Glucose Control in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Using a Medtronic Prototype Enhanced-Hybrid Closed-Loop System: A Feasibility Study

Improved Satisfaction While Maintaining Safety and High Time in Range (TIR) With a Medtronic Investigational Enhanced Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (e-AHCL) System

OBJECTIVE

To determine feasibility and compare acceptance of an investigational Medtronic enhanced advanced hybrid closed-loop (e-AHCL) system in adults with type 1 diabetes with earlier iterations.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This nonrandomized three-stage (12 weeks each) exploratory study compared e-AHCL (Bluetooth-enabled MiniMed 780G insulin pump with automatic data upload [780G] incorporating an updated algorithm; calibration-free all-in-one disposable sensor; 7-day infusion set) preceded by a run-in (non-Bluetooth 780G [670G V4.0 insulin pump] requiring manual data upload; Guardian Sensor 3 [GS3] requiring calibration; 3-day infusion set), stage 1 (780G; GS3; 3-day infusion set), and stage 2 (780G; calibration-free Guardian Sensor 4; 3-day infusion set). Treatment satisfaction was assessed by Diabetes Technology Questionnaire (DTQ)-current (primary outcome) and other validated treatment satisfaction tools with glucose outcomes by continuous glucose monitoring metrics.

RESULTS

Twenty-one of 22 (11 women) participants (baseline HbA1c 6.7%/50 mmol/mol) completed the study. DTQ-current scores favored e-AHCL (123.1 [17.8]) versus run-in (101.6 [24.2]) and versus stage 1 (110.6 [20.8]) (both P < 0.001) but did not differ from stage 2 (119.4 [16.0]; P = 0.271). Diabetes Medication System Rating Questionnaire short-form scores for "Convenience and Efficacy" favored e-AHCL over run-in and all stages. Percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL was greater with e-AHCL versus run-in and stage 2 (+2.9% and +3.6%, respectively; both P < 0.001). Percent times of <70 mg/dL for e-AHCL were significantly lower than run-in, stage 1, and stage 2 (-0.9%, -0.6%, and -0.5%, respectively; all P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

e-AHCL was feasible. User satisfaction increased compared with earlier Medtronic HCL iterations without compromising glucose control.

Exercising Safely with the MiniMed™ 780G Automated Insulin Delivery System

The physical and psychological benefits of exercise are particularly pertinent to people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). The variability in subcutaneous insulin absorption and the delay in offset and onset in glucose lowering action impose limitations, given the rapidly varying insulin requirements with exercise. Simultaneously, there are challenges to glucose monitoring. Consequently, those with T1D are less likely to exercise because of concerns regarding glucose instability. While glucose control with exercise can be enhanced using automated insulin delivery (AID), all commercially available AID systems remain limited by the pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous insulin delivery. Although glycemic responses may vary with exercises of differing intensities and durations, the principles providing the foundation for guidelines include minimization of insulin on board before exercise commencement, judicious and timely carbohydrate supplementation, and when possible, a reduction in insulin delivered in anticipation of planned exercise. There is an increasing body of evidence in support of superior glucose control with AID over manual insulin dosing in people in T1D who wish to exercise. The MiniMed™ 780G AID system varies basal insulin delivery with superimposed automated correction boluses. It incorporates a temporary (elevated glucose) target of 8.3 mmol/L (150 mg/dL) and when it is functioning, the autocorrection boluses are stopped. As the device has recently become commercially available, there are limited data assessing glucose control with the MiniMed™ 780G under exercise conditions. Importantly, when exercise was planned and implemented within consensus guidelines, %time in range and %time below range targets were met. A practical approach to exercising with the device is provided with illustrative case studies. While there are limitations to spontaneity imposed on any AID device due to the pharmacokinetics associated with the subcutaneous delivery of current insulin formulations, the MiniMed™ 780G system provides people with T1D an excellent option for exercising safely if the appropriate strategies are implemented.

"Empowering Us": A Community-Led Survey of Real-World Perspectives of Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Using Insulin Pumps and Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Manage Their Glucose Levels

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an Australian community-led survey of adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), identifying priorities for, and barriers to, optimal use of advanced glucose management technologies.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A 30-question online survey of current or past users of insulin pump therapy (IPT), real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM), or intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) explored perceptions regarding device design, access, education, outcomes, and support.

RESULTS

Between November 2021 and January 2022, surveys were completed by 3,380 participants (age [mean±SD] 45±16 years; 62% female; 20±14 years diabetes), with 55%, 82%, and 55% reporting experience with IPT, RT-CGM, and isCGM, respectively. Overall, most considered diabetes technology '(extremely) important' for maintaining target glucose levels (98%) and reducing hypoglycaemia severity and frequency (93%). For most, technology contributed positively to emotional well-being (IPT 89%; RT-CGM 91%; isCGM 87%), which was associated with device effectiveness in maintaining glucose in range, comfort, and convenience. Barriers included affordability (IPT 68%; RT-CGM 81%; isCGM 69%) and insufficient information for informed choices about device suitability (IPT 39%; RT-CGM 41%; isCGM 36%).

CONCLUSIONS

Technology is perceived by adults with T1D as important for managing glycaemia and emotional well-being. Modifiable barriers to use include affordability, and information regarding device suitability.

Discovery of insulin 100 years on

The discovery of insulin 100 years ago ranks among the greatest medical achievements ever. This sparked a revolution of scientific discovery and therapeutic intervention to treat people suffering with diabetes. A light was shone for other areas of medicine to illuminate what was possible with detailed scientific endeavour. There followed a range of firsts leading to the current time in which we now know more about this peptide hormone than almost any other protein in existence. This has allowed therapeutic advancement from a positon of knowledge leading to stunning innovation. This innovation is likely to lead to more physiological insulin replacement reducing the disease burden to individuals and society as whole.

Effectiveness and Safety of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Previously Treated with Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion and Flash Glucose Monitoring

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the MiniMed™ 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) previously treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion combined with flash glucose monitoring in a real-life setting. A total of 47 subjects (mean age 41 ± 13.6 years, 60% females, diabetes duration 28 ± 11 years) were included and switched to an AHCL system. Baseline and 6-month data were analyzed. Time in range 70-180 mg/dL increased from 65.3% at baseline to 73.8% at 6 months. Time in hyperglycemia >180 mg/dL decreased from 26.6% to 19.3%. Time in hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL decreased from 4.6% to 2.3%. The coefficient of variation also decreased from 36% to 31.6%. No episodes of severe hypoglycemia, diabetes ketoacidosis, or diabetes-related hospital admissions occurred. In conclusion, the MiniMed 780G AHCL system enables the safe achievement of recommended glycemic targets in people with T1D after 6 months of use.

Safety and Glycemic Outcomes During the MiniMed™ Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Pivotal Trial in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Introduction: This trial assessed safety and effectiveness of an advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system with automated basal (Auto Basal) and automated bolus correction (Auto Correction) in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Materials and Methods: This multicenter single-arm study involved an intent-to-treat population of 157 individuals (39 adolescents aged 14-21 years and 118 adults aged ≥22-75 years) with T1D. Study participants used the MiniMed™ AHCL system during a baseline run-in period in which sensor-augmented pump +/- predictive low glucose management or Auto Basal was enabled for ∼14 days. Thereafter, Auto Basal and Auto Correction were enabled for a study phase (∼90 days), with glucose target set to 100 or 120 mg/dL for ∼45 days, followed by the other target for ∼45 days. Study endpoints included safety events and change in mean A1C, time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) and time below range (TBR, <70 mg/dL). Run-in and study phase values were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test or paired t-test. Results: Overall group time spent in closed loop averaged 94.9% ± 5.4% and involved only 1.2 ± 0.8 exits per week. Compared with run-in, AHCL reduced A1C from 7.5% ± 0.8% to 7.0% ± 0.5% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, n = 155), TIR increased from 68.8% ± 10.5% to 74.5% ± 6.9% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test), and TBR reduced from 3.3% ± 2.9% to 2.3% ± 1.7% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Similar benefits to glycemia were observed for each age group and were more pronounced for the nighttime (12 AM-6 AM). The 100 mg/dL target increased TIR to 75.4% (n = 155), which was further optimized at a lower active insulin time (AIT) setting (i.e., 2 h), without increasing TBR. There were no severe hypoglycemic or diabetic ketoacidosis events during the study phase. Conclusions: These findings show that the MiniMed AHCL system is safe and allows for achievement of recommended glycemic targets in adolescents and adults with T1D. Adjustments in target and AIT settings may further optimize glycemia and improve user experience. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03959423.

Comparable Glucose Control with Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart Versus Insulin Aspart Using a Second-Generation Hybrid Closed-Loop System During Exercise

Background: This study compared glucose control with fast-acting insulin aspart (FiAsp) versus insulin aspart following moderate-intensity exercise (MIE) and high-intensity exercise (HIE) using a second-generation closed-loop (CL) system in people with type 1 diabetes. Materials and Methods: This randomized crossover study compared FiAsp versus insulin aspart over four sessions during MIE and HIE with CL insulin delivery by the MiniMed™ Advanced hybrid CL system. Participants were randomly assigned FiAsp and insulin aspart each for 6 weeks and within each period performed, in random order, 40 min MIE (∼50% VO₂max) and HIE (6 × 2 min ∼80% VO₂max; 5 min recovery). The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) time in range (TIR, 3.9-10.0 mM) for 24 h following exercise. Results: Sixteen adults (9 male; age 48 [37, 57] years; hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 7.0 [6.4, 7.2] %; duration diabetes 30 [17, 41] years) were recruited. In the 24 h postexercise, median TIR was >81%, time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mM) was <4%, and time in hyperglycemia (>10 mM) was <17% for both exercise conditions and insulin formations, with no significant differences between insulins (P > 0.05). In the 2 h postexercise and overnight, the TIR approached 100% for all conditions. Conclusions: There were no differences in TIR during and 24 h after MIE or HIE when comparing insulin aspart with FiAsp delivered by a second-generation CL system. Insulin formulations with an offset in action greater than FiAsp are needed to provide a meaningful improvement in CL glucose control with exercise. Clinical Trial Registration number: ACTRN12619000469112.

Rapid Improvement in Time in Range After the Implementation of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Background: Advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) systems represent the next step of automation intended to maximize normoglycemia in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). In the AHCL MiniMed 780G system, different algorithm glucose targets for insulin infusion are available and autocorrection boluses are delivered. The aim was to prospectively evaluate the impact of the implementation of this AHCL system in a clinical setting. Materials and Methods: T1D subjects using a sensor-augmented pump with predictive low-glucose suspend (SAP-PLGS) were upgraded to AHCL. Baseline, every 3 days, 2-week and 1-month sensor and pump data were downloaded. Glucose target was set to 100 mg/dL and active insulin time to 2 h for all the subjects. Time in different glucose ranges was compared. Results: Fifty-two T1D subjects were included (age: 43 ± 12 years, 73% females, diabetes duration: 27 ± 11 years, HbA1c: 7.2% ± 0.9%, time in SAP-PLGS: 5 ± 2 years). Time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL increased from 67.3% ± 13.6% at baseline to 79.6% ± 7.9% at 1 month (P = 0.001). Time in hyperglycemia >180 and >250 mg/dL decreased from 29.4% ± 15.1% to 17.3% ± 8.6% and from 6.9% ± 7.8% to 2.5% ± 2.4%, respectively (P = 0.001). No differences in time in hypoglycemia <70 or <54 mg/dL were found. Time in Auto Mode was 97% ± 4%, and autocorrection insulin was 31% ± 14% of bolus insulin. Four hours postprandial glucose was improved from 162 ± 26 mg/dL at baseline to 142 ± 16 mg/dL at 1 month (P = 0.001). No severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis episodes occurred. Conclusion: AHCL systems allow well-controlled T1D patients to rapidly increase their TIR. The most aggressive settings allow optimal outcomes in TIR, without increasing hypoglycemia frequency.

Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart Versus Insulin Aspart Using a Second-Generation Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized, Open-Label, Crossover Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate glucose control using fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) compared with insulin aspart (IAsp) delivered by the MiniMed Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) system in adults with type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this randomized, open-label, crossover study, participants were assigned to receive faster aspart or IAsp in random order. Stages 1 and 2 comprised of 6 weeks in closed loop, preceded by 2 weeks in open loop. This was followed by stage 3, whereby participants changed directly back to the insulin formulation used in stage 1 for 1 week in closed loop. Participants chose their own meals except for two standardized meal tests, a missed meal bolus and late meal bolus. The primary outcome was the percentage of time sensor glucose values were from 70 to 180 mg/dL (time in range; [TIR]).

RESULTS

Twenty-five adults (52% male) were recruited; the median (interquartile range) age was 48 (37, 57) years, and the median HbA1c was 7.0% (6.6, 7.2) (53 [49, 55] mmol/mol). Faster aspart demonstrated greater overall TIR compared with IAsp (82.3% [78.5, 83.7] vs. 79.6% [77.0, 83.4], respectively; mean difference 1.9% [0.5, 3.3]; P = 0.007). Four-hour postprandial glucose TIR was higher using faster aspart compared with IAsp for all meals combined (73.6% [69.4, 80.2] vs. 72.1% [64.5, 78.5], respectively; median difference 3.5% [1.0, 7.3]; P = 0.003). There was no ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Faster aspart safely improved glucose control compared with IAsp in a group of adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes using AHCL. The modest improvement was mainly related to mealtime glycemia. While the primary outcome demonstrated statistical significance, the clinical impact may be small, given an overall difference in TIR of 1.9%.

Real-world outcomes with different technology modalities in type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Several treatment modalities are available for type 1 diabetes (T1D), including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and flash glucose monitoring (FGM) with MDI, sensor-augmented pumps with predictive low-glucose suspend function (SAP-PLGS) and hybrid closed-loop systems (HCL). The aim of the study was to evaluate the real-world benefits obtained with these treatment modalities.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A cross-sectional study was performed, selecting 4 groups of T1D subjects, regarding their treatment modalities, paired by age, sex and diabetes duration. A comparison was performed, concerning time in different glucose ranges in 2-week sensor downloads. Estimated HbA1c, glycaemic variability measures and sensor use were also compared. 302 T1D people were included (age: 39 ± 12 years, 47% male, diabetes duration: 21 ± 10 years, estimated HbA1c: 7.28 ± 0.84% (56 ± 9 mmol/mol), baseline HbA1c: 7.4 ± 1.0% (57 ± 11 mmol/mol), length of use of the device 8 [3-21] months). Group 1 (CGM + MDI) and 2 (FGM + MDI) showed no differences in time in different glucose ranges. Group 4 (HCL) showed a higher time 70-180 mg/dl and a lower time in hypoglycaemia than group 3 (SAP-PLGS). Group 1 and 2 showed lower time 70-180 mg/dl, higher time in hyperglycaemia and higher glycaemic variability measures than group 3. Group 4 was superior to groups 1 and 2 in all the outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Real-life achievements in glycaemic control and glycaemic variability are described. HCL offer the maximum benefit in terms of time in range and hypoglycaemia protection, compared to CGM + MDI, FGM + MDI and SAP-PLGS.

Current treatment options and challenges in patients with Type 1 diabetes: Pharmacological, technical advances and future perspectives

Type 1 diabetes mellitus imposes a significant burden of complications and mortality, despite important advances in treatment: subjects affected by this disease have also a worse quality of life-related to disease management. To overcome these challenges, different new approaches have been proposed, such as new insulin formulations or innovative devices. The introduction of insulin pumps allows a more physiological insulin administration with a reduction of HbA1c level and hypoglycemic risk. New continuous glucose monitoring systems with better accuracy have allowed, not only better glucose control, but also the improvement of the quality of life. Integration of these devices with control algorithms brought to the creation of the first artificial pancreas, able to independently gain metabolic control without the risk of hypo- and hyperglycemic crisis. This approach has revolutionized the management of diabetes both in terms of quality of life and glucose control. However, complete independence from exogenous insulin will be obtained only by biological approaches that foresee the replacement of functional beta cells obtained from stem cells: this will be a major challenge but the biggest hope for the subjects with type 1 diabetes. In this review, we will outline the current scenario of innovative diabetes management both from a technological and biological point of view, and we will also forecast some cutting-edge approaches to reduce the challenges that hamper the definitive cure of diabetes.

MiniMedTM780G Insulin pump system with smartphone connectivity for the treatment of type 1 diabetes: overview of its safety and efficacy

Introduction: Despite significant advances in diabetes care over the last three decades, the majority of people living with T1D are not meeting established metabolic goals. Automated insulin delivery can help achieve these metabolic goals (HbA1c and TIR).Areas covered: This review examines the new features and available data regarding safety and efficacy of the MiniMed™ 780 G, a second-generation advanced hybrid closed-loop system. Reported outcomes include time in, above and below range, HbA1c, diabetic ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycemia.Expert opinion: The initial pivotal trials of the MiniMed™ 780 G have demonstrated promising clinical and safety outcomes. Real-world data and longer-term studies are still needed. The success of AID devices moving forward hinges on their ease of use and ability to reduce and relieve the burden of living with T1D.

Feasibility Study of a Hybrid Closed-Loop System with Automated Insulin Correction Boluses

Background: The Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G system adjusts basal insulin delivery in response to continuous glucose monitoring levels and is already in use in clinical practice. We tested the home-based feasibility of the new MiniMed advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system, which includes several algorithm enhancements and an optional autocorrection bolus mode. Methods: Twelve adolescents and young adults (eight females) with type 1 diabetes [median (interquartile range)] aged 16.6 (15.9, 18.2) years and diabetes duration of 7.1 (4.7, 8.8) years] participated in this single-arm study. The first stage was a 6-day open-loop run-in period, with the predictive low-glucose suspend feature on. This was followed by 6 days/5 nights in a supervised hotel setting, using the AHCL system, including closed-loop challenges (missed meal bolus, late meal bolus, and physical activity); and finally, 3 weeks with unrestricted home use. Glycemic parameters were compared between the open-loop and closed-loop periods. Results: Participants spent 93.3% (4.7) of the time in SmartGuard™ Auto Mode. Hemoglobin A1C levels decreased from median (interquartile range) 7.1% (6.7, 7.9) at baseline to 6.8% (6.6, 7.4) at study end, after 4 weeks (P = 0.0027). Time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) was 68.4% (10.6) and time below 70 mg/dL was 4% (3.5) during open-loop; and 74% (6.1) and 2.6% (1.9), respectively, during the closed-loop at home phase (P = 0.06, P = 0.27). TIR increased during the nighttime, from 64.6% (17.4) to 80.7% (7.8), P = 0.007, without change in time below 70 mg/dL (P = 0.15). No serious adverse events occurred. Conclusions: The new AHCL system demonstrated safety and effectiveness in controlling day and night glucose levels.

Performance of an Automated Insulin Delivery System: Results of Early Phase Feasibility Studies

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have demonstrated improvements in time-in-range (TIR, blood glucose 70-180 mg/dL) without increasing hypoglycemia. Testing a closed-loop system in an inpatient environment with supervised challenges allows for initial evaluation of performance and safety of the system. Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) were enrolled into two similar studies (n = 10 per study), with 3-day inpatient analysis periods. Participants tested a Lilly hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system comprising an investigational insulin pump, insulin lispro, a pump-embedded model predictive control algorithm, a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and an external dedicated controller. Each protocol included meal-related and exercise challenges to simulate real-world diabetes self-management errors. Only study staff interacted with the HCL system. Performance was assessed using standard CGM metrics overall and within prespecified periods. Results: Participants (25% male) had mean ± standard deviation (SD) age 44.7 ± 14.2 years, T1D duration 30.2 ± 11.1 years, A1C 7.2% ± 0.8%, and insulin usage 0.53 ± 0.21 U/(kg·day). Percentage TIR 70-180 mg/dL (mean ± SD) was 81.2 ± 8.4 overall, 85.2 ± 8.1 outside of challenge periods, 97.3 ± 5.3 during the nocturnal periods, and 74.5 ± 16.2 for the postprandial periods. During challenge periods, percentage TIR for the overbolus challenge was 65.4 ± 29.2 and that for the delayed bolus challenge was 57.1 ± 25.1. No adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, or unanticipated adverse device events occurred while participants were using the HCL system. Conclusions: In participants with T1D, Lilly AID system demonstrated expected algorithm performance and safety with satisfactory glycemic outcomes overall and in response to simulated diabetes management challenges. Additional studies in less supervised conditions and with broader patient populations are warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration number NCT03743285, NCT03849612.

Six-Month Effectiveness of Advanced vs. Standard Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of advanced- (a-HCL) vs. standard-hybrid closed-loop (s-HCL) systems use up to 6 months of treatment in a real-world setting of children and adolescents with T1DM.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated all T1DM pediatric users of MiniMed™ 670G system (s-HCL) and 780G system (a-HCL). HbA1c and BMI were collected at baseline and three and six months after HCL start. Data on glycemic control were extracted from reports generated with CareLink™ Personal Software in Manual Mode, at HCL start, after one, three, and six months after HCL beginning.

RESULTS

The study included 44 individuals with a median age of 13.3 years (range 2- 21 years), 20 on s-HCL, and 24 on a-HCL. a-HCL users had a significantly lower HbA1c compared to s-HCL after six months of HCL use (7.1 vs. 7.7%). Significant differences in HbA1c between a-HCL and s-HCL users were found in children aged 7-14 years (7.1 vs. 7.7% after six months) and in those with a worse (HbA1c >8%) glycemic control at the beginning (7.1 vs. 8.1% after six months). No significant changes in HbA1c were found in a-HCL users that previously used a s-HCL system. Nevertheless, only the use of a-HCL significantly predicted a lower HbA1c after six months. All sensor-specific measures of glycemic control improved from Manual to Auto mode, in both s-HCL and a-HCL, without increasing time spent in hypoglycemia. However, the percentage of individuals with TIR>70% increased significantly in a-HCL users, who attained this target earlier and more stably: younger age, a higher rate of auto-correction, and a lower amount of CHO inserted predicted a TIR>70%. BMI SDS did not significantly change throughout the study period.

CONCLUSION

This real-world study suggests that effectiveness might be greater in a-HCL than in s-HCL, with significant changes in HbA1c, and reaching earlier and more stably the target of TIR >70%, without increasing hypoglycemia or BMI. At the same time, previous users of s-HCL systems did not show any further improvement with a-HCL. Children under the age of 14 years of age, not represented in previous studies, seem to benefit the most from a-HCL pumps as well as individuals with the worst glycemic control.

Six Months of Hybrid Closed-Loop Versus Manual Insulin Delivery With Fingerprick Blood Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate glycemic and psychosocial outcomes with hybrid closed-loop (HCL) versus user-determined insulin dosing with multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump (i.e., standard therapy for most adults with type 1 diabetes).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Adults with type 1 diabetes using MDI or insulin pump without continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) were randomized to 26 weeks of HCL (Medtronic 670G) or continuation of current therapy. The primary outcome was masked CGM time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL) during the final 3 weeks.

RESULTS

Participants were randomized to HCL (n = 61) or control (n = 59). Baseline mean (SD) age was 44.2 (11.7) years, HbA_1c was 7.4% (0.9%) (57 [10] mmol/mol), 53% were women, and 51% used MDI. HCL TIR increased from (baseline) 55% (13%) to (26 weeks) 70% (10%) with the control group unchanged: (baseline) 55% (12%) and (26 weeks) 55% (13%) (difference 15% [95% CI 11, 19]; P < 0.0001). For HCL, HbA_1c was lower (median [95% CI] difference -0.4% [-0.6, -0.2]; -4 mmol/mol [-7, -2]; P < 0.0001) and diabetes-specific positive well-being was higher (difference 1.2 [95% CI 0.4, 1.9]; P < 0.0048) without a deterioration in diabetes distress, perceived sleep quality, or cognition. Seventeen (9 device-related) versus 13 serious adverse events occurred in the HCL and control groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with type 1 diabetes, 26 weeks of HCL improved TIR, HbA_1c, and their sense of satisfaction from managing their diabetes compared with those continuing with user-determined insulin dosing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. For most people living with type 1 diabetes globally, this trial demonstrates that HCL is feasible, acceptable, and advantageous.

Closed-loop control in insulin pumps for type-1 diabetes mellitus: safety and efficacy

INTRODUCTION

Type 1 diabetes is a lifelong disease with high management burden. The majority of people with type 1 diabetes fail to achieve glycemic targets. Algorithm-driven automated insulin delivery (closed-loop) systems aim to address these challenges. This review provides an overview of commercial and emerging closed-loop systems.

AREAS COVERED

We review safety and efficacy of commercial and emerging hybrid closed-loop systems. A literature search was conducted and clinical trials using day-and-night closed-loop systems during free-living conditions were used to report on safety data. We comment on efficacy where robust randomized controlled trial data for a particular system are available. We highlight similarities and differences between commercial systems.

EXPERT OPINION

Study data shows that hybrid closed-loop systems are safe and effective, consistently improving glycemic control when compared to standard therapy. While a fully closed-loop system with minimal burden remains the end-goal, these hybrid closed-loop systems have transformative potential in diabetes care.

Where Do We Stand with Closed-Loop Systems and Their Challenges?

Treatments for type 1 diabetes have advanced significantly over recent years. There are now multiple hybrid closed-loop systems commercially available and additional systems are in development. Challenges remain, however. This review outlines the recent advances in closed-loop systems and outlines the remaining challenges, including post-prandial hyperglycemia and exercise-related dysglycemia.

New technical approach to the diabetes therapy

Optimal glycemic control remains challenging in individuals with type 1 diabetes. With the comprehensive clinical evidence on safety and efficiency, the adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), insulin pumps, and control algorithms merging the two into closed-loop systems is rapidly increasing. Particularly the CGM and intermittently scanned CGM improved diabetes management outcomes in large populations. A meaningful translation from clinical trials in highly controlled settings to numerous evaluations of closed-loop technology in the unrestricted home environment ended with its commercialization and use in routine clinical practice. Although it is still not a cure, the closed-loop currently seems to be the most promising advancement in the treatment of diabetes, with promising results also reported from routine clinical practice in children and adults with type 1 diabetes. We summarize different aspects of a technological approach to diabetes care, list currently available devices and systems in the pipeline, and the key supporting clinical evidence for their use. We consider human factors associated with technology use and the importance of health economics to support implementation and reimbursement.

Efficacy of the Diabeloop closed-loop system to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes exposed to gastronomic dinners or to sustained physical exercise

AIMS

To compare closed-loop (CL) and open-loop (OL) systems for glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) exposed to real-life challenging situations (gastronomic dinners or sustained physical exercise).

METHODS

Thirty-eight adult patients with T1D were included in a three-armed randomized pilot trial (Diabeloop WP6.2 trial) comparing glucose control using a CL system with use of an OL device during two crossover 72-hour periods in one of the three following situations: large (gastronomic) dinners; sustained and repeated bouts of physical exercise (with uncontrolled food intake); or control (rest conditions). Outcomes included time in spent in the glucose ranges of 4.4-7.8 mmol/L and 3.9-10.0 mmol/L, and time in hypo- and hyperglycaemia.

RESULTS

Time spent overnight in the tight range of 4.4 to 7.8 mmol/L was longer with CL (mean values: 63.2% vs 40.9% with OL; P ≤ .0001). Time spent during the day in the range of 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L was also longer with CL (79.4% vs 64.1% with OL; P ≤ .0001). Participants using the CL system spent less time during the day with hyperglycaemic excursions (glucose >10.0 mmol/L) compared to those using an OL system (17.9% vs 31.9%; P ≤ .0001), and the proportions of time spent during the day with hyperglycaemic excursions of those using the CL system in the gastronomic dinner and physical exercise subgroups were of similar magnitude to those in the control subgroup (18.1 ± 6.3%, 17.2 ± 8.1% and 18.4 ± 12.5%, respectively). Finally, times spent in hypoglycaemia were short and not significantly different among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The Diabeloop CL system is superior to OL devices in reducing hyperglycaemic excursions in patients with T1D exposed to gastronomic dinners, or exposed to physical exercise followed by uncontrolled food and carbohydrate intake.

Evolution of Diabetes Technology

Technological innovations have fundamentally changed diabetes care. Insulin pump use and continuous glucose monitoring are associated with improved glycemic control along with a better quality of life; automated insulin-dosing advisors facilitate and improve decision making. Glucose-responsive automated insulin delivery enables the highest targets for time in range, lowest rate and duration of hypoglycemia, and favorable quality of life. Clear targets for time in ranges and a standard visualization of the data will help the diabetes technology to be used more efficiently. Decision support systems within and integrated cloud environment will further simplify, unify, and improve modern routine diabetes care.

In Silico Trials of an Open-Source Android-Based Artificial Pancreas: A New Paradigm to Test Safety and Efficacy of Do-It-Yourself Systems

Objective: Safety data on Do-It-Yourself Artificial Pancreas Systems are missing. The most widespread in Europe is the AndroidAPS implementation of the OpenAPS algorithm. We used the UVA/Padova Type 1 Diabetes Simulator to in silico test safety and efficacy of this algorithm in different scenarios. Methods: We tested five configurations of the AndroidAPS algorithm differing in aggressiveness and patient's interaction with the system. All configurations were tested with insulin sensitivity variation of ±30%. The most promising configurations were tested in real-life scenarios: over- and underestimated bolus by 50%, bolus delivered 15 min before meal, and late bolus delivered 15 min after meal. Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) time in ranges (TIRs) metrics were used to assess the glycemic control. Results: In silico testing showed that open-source closed-loop system AndroidAPS works effectively and safely. The best results were reached if AndroidAPS algorithm worked with microboluses and when half of calculated bolus was issued (mean glycemia 131 mg/dL, SD 27 mg/dL, TIR 91%, time between 54 and 70 mg/dL <1%, and low blood glucose index even <1). The meal bolus over- and underestimation as well as late bolus did not affect the TIR and, importantly, the time between 54 and 70 mg/dL. Conclusion: In silico testing proved that AndroidAPS implementation of the OpenAPS algorithm is safe and effective, and it showed a great potential to be tested in prospective home setting study.

MiniMed 670G hybrid closed loop artificial pancreas system for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus: overview of its safety and efficacy

Introduction: Automated insulin delivery for people with type 1 diabetes has been a major goal in the diabetes technology field for many years. While a fully automated system has not yet been accomplished, the MiniMed™ 670G artificial pancreas (AP) system is the first commercially available insulin pump that automates basal insulin delivery, while still requiring user input for insulin boluses. Determining the safety and efficacy of this system is essential to the development of future devices striving for more automation. Areas Covered: This review will provide an overview of how the MiniMed 670G system works including its safety and efficacy, how it compares to similar devices, and anticipated future advances in diabetes technology currently under development. Expert Opinion: The ultimate goal of advanced diabetes technologies is to reduce the burden and amount of management required of patients with diabetes. In addition to reducing patient workload, achieving better glucose control and improving hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values are essential for reducing the threat of diabetes-related complications further down the road. Current devices come close to reaching these goals, but understanding the unmet needs of patients with diabetes will allow future technologies to achieve these goals more quickly.