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.).

SummaryBackgroundThe 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.MethodsIn 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.FindingsFrom 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...

Aims/hypothesis While the use of insulin pumps in paediatrics has expanded dramatically, there is still considerable variability among countries in the use of pump technology. The present study sought to describe differences in metabolic control and pump use in young people with type 1 diabetes using data collected in three multicentre registries. Methods Data for the years 2011 and 2012 from 54,410 children and adolescents were collected from the Prospective Diabetes n=26,198), T1D Exchange (T1DX; n=13,755) and the National Paediatric Diabetes Audit (NPDA; n=14,457). The modality of insulin delivery, based on age, sex and ethnic minority status, and the impact of pump use on HbA 1c levels were compared. differences in metabolic control exist across the three large transatlantic registries of paediatric patients with type 1 diabetes, which appears to be due in part to the frequency of insulin pump therapy. Results

ObjectiveTo determine accuracy, safety and acceptability of the FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System in the paediatric population.Design, setting and patientsEighty-nine study participants, aged 4–17 years, with type 1 diabetes were enrolled across 9 diabetes centres in the UK. A factory calibrated sensor was inserted on the back of the upper arm and used for up to 14 days. Sensor glucose measurements were compared with capillary blood glucose (BG) measurements. Sensor results were masked to participants.ResultsClinical accuracy of sensor results versus BG results was demonstrated, with 83.8% of results in zone A and 99.4% of results in zones A and B of the consensus error grid. Overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) was 13.9%. Sensor accuracy was unaffected by patient factors such as age, body weight, sex, method of insulin administration or time of use (day vs night). Participants were in the target glucose range (3.9–10.0 mmol/L) ∼50% of the time (mean 12.1 hours/day), with an average of 2.2 hours/day and 9.5 hours/day in hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia, respectively. Sensor application, wear/use of the device and comparison to self-monitoring of blood glucose were rated favourably by most participants/caregivers (84.3–100%). Five device related adverse events were reported across a range of participant ages.ConclusionsAccuracy, safety and user acceptability of the FreeStyle Libre System were demonstrated for the paediatric population. Accuracy of the system was unaffected by subject characteristics, making it suitable for a broad range of children and young people with diabetes.Trial registration numberNCT02388815.

BackgroundContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) enables users to view real-time interstitial glucose readings and provides information on the direction and rate of change of blood glucose levels. Users can also access historical data to inform treatment decisions. While the clinical and psychological benefits of CGM are well established, little is known about how individuals use CGM to inform diabetes self-management. We explored participants’ experiences of using CGM in order to provide recommendations for supporting individuals to make optimal use of this technology.MethodsIn-depth interviews (n = 24) with adults, adolescents and parents who had used CGM for ≥4 weeks; data were analysed thematically.ResultsParticipants found CGM an empowering tool because they could access blood glucose data effortlessly, and trend arrows enabled them to see whether blood glucose was rising or dropping and at what speed. This predicative information aided short-term lifestyle planning and enabled individuals to take action to prevent hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia. Having easy access to blood glucose data on a continuous basis also allowed participants to develop a better understanding of how insulin, activity and food impacted on blood glucose. This understanding was described as motivating individuals to make dietary changes and break cycles of over-treating hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia. Participants also described how historical CGM data provided a more nuanced picture of blood glucose control than was possible with blood glucose self-monitoring and, hence, better information to inform changes to background insulin doses and mealtime ratios. However, while participants expressed confidence making immediate adjustments to insulin and lifestyle to address impending hypoglycaemia and hypoglycaemia, most described needing and expecting health professionals to interpret historical CGM data and determine changes to background insulin doses and mealtime ratios. While alarms could reinforce a sense of hypoglycaemic safety, some individuals expressed ambivalent views, especially those who perceived alarms as signalling personal failure to achieve optimal glycaemic control.ConclusionsCGM can be an empowering and motivational tool which enables participants to fine-tune and optimize their blood glucose control. However, individuals may benefit from psycho-social education, training and/or technological support to make optimal use of CGM data and use alarms appropriately.