Martin Tauschmann

Home Use of an Artificial Beta Cell in Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND The feasibility, safety, and efficacy of prolonged use of an artificial beta cell (closed-loop insulin-delivery system) in the home setting have not been established. METHODS In two multicenter, crossover, randomized, controlled studies conducted under free-living home conditions, we compared closed-loop insulin delivery with sensor-augmented pump therapy in 58 patients with type 1 diabetes. The closed-loop system was used day and night by 33 adults and overnight by 25 children and adolescents. Participants used the closed-loop system for a 12-week period and sensor-augmented pump therapy (control) for a similar period. The primary end point was the proportion of time that the glucose level was between 70 mg and 180 mg per deciliter for adults and between 70 mg and 145 mg per deciliter for children and adolescents. RESULTS Among adults, the proportion of time that the glucose level was in the target range was 11.0 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1 to 13.8) greater with the use of the closed-loop system day and night than with control therapy (P<0.001). The mean glucose level was lower during the closed-loop phase than during the control phase (difference, -11 mg per deciliter; 95% CI, -17 to -6; P<0.001), as were the area under the curve for the period when the glucose level was less than 63 mg per deciliter (39% lower; 95% CI, 24 to 51; P<0.001) and the mean glycated hemoglobin level (difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -0.5 to -0.1; P=0.002). Among children and adolescents, the proportion of time with the nighttime glucose level in the target range was higher during the closed-loop phase than during the control phase (by 24.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 20.6 to 28.7; P<0.001), and the mean nighttime glucose level was lower (difference, -29 mg per deciliter; 95% CI, -39 to -20; P<0.001). The area under the curve for the period in which the day-and-night glucose levels were less than 63 mg per deciliter was lower by 42% (95% CI, 4 to 65; P=0.03). Three severe hypoglycemic episodes occurred during the closed-loop phase when the closed-loop system was not in use. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with type 1 diabetes, 12-week use of a closed-loop system, as compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy, improved glucose control, reduced hypoglycemia, and, in adults, resulted in a lower glycated hemoglobin level. (Funded by the JDRF and others; AP@home04 and APCam08 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01961622 and NCT01778348.).

Day-and-Night Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: A Free-Living, Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE To evaluate feasibility, safety, and efficacy of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in adolescents with type 1 diabetes under free-living conditions without remote monitoring or supervision. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In an open-label, randomized, free-living, crossover study design, 12 adolescents receiving insulin pump therapy (mean [±SD] age 15.4 ± 2.6 years; HbA1c 8.3 ± 0.9%; duration of diabetes 8.2 ± 3.4 years) underwent two 7-day periods of sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy or hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery without supervision or remote monitoring. During the closed-loop insulin delivery, a model predictive algorithm automatically directed insulin delivery between meals and overnight; prandial boluses were administered by participants using a bolus calculator. RESULTS The proportion of time when the sensor glucose level was in the target range (3.9–10 mmol/L) was increased during closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy (72 vs. 53%, P < 0.001; primary end point), the mean glucose concentration was lowered (8.7 vs. 10.1 mmol/L, P = 0.028), and the time spent above the target level was reduced (P = 0.005) without changing the total daily insulin amount (P = 0.55). The time spent in the hypoglycemic range was low and comparable between interventions. CONCLUSIONS Unsupervised day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery at home is feasible and safe in young people with type 1 diabetes. Compared with sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy, closed-loop insulin delivery may improve glucose control without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia in adolescents with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes.

Day-and-night glycaemic control with closed-loop insulin delivery versus conventional insulin pump therapy in free-living adults with well controlled type 1 diabetes: an open-label, randomised, crossover study

Summary Background Tight control of blood glucose concentration in people with type 1 diabetes predisposes to hypoglycaemia. We aimed to investigate whether day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery can improve glucose control while alleviating the risk of hypoglycaemia in adults with HbA1c below 7·5% (58 mmol/mol). Methods In this open-label, randomised, crossover study, we recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c below 7·5% from Addenbrookes Hospital (Cambridge, UK) and Medical University of Graz (Graz, Austria). After a 2–4 week run-in period, participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using web-based randomly permuted blocks of four, to receive insulin via the day-and-night hybrid closed-loop system or usual pump therapy for 4 weeks, followed by a 2–4 week washout period and then the other intervention for 4 weeks. Treatment interventions were unsupervised and done under free-living conditions. During the closed-loop period, a model-predictive control algorithm directed insulin delivery, and prandial insulin delivery was calculated with a standard bolus wizard. The primary outcome was the proportion of time when sensor glucose concentration was in target range (3·9–10·0 mmol/L) over the 4 week study period. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02727231, and is completed. Findings Between March 21 and June 24, 2016, we recruited 31 participants, of whom 29 were randomised. One participant withdrew during the first closed-loop period because of dissatisfaction with study devices and glucose control. The proportion of time when sensor glucose concentration was in target range was 10·5 percentage points higher (95% CI 7·6–13·4; p<0·0001) during closed-loop delivery compared with usual pump therapy (65·6% [SD 8·1] when participants used usual pump therapy vs 76·2% [6·4] when they used closed-loop). Compared with usual pump therapy, closed-loop delivery also reduced the proportion of time spent in hypoglycaemia: the proportion of time with glucose concentration below 3·5 mmol/L was reduced by 65% (53–74, p<0·0001) and below 2·8 mmol/L by 76% (59–86, p<0·0001). No episodes of serious hypoglycaemia or other serious adverse events occurred. Interpretation Use of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery under unsupervised, free-living conditions for 4 weeks in adults with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c below 7·5% is safe and well tolerated, improves glucose control, and reduces hypoglycaemia burden. Larger and longer studies are warranted. Funding Swiss National Science Foundation (P1BEP3_165297), JDRF, UK National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, and Wellcome Strategic Award (100574/Z/12/Z).

Home Use of Day-and-Night Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Suboptimally Controlled Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: A 3-Week, Free-Living, Randomized Crossover Trial

OBJECTIVE This study evaluated the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in adolescents with type 1 diabetes under free-living conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In an open-label randomized crossover study, 12 suboptimally controlled adolescents on insulin pump therapy (mean ± SD age 14.6 ± 3.1 years; HbA1c 69 ± 8 mmol/mol [8.5 ± 0.7%]; duration of diabetes 7.8 ± 3.5 years) underwent two 21-day periods in which hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery was compared with sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy in random order. During the closed-loop intervention, a model predictive algorithm automatically directed insulin delivery between meals and overnight. Participants used a bolus calculator to administer prandial boluses. RESULTS The proportion of time that sensor glucose was in the target range (3.9–10 mmol/L; primary end point) was increased during the closed-loop intervention compared with sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy by 18.8 ± 9.8 percentage points (mean ± SD; P < 0.001), the mean sensor glucose level was reduced by 1.8 ± 1.3 mmol/L (P = 0.001), and the time spent above target was reduced by 19.3 ± 11.3 percentage points (P < 0.001). The time spent with sensor glucose levels below 3.9 mmol/L was low and comparable between interventions (median difference 0.4 [interquartile range −2.2 to 1.3] percentage points; P = 0.33). Improved glucose control during closed-loop was associated with increased variability of basal insulin delivery (P < 0.001) and an increase in the total daily insulin dose (53.5 [39.5–72.1] vs. 51.5 [37.6–64.3] units/day; P = 0.006). Participants expressed positive attitudes and experience with the closed-loop system. CONCLUSIONS Free-living home use of day-and-night closed-loop in suboptimally controlled adolescents with type 1 diabetes is safe, feasible, and improves glucose control without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. Larger and longer studies are warranted.

Feasibility of overnight closed-loop therapy in young children with type 1 diabetes aged 3–6 years: comparison between diluted and standard insulin strength

Objective To assess feasibility of overnight closed-loop therapy in young children with type 1 diabetes and contrast closed loop using diluted versus standard insulin strength. Research design and methods Eleven children (male 6; age range 3.75–6.96 years; glycated hemoglobin 60 (14) mmol/mol; body mass index SD score 1.0 (0.8); diabetes duration 2.2 (1.0) years, mean (SD); total daily dose 12.9 (10.6, 16.5) IU/day, median (IQR)) were studied at a clinical research facility on two occasions. In random order, participants received closed loop with diluted insulin aspart (CL_Dil; 20 IU/mL) or closed loop with standard aspart (CL_Std; 100 IU/mL) from 17:00 until 8:00 the following morning. Children consumed an evening meal at 17:00 (44 (12) gCHO) and an optional bedtime snack (6 (7) gCHO) identical on both occasions. Meal insulin boluses were calculated by standard pump bolus calculators. Basal rates on insulin pump were adjusted every 15 min as directed by a model-predictive-control algorithm informed by a real-time glucose sensor values. Results Mean plasma glucose was 122 (24) mg/dL during CL_Dil vs 122 (23) mg/dL during CL_Std (p=0.993). The time spent in the target glucose range 70–145 mg/dL was 83 (70, 100)% vs 72 (54, 81)% (p=0.328). Time above 145 mg/dL was 13 (0, 27)% vs 19 (10, 45)% (p=0.477) and time spent below 70 mg/dL was 0.0 (0.0, 1.4)% vs 1.4 (0.0, 11.6)% (p=0.161). One asymptomatic hypoglycemia below 63 mg/dL occurred in one participant during CL_Dil versus six episodes in five participants during CL_Std (p=0.09). Glucose variability measured by CV of plasma glucose tended to be reduced during CL_Dil (20% (13, 31) vs 32% (24, 42), p=0.075). Conclusions In this feasibility study, closed-loop therapy maintained good overnight glucose control with tendency towards reduced hypoglycemia and reduced glucose variability using diluted insulin. Trial registration number clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01557634.

Closing the Loop in Adults, Children and Adolescents With Suboptimally Controlled Type 1 Diabetes Under Free Living Conditions: A Psychosocial Substudy

Objective: The objective was to explore psychosocial experiences of closed loop technology for adults, children, and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and their parents taking part in two multicenter, free-living, randomized crossover home studies. Methods: Participants using insulin pump therapy were randomized to either 12 weeks of automated closed-loop glucose control, then 12 weeks of sensor augmented insulin pump therapy (open loop), or vice versa. Closed loop was used for 24 hours by adults and overnight only by children and adolescents. Participants completed the Diabetes Technology Questionnaire (DTQ) periodically and shared their views in semistructured interviews. This analysis characterizes the impact of the technology, positive and negative aspects of living with the device, alongside participants’ expectations, hopes, and anxieties. Results: Participants were 32 adults, age 38.6 ± 9.6 years, 55% male, and 26 children, mean age 12 years (range 6-18 years), 54% male. DTQ results indicated moderately favorable impact of, and satisfaction with, both open and closed loop interventions, but little evidence of a comparative advantage of either. Key positive themes included perceived improved blood glucose control, improved general well-being, particularly on waking, improved sleep, reduced burden of diabetes, and visibility of data. Key negative themes included having to carry around the equipment and dislike of the pump and second cannula (ie, sensor) inserted. Conclusions: Overall, participants reported a positive experience of the closed loop technology. Results are consistent with previous research with size of equipment continuing to be a problem. Progress is being made in the usability of the closed-loop system.

Insulin pump therapy in youth with type 1 diabetes: toward closed-loop systems

Introduction: Insulin pump technology has advanced considerably over the past three decades, leading to more favorable metabolic control and less hypoglycemic events when compared with multiple daily injection therapy. The use of insulin pumps is increasing, particularly in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Areas covered: This review outlines recent developments in insulin pump therapy from a pediatric perspective. ‘Smart’ pumps, sensor-augmented pump therapy and threshold-suspend feature of insulin pumps are reviewed in terms of efficacy, safety and psychosocial impact. The current status of closed-loop systems focusing on clinical outcomes is highlighted. Expert opinion: Closed-loop insulin delivery is gradually progressing from bench to the clinical practice. Longer and larger studies in home settings are needed to expand on short- to medium-term outpatient evaluations. Predictive low glucose management and overnight closed-loop delivery may be the next applications to be implemented in daily routine. Further challenges include improvements of control algorithms, sensor accuracy, duration of insulin action, integration and size of devices and connectivity and usability. Gradual improvements and increasing sophistication of closed-loop components lie on the path toward unsupervised hands-off fully closed-loop system.

Distribution of CD4pos -, CD8pos – and Regulatory T Cells in the Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Tract in Healthy Young Subjects

The gastrointestinal immune system is involved in the development of several autoimmune-mediated diseases, including inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis, and type 1 diabetes mellitus. Alterations in T-cell populations, especially regulatory T cells (Tregs), are often evident in patients suffering from these diseases. To be able to detect changes in T-cell populations in diseased tissue, it is crucial to investigate T-cell populations in healthy individuals, and to characterize their variation among different regions of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. While limited data exist, quantitative data on biopsies systematically drawn from various regions of the GI tract are lacking, particularly in healthy young humans. In this report, we present the first systematic assessment of how T cells—including Tregs—are distributed in the gastrointestinal mucosa throughout the GI tract of healthy young humans by means of multi-parameter FACS analysis. Gastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy were performed on 16 healthy volunteers aged between 18 and 32. Biopsies were drawn from seven GI regions, and were used to determine the frequencies of CD8+-, CD4+- and Tregs in the gastrointestinal mucosa by means of multi-parameter FACS analysis. Our data show that there is significant variation in the baseline T-cell landscape along the healthy human gastrointestinal tract, and that mucosal T-cell analyses from a single region should not be taken as representative of the entire gastrointestinal tract. We show that certain T-cell subsets in the gastrointestinal mucosa vary significantly among regions; most notably, that Tregs are enriched in the appendiceal orifice region and the ascending colon, and that CD8pos T cells are enriched in the gastric mucosa.

Closed-loop insulin delivery in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, 12-week randomised trial

Summary Background 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. Methods 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. Findings 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. Interpretation 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. Funding JDRF, NIHR, and Wellcome Trust.

Continuous glucose monitoring and glycemic control among youth with type 1 diabetes: International comparison from the T1D Exchange and DPV Initiative

To assess the change in rates of pediatric real‐time or intermittent scanning continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use over the past 5 years, and how it impacts glycemic control, data from two registries were compared: the US‐based type 1 diabetes Exchange Registry (T1DX) and the German/Austrian DPV (Prospective Diabetes Follow‐Up Registry).