In the most viable and researched configuration, a disposable sensor measures interstitial glucose levels, which are fed into a control algorithm controlling delivery of a rapid-acting insulin analog into the subcutaneous tissue by an insulin pump. Research progress builds on an increasing use of insulin pumps and availability of glucose monitors. We review the current status of insulin delivery, focusing on clinical evaluations of closed-loop systems. Future goals are outlined, and benefits and limitations of closed-loop therapy contrasted. The clinical utility of these systems is constrained by inaccuracies in glucose sensing, inter- and intra-patient variability, and delays due to absorption of insulin from the subcutaneous tissue, all of which are being gradually addressed.

Overnight Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery with Model Predictive Control: Assessment of Hypoglycemia and Hyperglycemia Risk Using Simulation Studies:

Background: Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia during closed-loop insulin delivery based on subcutaneous (SC) glucose sensing may arise due to (1) overdosing and underdosing of insulin by control algorithm and (2) difference between plasma glucose (PG) and sensor glucose, which may be transient (kinetics origin and sensor artifacts) or persistent (calibration error [CE]). Using in silico testing, we assessed hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia incidence during overnight closed loop. Additionally, a comparison was made against incidence observed experimentally during open-loop single-night in-clinic studies in young people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) treated by continuous SC insulin infusion. Methods: Simulation environment comprising 18 virtual subjects with T1DM was used to simulate overnight closed-loop study with a model predictive control (MPC) algorithm. A 15 h experiment started at 17:00 and ended at 08:00 the next day. Closed loop commenced at 21:00 and continued for 11 h. At 18:00, protocol included meal (50 g carbohydrates) accompanied by prandial insulin. The MPC algorithm advised on insulin infusion every 15 min. Sensor glucose was obtained by combining model-calculated noise-free interstitial glucose with experimentally derived transient and persistent sensor artifacts associated with FreeStyle Navigator® (FSN). Transient artifacts were obtained from FSN sensor pairs worn by 58 subjects with T1DM over 194 nighttime periods. Persistent difference due to FSN CE was quantified from 585 FSN sensor insertions, yielding 1421 calibration sessions from 248 subjects with diabetes. Results: Episodes of severe (PG ≤ 36 mg/dl) and significant (PG ≤ 45 mg/dl) hypoglycemia and significant hyperglycemia (PG ≥ 300 mg/dl) were extracted from 18,000 simulated closed-loop nights. Severe hypoglycemia was not observed when FSN CE was less than 45%. Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia incidence during open loop was assessed from 21 overnight studies in 17 young subjects with T1DM (8 males; 13.5 ± 3.6 years of age; body mass index 21.0 ± 4.0 kg/m2; duration diabetes 6.4 ± 4.1 years; hemoglobin A1c 8.5% ± 1.8%; mean ± standard deviation) participating in the Artificial Pancreas Project at Cambridge. Severe and significant hypoglycemia during simulated closed loop occurred 0.75 and 17.11 times per 100 person years compared to 1739 and 3479 times per 100 person years during experimental open loop, respectively. Significant hyperglycemia during closed loop and open loop occurred 75 and 15,654 times per 100 person years, respectively. Conclusions: The incidence of severe and significant hypoglycemia reduced 2300- and 200-fold, respectively, during simulated overnight closed loop with MPC compared to that observed during open-loop overnight clinical studies in young subjects with T1DM. Hyperglycemia was 200 times less likely. Overnight closed loop with the FSN and the MPC algorithm is expected to reduce substantially the risk of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia.