No abstract

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...

The Tandem Diabetes Care Basal-IQ PLGS system significantly reduced hypoglycemia without rebound hyperglycemia, indicating that the system can benefit adults and youth with type 1 diabetes in improving glycemic control.

Research on and commercial development of the artificial pancreas (AP) continue to progress rapidly, and the AP promises to become a part of clinical care. In this report, members of the JDRF Artificial Pancreas Project Consortium in collaboration with the wider AP community 1) advocate for the use of continuous glucose monitoring glucose metrics as outcome measures in AP trials, in addition to HbA1c, and 2) identify a short set of basic, easily interpreted outcome measures to be reported in AP studies whenever feasible. Consensus on a broader range of measures remains challenging; therefore, reporting of additional metrics is encouraged as appropriate for individual AP studies or study groups. Greater consistency in reporting of basic outcome measures may facilitate the interpretation of study results by investigators, regulatory bodies, health care providers, payers, and patients themselves, thereby accelerating the widespread adoption of AP technology to improve the lives of people with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVEOvernight hypoglycemia occurs frequently in individuals with type 1 diabetes and can result in loss of consciousness, seizure, or even death. We conducted an in-home randomized trial to determine whether nocturnal hypoglycemia could be safely reduced by temporarily suspending pump insulin delivery when hypoglycemia was predicted by an algorithm based on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) glucose levels.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSFollowing an initial run-in phase, a 42-night trial was conducted in 45 individuals aged 15–45 years with type 1 diabetes in which each night was assigned randomly to either having the predictive low-glucose suspend system active (intervention night) or inactive (control night). The primary outcome was the proportion of nights in which ≥1 CGM glucose values ≤60 mg/dL occurred.RESULTSOvernight hypoglycemia with at least one CGM value ≤60 mg/dL occurred on 196 of 942 (21%) intervention nights versus 322 of 970 (33%) control nights (odds ratio 0.52 [95% CI 0.43–0.64]; P < 0.001). Median hypoglycemia area under the curve was reduced by 81%, and hypoglycemia lasting >2 h was reduced by 74%. Overnight sensor glucose was >180 mg/dL during 57% of control nights and 59% of intervention nights (P = 0.17), while morning blood glucose was >180 mg/dL following 21% and 27% of nights, respectively (P < 0.001), and >250 mg/dL following 6% and 6%, respectively. Morning ketosis was present <1% of the time in each arm.CONCLUSIONSUse of a nocturnal low-glucose suspend system can substantially reduce overnight hypoglycemia without an increase in morning ketosis.