No abstract

OBJECTIVEWe 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 METHODSTwenty 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.RESULTSThe 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.CONCLUSIONSCLC 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.

OBJECTIVEThe Pediatric Artificial Pancreas (PedArPan) project tested a children-specific version of the modular model predictive control (MMPC) algorithm in 5-to 9-yearold children during a camp. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSA total of 30 children, 5-to 9-years old, with type 1 diabetes completed an outpatient, open-label, randomized, crossover trial. Three days with an artificial pancreas (AP) were compared with three days of parent-managed sensoraugmented pump (SAP). RESULTSOvernight time-in-hypoglycemia was reduced with the AP versus SAP, median (25 th -75 th percentiles): 0.0% (0.0-2.2) vs. 2.2% (0.0-12.3) (P 5 0.002), without a significant change of time-in-target, mean: 56.0% (SD 22.5) vs. 59.7% (21.2) (P 5 0.430), but with increased mean glucose 173 mg/dL (36) vs. 150 mg/dL (39) (P 5 0.002). Overall, the AP granted a threefold reduction of time-in-hypoglycemia (P < 0.001) at the cost of decreased time-in-target, 56.8% (13.5) vs. 63.1% (11.0) (P 5 0.022) and increased mean glucose 169 mg/dL (23) vs. 147 mg/dL (23) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONSThis trial, the first outpatient single-hormone AP trial in a population of this age, shows feasibility and safety of MMPC in young children. Algorithm retuning will be performed to improve efficacy.Only three artificial pancreas (AP) trials have focused on the prepubertal population so far: two single-hormone AP studies, performed inpatient for less than 1 day (1,2) and a recent dual-hormone AP study, performed in a camp for 5 days (3). Here we report the first outpatient single-hormone AP trial focusing on 5-to 9-year-old children.Data were collected in the Pediatric Artificial Pancreas (PedArPan) camp, where sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy was compared with the modular model predictive control algorithm (MMPC) (4,5), running on the wearable platform Diabetes Assistant (DiAs) (6).

AimTo assess the impact on fear of hypoglycaemia and treatment satisfaction with an artificial pancreas system used for 2 consecutive months, as well as participant acceptance of the artificial pancreas system.MethodsIn a randomized crossover trial patient‐related outcomes associated with an evening‐and‐night artificial pancreas and sensor‐augmented pump therapy were compared. Both intervention periods lasted 8 weeks. The artificial pancreas acceptance questionnaire (range 0–90, higher scores better), Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey II (range 0–72, higher scores worse) and Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (range 0–36, higher scores better) were completed by 32 participants. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted after study completion in a subset of six participants. Outcomes were compared using a repeated‐measures anova model or paired t‐test when appropriate.ResultsThe total artificial pancreas acceptance questionnaire score at the end of the artificial pancreas period was 69.1 (sd 14.7; 95% CI 63.5, 74.7), indicating a positive attitude towards the artificial pancreas. No significant differences were found among the scores at baseline, end of sensor‐augmented pump therapy period or end of the artificial pancreas period with regard to fear of hypoglycaemia [28.2 (sd 17.5), 23.5 (sd 16.6) and 23.5 (sd 16.7), respectively; P = 0.099] or diabetes treatment satisfaction [29.0 (sd 3.9), 28.2 (sd 5.2) and 28.0 (sd 7.1), respectively; P = 0.43]. Themes frequently mentioned in the interviews were ‘positive effects at work’, ‘improved blood glucose’, ‘fewer worries about blood glucose’, but also ‘frequent alarms’, ‘technological issues’ and ‘demand for an all‐in‐one device’.ConclusionsThe psychological outcomes of artificial pancreas and sensor‐augmented pump therapy were similar. Current artificial pancreas technology is promising but user concerns should be taken into account to ensure utility of these systems.