Simone Del Favero

Fully Integrated Artificial Pancreas in Type 1 Diabetes: Modular Closed-Loop Glucose Control Maintains Near Normoglycemia

Integrated closed-loop control (CLC), combining continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with insulin pump (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]), known as artificial pancreas, can help optimize glycemic control in diabetes. We present a fundamental modular concept for CLC design, illustrated by clinical studies involving 11 adolescents and 27 adults at the Universities of Virginia, Padova, and Montpellier. We tested two modular CLC constructs: standard control to range (sCTR), designed to augment pump plus CGM by preventing extreme glucose excursions; and enhanced control to range (eCTR), designed to truly optimize control within near normoglycemia of 3.9–10 mmol/L. The CLC system was fully integrated using automated data transfer CGM→algorithm→CSII. All studies used randomized crossover design comparing CSII versus CLC during identical 22-h hospitalizations including meals, overnight rest, and 30-min exercise. sCTR increased significantly the time in near normoglycemia from 61 to 74%, simultaneously reducing hypoglycemia 2.7-fold. eCTR improved mean blood glucose from 7.73 to 6.68 mmol/L without increasing hypoglycemia, achieved 97% in near normoglycemia and 77% in tight glycemic control, and reduced variability overnight. In conclusion, sCTR and eCTR represent sequential steps toward automated CLC, preventing extremes (sCTR) and further optimizing control (eCTR). This approach inspires compelling new concepts: modular assembly, sequential deployment, testing, and clinical acceptance of custom-built CLC systems tailored to individual patient needs.

Safety of Outpatient Closed-Loop Control: First Randomized Crossover Trials of a Wearable Artificial Pancreas

OBJECTIVE We estimate the effect size of hypoglycemia risk reduction on closed-loop control (CLC) versus open-loop (OL) sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy in supervised outpatient setting. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Twenty patients with type 1 diabetes initiated the study at the Universities of Virginia, Padova, and Montpellier and Sansum Diabetes Research Institute; 18 completed the entire protocol. Each patient participated in two 40-h outpatient sessions, CLC versus OL, in randomized order. Sensor (Dexcom G4) and insulin pump (Tandem t:slim) were connected to Diabetes Assistant (DiAs)—a smartphone artificial pancreas platform. The patient operated the system through the DiAs user interface during both CLC and OL; study personnel supervised on site and monitored DiAs remotely. There were no dietary restrictions; 45-min walks in town and restaurant dinners were included in both CLC and OL; alcohol was permitted. RESULTS The primary outcome—reduction in risk for hypoglycemia as measured by the low blood glucose (BG) index (LGBI)—resulted in an effect size of 0.64, P = 0.003, with a twofold reduction of hypoglycemia requiring carbohydrate treatment: 1.2 vs. 2.4 episodes/session on CLC versus OL (P = 0.02). This was accompanied by a slight decrease in percentage of time in the target range of 3.9–10 mmol/L (66.1 vs. 70.7%) and increase in mean BG (8.9 vs. 8.4 mmol/L; P = 0.04) on CLC versus OL. CONCLUSIONS CLC running on a smartphone (DiAs) in outpatient conditions reduced hypoglycemia and hypoglycemia treatments when compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy. This was accompanied by marginal increase in average glycemia resulting from a possible overemphasis on hypoglycemia safety.

Feasibility of Outpatient Fully Integrated Closed-Loop Control First studies of wearable artificial pancreas

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the feasibility of a wearable artificial pancreas system, the Diabetes Assistant (DiAs), which uses a smart phone as a closed-loop control platform. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Twenty patients with type 1 diabetes were enrolled at the Universities of Padova, Montpellier, and Virginia and at Sansum Diabetes Research Institute. Each trial continued for 42 h. The United States studies were conducted entirely in outpatient setting (e.g., hotel or guest house); studies in Italy and France were hybrid hospital–hotel admissions. A continuous glucose monitoring/pump system (Dexcom Seven Plus/Omnipod) was placed on the subject and was connected to DiAs. The patient operated the system via the DiAs user interface in open-loop mode (first 14 h of study), switching to closed-loop for the remaining 28 h. Study personnel monitored remotely via 3G or WiFi connection to DiAs and were available on site for assistance. RESULTS The total duration of proper system communication functioning was 807.5 h (274 h in open-loop and 533.5 h in closed-loop), which represented 97.7% of the total possible time from admission to discharge. This exceeded the predetermined primary end point of 80% system functionality. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated that a contemporary smart phone is capable of running outpatient closed-loop control and introduced a prototype system (DiAs) for further investigation. Following this proof of concept, future steps should include equipping insulin pumps and sensors with wireless capabilities, as well as studies focusing on control efficacy and patient-oriented clinical outcomes.

2 month evening and night closed-loop glucose control in patients with type 1 diabetes under free-living conditions: a randomised crossover trial

BACKGROUND An artificial pancreas (AP) that can be worn at home from dinner to waking up in the morning might be safe and efficient for first routine use in patients with type 1 diabetes. We assessed the effect on glucose control with use of an AP during the evening and night plus patient-managed sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAP) during the day, versus 24 h use of patient-managed SAP only, in free-living conditions. METHODS In a crossover study done in medical centres in France, Italy, and the Netherlands, patients aged 18-69 years with type 1 diabetes who used insulin pumps for continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion were randomly assigned to 2 months of AP use from dinner to waking up plus SAP use during the day versus 2 months of SAP use only under free-living conditions. Randomisation was achieved with a computer-generated allocation sequence with random block sizes of two, four, or six, masked to the investigator. Patients and investigators were not masked to the type of intervention. The AP consisted of a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and insulin pump connected to a modified smartphone with a model predictive control algorithm. The primary endpoint was the percentage of time spent in the target glucose concentration range (3·9-10·0 mmol/L) from 2000 to 0800 h. CGM data for weeks 3-8 of the interventions were analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis including patients who completed at least 6 weeks of each intervention period. The 2 month study period also allowed us to asses HbA1c as one of the secondary outcomes. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02153190. FINDINGS During 2000-0800 h, the mean time spent in the target range was higher with AP than with SAP use: 66·7% versus 58·1% (paired difference 8·6% [95% CI 5·8 to 11·4], p<0·0001), through a reduction in both mean time spent in hyperglycaemia (glucose concentration >10·0 mmol/L; 31·6% vs 38·5%; -6·9% [-9·8% to -3·9], p<0·0001) and in hypoglycaemia (glucose concentration <3·9 mmol/L; 1·7% vs 3·0%; -1·6% [-2·3 to -1·0], p<0·0001). Decrease in mean HbA1c during the AP period was significantly greater than during the control period (-0·3% vs -0·2%; paired difference -0·2 [95% CI -0·4 to -0·0], p=0·047), taking a period effect into account (p=0·0034). No serious adverse events occurred during this study, and none of the mild-to-moderate adverse events was related to the study intervention. INTERPRETATION Our results support the use of AP at home as a safe and beneficial option for patients with type 1 diabetes. The HbA1c results are encouraging but preliminary. FUNDING European Commission.

Pilot Studies of Wearable Outpatient Artificial Pancreas in Type 1 Diabetes

The artificial pancreas (AP) has been tested extensively in the hospital setting (1–5). Here we describe a next logical step in AP development—the first outpatient trials of a wearable AP based on a smartphone computational platform. Following Ethical Committee approvals and ClinicalTrials.gov registration (NCT01447992 and NCT01447979), two simultaneous studies were conducted in Padova, Italy, and Montpellier, France, in October 2011, enrolling a 38-year-old female and a 52-year-old male, respectively; both were Caucasian, type 1 diabetic insulin pump users. Day 1—At 17:00, the patients arrived at hotels located within 1 km from the emergency room. Subjects’ pumps were replaced by Omnipod Insulin Management Systems. The APs were activated in open-loop mode implementing the patients’ regular routines and remote monitoring was initiated. At 20:00, the patients had dinner at a local restaurant, without dietary restrictions and then spent the night in the hotel. Day 2—At 7:00, the patients were admitted to the clinic and the APs were switched to automated closed-loop control and challenged by breakfast at 8:00 and lunch at 12:00. At 18:00, the patients moved back to the hotel; dinner was at 20:00 in a local restaurant, without dietary restrictions. Meal bolus was recommended by the APs and approved by the patients; …

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.

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.

First Use of Model Predictive Control in Outpatient Wearable Artificial Pancreas

OBJECTIVE Inpatient studies suggest that model predictive control (MPC) is one of the most promising algorithms for artificial pancreas (AP). So far, outpatient trials have used hypo/hyperglycemia-mitigation or medical-expert systems. In this study, we report the first wearable AP outpatient study based on MPC and investigate specifically its ability to control postprandial glucose, one of the major challenges in glucose control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A new modular MPC algorithm has been designed focusing on meal control. Six type 1 diabetes mellitus patients underwent 42-h experiments: sensor-augmented pump therapy in the first 14 h (open-loop) and closed-loop in the remaining 28 h. RESULTS MPC showed satisfactory dinner control versus open-loop: time-in-target (70–180 mg/dL) 94.83 vs. 68.2% and time-in-hypo 1.25 vs. 11.9%. Overnight control was also satisfactory: time-in-target 89.4 vs. 85.0% and time-in-hypo: 0.00 vs. 8.19%. CONCLUSIONS This outpatient study confirms inpatient evidence of suitability of MPC-based strategies for AP. These encouraging results pave the way to randomized crossover outpatient studies.

Modeling the Glucose Sensor Error

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensors are portable devices, employed in the treatment of diabetes, able to measure glucose concentration in the interstitium almost continuously for several days. However, CGM sensors are not as accurate as standard blood glucose (BG) meters. Studies comparing CGM versus BG demonstrated that CGM is affected by distortion due to diffusion processes and by time-varying systematic under/overestimations due to calibrations and sensor drifts. In addition, measurement noise is also present in CGM data. A reliable model of the different components of CGM inaccuracy with respect to BG (briefly, “sensor error”) is important in several applications, e.g., design of optimal digital filters for denoising of CGM data, real-time glucose prediction, insulin dosing, and artificial pancreas control algorithms. The aim of this paper is to propose an approach to describe CGM sensor error by exploiting n multiple simultaneous CGM recordings. The model of sensor error description includes a model of blood-to-interstitial glucose diffusion process, a linear time-varying model to account for calibration and sensor drift-in-time, and an autoregressive model to describe the additive measurement noise. Model orders and parameters are identified from the n simultaneous CGM sensor recordings and BG references. While the model is applicable to any CGM sensor, here, it is used on a database of 36 datasets of type 1 diabetic adults in which n = 4 Dexcom SEVEN Plus CGM time series and frequent BG references were available simultaneously. Results demonstrates that multiple simultaneous sensor data and proper modeling allow dissecting the sensor error into its different components, distinguishing those related to physiology from those related to technology.

Multinational Home Use of Closed-Loop Control Is Safe and Effective

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy of a portable, wearable, wireless artificial pancreas system (the Diabetes Assistant [DiAs] running the Unified Safety System) on glucose control at home in overnight-only and 24/7 closed-loop control (CLC) modes in patients with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS At six clinical centers in four countries, 30 participants 18–66 years old with type 1 diabetes (43% female, 96% non-Hispanic white, median type 1 diabetes duration 19 years, median A1C 7.3%) completed the study. The protocol included a 2-week baseline sensor-augmented pump (SAP) period followed by 2 weeks of overnight-only CLC and 2 weeks of 24/7 CLC at home. Glucose control during CLC was compared with the baseline SAP. RESULTS Glycemic control parameters for overnight-only CLC were improved during the nighttime period compared with baseline for hypoglycemia (time <70 mg/dL, primary end point median 1.1% vs. 3.0%; P < 0.001), time in target (70–180 mg/dL: 75% vs. 61%; P < 0.001), and glucose variability (coefficient of variation: 30% vs. 36%; P < 0.001). Similar improvements for day/night combined were observed with 24/7 CLC compared with baseline: 1.7% vs. 4.1%, P < 0.001; 73% vs. 65%, P < 0.001; and 34% vs. 38%, P < 0.001, respectively. CONCLUSIONS CLC running on a smartphone (DiAs) in the home environment was safe and effective. Overnight-only CLC reduced hypoglycemia and increased time in range overnight and increased time in range during the day; 24/7 CLC reduced hypoglycemia and increased time in range both overnight and during the day. Compared with overnight-only CLC, 24/7 CLC provided additional hypoglycemia protection during the day.