BACKGROUND The safety and effectiveness of automated glycemic management have not been tested in multiday studies under unrestricted outpatient conditions. METHODS In two random-order, crossover studies with similar but distinct designs, we compared glycemic control with a wearable, bihormonal, automated, “bionic” pancreas (bionic-pancreas period) with glycemic control with an insulin pump (control period) for 5 days in 20 adults and 32 adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. The automatically adaptive algorithm of the bionic pancreas received data from a continuous glucose monitor to control subcutaneous delivery of insulin and glucagon. RESULTS Among the adults, the mean plasma glucose level over the 5-day bionic-pancreas period was 138 mg per deciliter (7.7 mmol per liter), and the mean percentage of time with a low glucose level (<70 mg per deciliter [3.9 mmol per liter]) was 4.8%. After 1 day of automatic adaptation by the bionic pancreas, the mean (±SD) glucose level on continuous monitoring was lower than the mean level during the control period (133±13 vs. 159±30 mg per deciliter [7.4±0.7 vs. 8.8±1.7 mmol per liter], P<0.001) and the percentage of time with a low glucose reading was lower (4.1% vs. 7.3%, P = 0.01). Among the adolescents, the mean plasma glucose level was also lower during the bionic-pancreas period than during the control period (138±18 vs. 157±27 mg per deciliter [7.7±1.0 vs. 8.7±1.5 mmol per liter], P = 0.004), but the percentage of time with a low plasma glucose reading was similar during the two periods (6.1% and 7.6%, respectively; P = 0.23). The mean frequency of interventions for hypoglycemia among the adolescents was lower during the bionic-pancreas period than during the control period (one per 1.6 days vs. one per 0.8 days, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS As compared with an insulin pump, a wearable, automated, bihormonal, bionic pancreas improved mean glycemic levels, with less frequent hypoglycemic episodes, among both adults and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01762059 and NCT01833988.)

BACKGROUND Automated control of blood glucose (BG) has been a goal of type 1 diabetes (T1DM) therapy. The normal pancreas uses insulin and glucagon to regulate BG. Therefore, we developed a “closed-loop” BG control system utilizing both insulin and glucagon. METHODS Subcutaneous delivery of insulin lispro and glucagon was controlled by a computer algorithm that responded solely to BG levels every 5 min and incorporated a pharmacokinetic model for lispro. Eleven C-peptide negative subjects with T1DM were studied for 27 hours. Outcomes included mean BG, number and severity of hypoglycemic episodes, and comparison between measured and mode-estimated lispro levels. RESULTS In six subjects, the system achieved an aggregate 24-hour mean BG of 140 mg/dL, with no hypoglycemic events requiring treatment in 133 hours of control (nadir BG 66 mg/dL). In retrospect, their time-to-peak lispro levels were similar to that assumed by the algorithm (tmax 56-–72 min). Five subjects with generally slower lispro absorption (tmax 71–191 min) had at least one treatment-requiring hypoglycemic episode (17 episodes in 104 hours). Adjustment of the pharmacokinetic model parameters for lispro eliminated hypoglycemia in repeat experiments in the same five subjects, but with a mean BG of 173 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS The original algorithm achieved near-normal mean BG with negligible hypoglycemia in subjects with rapid lispro kinetics. In subjects with delayed lispro absorption, modifying the pharmacokinetic assumptions prevented hypoglycemia, albeit with increased mean BG levels. These results demonstrate the feasibility of a bi-hormonal artificial endocrine pancreas. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00811317.)

The effectiveness and safety of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) is dependent on their accuracy and reliability. The objective of this study was to compare 3 CGMs in adult and pediatric subjects with type 1 diabetes under closed-loop blood-glucose (BG) control. Twenty-four subjects (12 adults) with type 1 diabetes each participated in one 48-hour closed-loop BG control experiment. Venous plasma glucose (PG) measurements obtained every 15 minutes (4657 values) were paired in time with corresponding CGM glucose (CGMG) measurements obtained from 3 CGMs (FreeStyle Navigator, Abbott Diabetes Care; G4 Platinum, Dexcom; Enlite, Medtronic) worn simultaneously by each subject. The Navigator and G4 Platinum (G4) had the best overall accuracy, with an aggregate mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of all paired points of 12.3 ± 12.1% and 10.8 ± 9.9%, respectively. Both had lower MARDs of all paired points than Enlite (17.9 ± 15.8%, P < .005). Very large errors (MARD > 50%) were less common with the G4 (0.5%) than with the Enlite (4.3%, P = .0001) while the number of very large errors with the Navigator (1.4%) was intermediate between the G4 and Enlite (P = .1 and P = .06, respectively). The average MARD for experiments in adolescent subjects were lower than in adult subjects for the Navigator and G4, while there was no difference for Enlite. All 3 devices had similar reliability. A comprehensive head-to-head-to-head comparison of 3 CGMs revealed marked differences in both accuracy and precision. The Navigator and G4 were found to outperform the Enlite in these areas.

Summary Background The safety and effectiveness of a continuous, day-and-night automated glycaemic control system using insulin and glucagon has not been shown in a free-living, home-use setting. We aimed to assess whether bihormonal bionic pancreas initialised only with body mass can safely reduce mean glycaemia and hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes who were living at home and participating in their normal daily routines without restrictions on diet or physical activity. Methods We did a random-order crossover study in volunteers at least 18 years old who had type 1 diabetes and lived within a 30 min drive of four sites in the USA. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) in blocks of two using sequentially numbered sealed envelopes to glycaemic regulation with a bihormonal bionic pancreas or usual care (conventional or sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy) first, followed by the opposite intervention. Both study periods were 11 days in length, during which time participants continued all normal activities, including athletics and driving. The bionic pancreas was initialised with only the participant’s body mass. Autonomously adaptive dosing algorithms used data from a continuous glucose monitor to control subcutaneous delivery of insulin and glucagon. The coprimary outcomes were the mean glucose concentration and time with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) glucose concentration less than 3·3 mmol/L, analysed over days 2–11 in participants who completed both periods of the study. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092220. Findings We randomly assigned 43 participants between May 6, 2014, and July 3, 2015, 39 of whom completed the study: 20 who were assigned to bionic pancreas first and 19 who were assigned to the comparator first. The mean CGM glucose concentration was 7·8 mmol/L (SD 0·6) in the bionic pancreas period versus 9·0 mmol/L (1·6) in the comparator period (difference 1·1 mmol/L, 95% CI 0·7–1·6; p<0·0001), and the mean time with CGM glucose concentration less than 3·3 mmol/L was 0·6% (0·6) in the bionic pancreas period versus 1·9% (1·7) in the comparator period (difference 1·3%, 95% CI 0·8–1·8; p<0·0001). The mean nausea score on the Visual Analogue Scale (score 0–10) was greater during the bionic pancreas period (0·52 [SD 0·83]) than in the comparator period (0·05 [0·17]; difference 0·47, 95% CI 0·21–0·73; p=0·0024). Body mass and laboratory parameters did not differ between periods. There were no serious or unexpected adverse events in the bionic pancreas period of the study. Interpretation Relative to conventional and sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy, the bihormonal bionic pancreas, initialised only with participant weight, was able to achieve superior glycaemic regulation without the need for carbohydrate counting. Larger and longer studies are needed to establish the long-term benefits and risks of automated glycaemic management with a bihormonal bionic pancreas. Funding National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the...

Summary Background The safety and efficacy of continuous, multiday, automated glycaemic management has not been tested in outpatient studies of preadolescent children with type 1 diabetes. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a bihormonal bionic pancreas versus conventional insulin pump therapy in this population of patients in an outpatient setting. Methods In this randomised, open-label, crossover study, we enrolled preadolescent children (aged 6–11 years) with type 1 diabetes (diagnosed for ≥1 year) who were on insulin pump therapy, from two diabetes camps in the USA. With the use of sealed envelopes, participants were randomly assigned in blocks of two to either 5 days with the bionic pancreas or conventional insulin pump therapy (control) as the first intervention, followed by a 3 day washout period and then 5 days with the other intervention. Study allocation was not masked. The autonomously adaptive algorithm of the bionic pancreas received data from a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device to control subcutaneous delivery of insulin and glucagon. Conventional insulin pump therapy was administered by the camp physicians and other clinical staff in accordance with their established protocols; participants also wore a CGM device during the control period. The coprimary outcomes, analysed by intention to treat, were mean CGM-measured glucose concentration and the proportion of time with a CGM-measured glucose concentration below 3·3 mmol/L, on days 2–5. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02105324. Findings Between July 20, and Aug 19, 2014, 19 children with a mean age of 9·8 years (SD 1·6) participated in and completed the study. The bionic pancreas period was associated with a lower mean CGM-measured glucose concentration on days 2–5 than was the control period (7·6 mmol/L [SD 0·6] vs 9·3 mmol/L [1·7]; p=0·00037) and a lower proportion of time with a CGM-measured glucose concentration below 3·3 mmol/L on days 2–5 (1·2% [SD 1·1] vs 2·8% [1·2]; p<0·0001). The median number of carbohydrate interventions given per participant for hypoglycaemia on days 1–5 (ie, glucose <3·9 mmol/L) was lower during the bionic pancreas period than during the control period (three [range 0–8] vs five [0–14]; p=0·037). No episodes of severe hypoglycaemia were recorded. Medium-to-large concentrations of ketones (range 0·6–3·6 mmol/dL) were reported on seven occasions in five participants during the control period and on no occasion during the bionic pancreas period (p=0·063). Interpretation The improved mean glycaemia and reduced hypoglycaemia with the bionic pancreas relative to insulin pump therapy in preadolescent children with type 1 diabetes in a diabetes camp setting is a promising finding. Studies of a longer duration during which children use the bionic pancreas during their normal routines at home and school should be done to investigate the potential for use of the bionic pancreas in real-world settings. Funding The Leona M and Harry B Helmsley Charitable Trust and the US Nat...