Feasibility of overnight closed-loop therapy in young children with type 1 diabetes aged 3-6 years: comparison between diluted and standard insulin strength

How to Safely Use Diluted Insulin in an Automated Insulin Delivery System in Very Young Children: An Educator Perspective

Managing type 1 diabetes in infants and very young children poses unique challenges due to their low insulin requirements, high insulin sensitivity, and rapidly changing metabolic needs. Standard insulin formulations (U100) may prove inadequate for this age group, especially when utilizing continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion or automated insulin delivery (AID) systems.This article presents our clinical experience with diluted insulin (U10) in very young children using the AID system CamAPS FX, along with a literature review, highlighting its potential benefits, such as reduced incidence of hypoglycemia and rates of technical malfunctions. We also discuss key practical considerations for implementing insulin dilution in clinical practice, including the establishment of safety protocols, caregivers and healthcare professionals training, and the importance of accurate preparation and labeling of diluted formulations to mitigate potential serious dosing errors.

International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2024: Insulin and Adjunctive Treatments in Children and Adolescents with Diabetes

The International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) guidelines represent a rich repository that serves as the only comprehensive set of clinical recommendations for children, adolescents, and young adults living with diabetes worldwide. This chapter builds on the 2022 ISPAD guidelines, and updates recommendations on the principles of intensive insulin regimens, including more intensive forms of multiple daily injections with new-generation faster-acting and ultra-long-acting insulins; a summary of adjunctive medications used alongside insulin treatment that includes details on pramlintide, metformin, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitors; and key considerations with regard to access to insulin and affordability to ensure that all persons with diabetes who need insulin can obtain it without financial hardship.

International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2024: Diabetes Technologies - Insulin Delivery

The International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) guidelines represent a rich repository that serves as the only comprehensive set of clinical recommendations for children, adolescents, and young adults living with diabetes worldwide. This chapter builds on the 2022 ISPAD guidelines, and summarizes recent advances in the technology behind insulin administration, with special emphasis on insulin pump therapy, especially on glucose-responsive integrated technology that is feasible with the use of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in children and adolescents. The International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) guidelines represent a rich repository that serves as the only comprehensive set of clinical recommendations for children, adolescents, and young adults living with diabetes worldwide. This chapter builds on the 2022 ISPAD guidelines, and summarizes recent advances in the technology behind insulin administration, with special emphasis on insulin pump therapy, especially on glucose-responsive integrated technology that is feasible with the use of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in children and adolescents.

Automated insulin delivery: benefits, challenges, and recommendations. A Consensus Report of the Joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association

A technological solution for the management of diabetes in people who require intensive insulin therapy has been sought for decades. The last 10 years have seen substantial growth in devices that can be integrated into clinical care. Driven by the availability of reliable systems for continuous glucose monitoring, we have entered an era in which insulin delivery through insulin pumps can be modulated based on sensor glucose data. Over the past few years, regulatory approval of the first automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has been granted, and these systems have been adopted into clinical care. Additionally, a community of people living with type 1 diabetes has created its own systems using a do-it-yourself approach by using products commercialised for independent use. With several AID systems in development, some of which are anticipated to be granted regulatory approval in the near future, the joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association has created this consensus report. We provide a review of the current landscape of AID systems, with a particular focus on their safety. We conclude with a series of recommended targeted actions. This is the fourth in a series of reports issued by this working group. The working group was jointly commissioned by the executives of both organisations to write the first statement on insulin pumps, which was published in 2015. The original authoring group was comprised by three nominated members of the American Diabetes Association and three nominated members of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Additional authors have been added to the group to increase diversity and range of expertise. Each organisation has provided a similar internal review process for each manuscript prior to submission for editorial review by the two journals. Harmonisation of editorial and substantial modifications has occurred at both levels. The members of the group have selected the subject of each statement and submitted the selection to both organisations for confirmation.

Automated Insulin Delivery: Benefits, Challenges, and Recommendations. A Consensus Report of the Joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association

A technological solution for the management of diabetes in people who require intensive insulin therapy has been sought for decades. The last 10 years have seen substantial growth in devices that can be integrated into clinical care. Driven by the availability of reliable systems for continuous glucose monitoring, we have entered an era in which insulin delivery through insulin pumps can be modulated based on sensor glucose data. Over the past few years, regulatory approval of the first automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has been granted, and these systems have been adopted into clinical care. Additionally, a community of people living with type 1 diabetes has created its own systems using a do-it-yourself approach by using products commercialized for independent use. With several AID systems in development, some of which are anticipated to be granted regulatory approval in the near future, the joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association has created this consensus report. We provide a review of the current landscape of AID systems, with a particular focus on their safety. We conclude with a series of recommended targeted actions. This is the fourth in a series of reports issued by this working group. The working group was jointly commissioned by the executives of both organizations to write the first statement on insulin pumps, which was published in 2015. The original authoring group was comprised by three nominated members of the American Diabetes Association and three nominated members of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Additional authors have been added to the group to increase diversity and range of expertise. Each organization has provided a similar internal review process for each manuscript prior to submission for editorial review by the two journals. Harmonization of editorial and substantial modifications has occurred at both levels. The members of the group have selected the subject of each statement and submitted the selection to both organizations for confirmation.

Safe and effective use of a hybrid closed-loop system from diagnosis in children under 18 months with type 1 diabetes

The management of type 1 diabetes in infancy presents significant challenges. Hybrid closed loop systems have been shown to be effective in a research setting and are now available for clinical use. There are relatively little reported data regarding their safety and efficacy in a real world clinical setting. We report two cases of very young children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at ages 18 (Case 1) and 7 months (Case 2), who were commenced on hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery using the CamAPS FX™ system from diagnosis. At diagnosis, total daily dose (TDD) was 6 and 3.3 units for Case 1 and 2, respectively. Closed loop was started during the inpatient stay and weekly follow up was provided via video call on discharge. Seven months from diagnosis, Case 1 has an HbA1C of 49 mmol/mol, 61% time in range (TIR, 3.9-10 mmol/L) with 2% time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) with no incidents of very low blood glucose (BG; <3 mmol/L, 54 mg/dL) over 6 months. Given the extremely small TDD of insulin in Case 2, we elected to use diluted insulin (insulin aspart injection, NovoLog, Novo Nordisk Inc., Plainsboro, NJ, Diluting Medium for NovoLog®). Six months from diagnosis, the estimated HbA1c is 50 mmol/mol, TIR 76% with 1% hypoglycemia and no incidents of very low BG (<3 mmol/L, 54 mg/dL) over 6 months. We conclude that the use hybrid closed-loop can be safe and effective from diagnosis in children under 2 years of age with type 1 diabetes.

Adolescents' Experiences of Using a Smartphone Application Hosting a Closed-loop Algorithm to Manage Type 1 Diabetes in Everyday Life: Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Closed-loop technology may help address health disparities experienced by adolescents, who are more likely to have suboptimal glycemic control than other age groups and, because of their age, find diabetes self-management particularly challenging. The CamAPS FX closed-loop has sought to address accessibility and usability issues reported by users of previous prototype systems. It comprises small components and a smartphone app used to: announce meal-time boluses, adjust ("boost" or "ease-off") closed-loop insulin delivery, customize alarms, and review/share data. We explored how using the CamAPS FX platform influences adolescents' self-management practices and everyday lives.

METHODS

Eighteen adolescents were interviewed after having ≥6 months experience using the closed-loop platform. Data were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Participants reported feeling less burdened and shackled by diabetes because closed-loop components were easier to carry/wear, finger-pricks were not required, the smartphone app provided a discreet and less stigmatizing way of managing diabetes in public, and they were able to customize alarms. Participants also reported checking and reviewing data more regularly, because they did so when using the smartphone for other reasons. Some reported challenges in school settings where use of personal phones was restricted. Participants highlighted how self-management practices were improved because they could easily review glucose data and adjust closed-loop insulin delivery using the "boost" and "ease-off" functions. Some described how using the system resulted in them forgetting about diabetes and neglecting certain tasks.

CONCLUSIONS

A closed-loop system with small components and control algorithm on a smartphone app can enhance usability and acceptability for adolescents and may help address the health-related disparities experienced by this age group. However, challenges can arise from using a medical app on a device which doubles as a smartphone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Closed Loop From Onset in Type 1 Diabetes (CLOuD); NCT02871089; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02871089.

Safety and Performance of the Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ Automated Insulin Delivery System in Toddlers and Preschoolers

Background: Glycemic control is particularly challenging for toddlers and preschoolers with type 1 diabetes (T1D), and data on the use of closed-loop systems in this age range are limited. Materials and Methods: We studied use of a modified investigational version of the Tandem t:slim X2 Control-IQ system in children aged 2 to 5 years during 48 h in an outpatient supervised hotel (SH) setting followed by 3 days of home use to examine the safety of this system in young children. Meals and snacks were not restricted and boluses were estimated per parents' usual routine. At least 30 min of daily exercise was required during the SH phase. All participants were remotely monitored by study staff while on closed-loop in addition to monitoring by at least one parent throughout the study. Results: Twelve participants diagnosed with T1D for at least 3 months with mean age 4.7 ± 1.0 years (range 2.0-5.8 years) and hemoglobin A1c of 7.3% ± 0.8% were enrolled at three sites. With use of Control-IQ, the percentage of participants meeting our prespecified goals of less than 6% time below 70 mg/dL and less than 40% time above 180 mg/dL increased from 33% to 83%. Control-IQ use significantly improved percent time in range (70-180 mg/dL) compared to baseline (71.3 ± 12.5 vs. 63.7 ± 15.1, P = 0.016). All participants completed the study with no adverse events. Conclusions: In this brief pilot study, use of the modified Control-IQ system was safe in 2-5-year-old children with T1D and improved glycemic control.

Type 1 diabetes mellitus management in young children: implementation of current technologies

The use of advanced technologies for diabetes management is on the rise among pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), continuous glucose monitoring, predictive low glucose suspend, hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems-all enable better diabetes management and glycemic control. However, when used by children, and especially very young children, specific aspects must be taken into consideration, including technical parameters, ease of use, parental stress, and satisfaction. The unique characteristics of T1D in children aged <6 years are reviewed and studies of the pros and cons of different technologies in this specific age group are presented. Addressing such issues when implementing advanced technologies among very young children with T1D will enable better diabetes management and will hopefully ease a tremendous burden of both children and families.

Home Use of Day-and-Night Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Very Young Children: A Multicenter, 3-Week, Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in children with type 1 diabetes aged 1-7 years as well as evaluate the role of diluted insulin on glucose control.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In an open-label, multicenter, multinational, randomized crossover study, 24 children with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy (median age 5 years [interquartile range 3-6] and mean ± SD HbA_1c 7.4 ± 0.7% [57 ± 8 mmol/mol] and total insulin 13.2 ± 4.8 units/day) underwent two 21-day periods of unrestricted living and we compared hybrid closed-loop with diluted insulin (U20) and hybrid closed-loop with standard strength insulin (U100) in random order. During both interventions, the Cambridge model predictive control algorithm was used.

RESULTS

The proportion of time that sensor glucose was in the target range between 3.9 and 10 mmol/L (primary end point) was not different between interventions (mean ± SD 72 ± 8% vs. 70 ± 7% for closed-loop with diluted insulin vs. closed-loop with standard insulin, respectively; P = 0.16). There was no difference in mean glucose levels (8.0 ± 0.8 vs. 8.2 ± 0.6 mmol/L; P = 0.14), glucose variability (SD of sensor glucose 3.1 ± 0.5 vs. 3.2 ± 0.4 mmol/L; P = 0.16), or the proportion of time spent with sensor glucose <3.9 mmol/L (4.5 ± 1.7% vs. 4.7 ± 1.4%; P = 0.47) or <2.8 mmol/L (0.6 ± 0.5% vs. 0.6 ± 0.4%; P > 0.99). Total daily insulin delivery did not differ (17.3 ± 5.6 vs. 18.9 ± 6.9 units/day; P = 0.07). No closed-loop-related severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Unrestricted home use of day-and-night closed-loop in very young children with type 1 diabetes is feasible and safe. The use of diluted insulin during closed-loop does not provide additional benefits compared with standard strength insulin.

Closing the Loop on Managing Youth With Type 1 Diabetes: Children Are Not Just Small Adults

As hybrid closed-loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems permeate clinical practice, it is critical to ensure all with diabetes are afforded the opportunity to benefit from this technology. Indeed, due to the suboptimal control achieved by the vast majority of youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D), pediatric patients are positioned to see the greatest benefit from automated insulin delivery systems. To ensure these systems are well poised to deliver the promise of more targeted control, it is essential to understand the unique characteristics and factors of childhood. Herein, the developmental and physiological needs of youth with T1D are reviewed and consideration is given to how HCL could address these issues. Studies of HCL technologies in youth are briefly reviewed. As future-generation closed-loop systems are being devised, features that could make this technology more attractive to youth and to their families are discussed. Integration of HCL has the potential to minimize the burden of this chronic medical condition while improving glycemic control and ultimately allowing our pediatric patients to fulfill the primary goal of childhood, to be a kid.

Efficacy and safety of the artificial pancreas in the paediatric population with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Type 1 diabetes (DM1) is one of the most common chronic diseases in childhood and requires life-long insulin therapy and continuous health care support. An artificial pancreas (AP) or closed-loop system (CLS) have been developed with the aim of improving metabolic control without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia in patients with DM1. As the impact of APs have been studied mainly in adults, the aim of this review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the AP in the paediatric population with DM1.

MAIN BODY

The real advantage of a CLS compared to last-generation sensor-augmented pumps is the gradual modulation of basal insulin infusion in response to glycaemic variations (towards both hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia), which has the aim of improving the proportion of time spent in the target glucose range and reducing the mean glucose level without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. Some recent studies demonstrated that also in children and adolescents an AP is able to reduce the frequency of hypoglycaemic events, an important limiting factor in reaching good metabolic control, particularly overnight. However, the advantages of the AP in reducing hyperglycaemia, increasing the time spent in the target glycaemic range and thus reducing glycated haemoglobin are less clear and require more clinical trials in the paediatric population, in particular in younger children.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the first results from bi-hormonal CLS are promising, long-term, head-to-head studies will have to prove their superiority over insulin-only approaches. More technological progress, the availability of more fast-acting insulin, further developments of algorithms that could improve glycaemic control after meals and physical activity are the most important challenges in reaching an optimal metabolic control with the use of the AP in children and adolescents.

The challenges of achieving postprandial glucose control using closed-loop systems in patients with type 1 diabetes

For patients with type 1 diabetes, closed-loop delivery systems (CLS) combining an insulin pump, a glucose sensor and a dosing algorithm allowing a dynamic hormonal infusion have been shown to improve glucose control when compared with conventional therapy. Yet, reducing glucose excursion and simplification of prandial insulin doses remain a challenge. The objective of this literature review is to examine current meal-time strategies in the context of automated delivery systems in adults and children with type 1 diabetes. Current challenges and considerations for post-meal glucose control will also be discussed. Despite promising results with meal detection, the fully automated CLS has yet failed to provide comparable glucose control to CLS with carbohydrate-matched bolus in the post-meal period. The latter strategy has been efficient in controlling post-meal glucose using different algorithms and in various settings, but at the cost of a meal carbohydrate counting burden for patients. Further improvements in meal detection algorithms or simplified meal-priming boluses may represent interesting avenues. The greatest challenges remain in regards to the pharmacokinetic and dynamic profiles of available rapid insulins as well as sensor accuracy and lag-time. New and upcoming faster acting insulins could provide important benefits. Multi-hormone CLS (eg, dual-hormone combining insulin with glucagon or pramlintide) and adjunctive therapy (eg, GLP-1 and SGLT2 inhibitors) also represent promising options. Meal glucose control with the artificial pancreas remains an important challenge for which the optimal strategy is still to be determined.

Improving the Safety and Functionality of an Artificial Pancreas System for Use in Younger Children: Input from Parents and Physicians

BACKGROUND

Artificial pancreas (AP) systems have initially been designed for and tested in teens and adults, but there is evidence that an AP system with additional support and safety systems could greatly benefit younger children with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Five pediatric endocrinologists and 15 parents of children aged 5-8 years with T1D participated in a total of four focus groups. Focus groups investigated current diabetes technology use and acceptance, as well as possible modifications to the current adult AP system, which would allow for safe and successful use in younger children. Modifications discussed include child-specific functionality for input tasks, safety features, and monitoring capabilities.

RESULTS

Participant suggestions included the following: passcodes for differential access to AP features by parents, ancillary caregivers, and the child; preset early, intermediate, and advanced child access categories; maximal customization for general and alarm settings; simplified meal screens utilizing the AP' corrective blood glucose (BG) ability; automated exercise mode; spoken and dictated messaging capabilities; emergency contacts; treatment instructions for the child and caregiver; remote monitoring website and application; animated continuous glucose monitor BG trace; gamification, such as rewarding diabetes-friendly behaviors; and comprehensive training of all individuals involved in the child's diabetes care.

CONCLUSION

Parents and physicians were eager for AP applications to be available for younger children, but stressed that a modified system could better serve this group's needs for safety and improved diabetes-related communication. The diverse and emerging needs of 5-8-year olds require flexible and customizable systems for T1D management.

Accuracy of a CGM Sensor in Pediatric Subjects With Type 1 Diabetes. Comparison of Three Insertion Sites: Arm, Abdomen, and Gluteus

BACKGROUND

Patients with diabetes, especially pediatric ones, sometimes use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensor in different positions from the approved ones. Here we compare the accuracy of Dexcom® G5 CGM sensor in three different sites: abdomen, gluteus (both approved) and arm (off-label).

METHOD

Thirty youths, 5-9 years old, with type 1 diabetes (T1D) wore the sensor during a clinical trial where frequent self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) measurements were obtained. Sensor was inserted in different sites according to the patient habit. Accuracy metrics include absolute relative difference (ARD) and absolute difference (AD) of CGM with respect to SMBG. The three sites were compared with ANOVA. If the test detected a difference, an additional pair-wise comparison was performed.

RESULTS

Overall, no accuracy difference was detected: the mean ARD was 13.3% (SD = 13.5%) for abdomen, 13.4% (12.9%) for arm and 12.9% (20.2%) for gluteus ( P value = .83); the mean AD was 17.0 mg/dl (17.2 mg/dl) for abdomen, 17.2 mg/dl (17.1 mg/dl) for arm and 18.3 mg/dl (18.5 mg/dl) for gluteus ( P value = .30). In hypo- and euglycemia ARD ( P value = .87 and .15, respectively), and AD ( P value = .68 and .37, respectively) were not statistically different. At variance, in hyperglycemia, a significant difference was detected between the two approved sites, abdomen and gluteus (ΔARD = -2.2% [CI = -4.2%, -0.1%], P value = .04), whereas the comparisons with the off-label location, arm-abdomen, and arm-gluteus were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the accuracy of the sensor placed on the arm was not significantly different with respect to the two approved insertion sites (abdomen and gluteus). Larger, randomized trials are needed to draw final conclusions.

Sensor Life and Overnight Closed Loop: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Closed-loop (CL) systems direct insulin delivery based on continuous glucose monitor (CGM) sensor values. CGM accuracy varies with sensor life, being least accurate on day 1 of sensor insertion. We evaluated the effect of sensor life (enhanced Enlite, Medtronic MiniMed, Northridge, CA) on overnight CL.

METHODS

In an open-label, randomized, 2-period, inpatient crossover pilot study, 12 adolescents on insulin pump (age 16.7 ± 1.9 years; HbA1c 66 ± 10 mmol/mol) attended a clinical research facility on 2 overnight occasions. In random order, participants received CL on day 1 or on day 3-4 after sensor insertion. During both periods, glucose was automatically controlled by a model predictive control algorithm informed by sensor glucose. Plasma glucose was measured every 30 to 60 min.

RESULTS

During overnight CL (22:30 to 07:30), the proportion of time with plasma glucose readings in the target range (3.9-8.0 mmol/l, primary endpoint) when initiated on day 1 of sensor insertion vs day 3-4 were comparable (58 ± 32% day 1 vs 56 ± 36% day 3-4; P = .34), and there were no significant differences between interventions in terms of mean plasma glucose ( P = .26), percentage time above 8.0 mmol/l ( P = .49), and time spent below 3.9 mmol/l ( P = .93). Sensor accuracy varied with sensor life (mean absolute relative difference 19.8 ± 15.0% on day 1 and 13.7 ± 10.2% on day 3 to 4). Sensor glucose tended to under-read plasma glucose inflating benefits of CL on glucose control.

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of differences in sensor accuracy, overnight CL glucose control informed by sensor glucose on day 1 or day 3-4 after sensor insertion was comparable. The model predictive controller appears to mitigate against sensor inaccuracies.

Performance of an Artificial Pancreas System for Young Children with Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Young children 5-8 years old with type 1 diabetes (T1D) exhibit clear needs for improved glycemic control but may be limited in their ability to safely interact with an artificial pancreas system. Our goal was to evaluate the safety and performance of an artificial pancreas (AP) system among young children with T1D.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a randomized, crossover trial, children with T1D age 5-8 years were enrolled to receive on separate study periods (in random order) either the UVa AP using the DiAs Control Platform software with child-resistant lock-out screens (followed as an out-patient admission) or their usual insulin pump+continuous glucose monitor (CGM) care at home. Hypoglycemic events and CGM tracings were compared between the two 68-h study periods. All analyses were adjusted for level of physical activity as tracked using Fitbit devices.

RESULTS

Twelve participants (median age 7 years, n = 6 males) completed the trial. Compared to home care, the AP admission resulted in increased time with blood glucose (BG) 70-180 mg/dL (73% vs. 47%) and lower mean BG (152 mg/dL vs. 190 mg/dL), both P < 0.001 after adjustment for activity. Occurrence of hypoglycemia was similar between sessions without differences in time <70 mg/dL (AP 1.1% ± 1.1%; home 1.6% ± 1.2%). There were no adverse events during the AP or home study periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of an AP in young children was safe and resulted in improved mean BG without increased hypoglycemia. This suggests that AP use in young children is safe and improves overall diabetes control. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT02750267.

20 Years of insulin lispro in pediatric type 1 diabetes: a review of available evidence

BACKGROUND

Insulin lispro, the first rapid-acting insulin analog, was developed 20 years ago and has been studied in multiple situations and various populations.

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature on the use of insulin lispro in children, adolescents, and young adults.

PATIENTS

Children, adolescents, and young adults with type-1-diabetes.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-two relevant publications, identified by a systematic (MEDLINE) and manual literature search, were reviewed.

RESULTS

Multiple daily injection (MDI) treatment with insulin lispro or other rapid-acting insulins, mainly using neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin as the basal component, was associated with reduced postprandial glucose excursions, similar or improved HbA1c levels, and similar or reduced risks of severe hypoglycemia when compared with regular human insulin across all age-groups. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII)-treatment with insulin lispro also showed similar or improved glycemic control vs. MDI- or other CSII-regimens across all age-groups, without increasing the rate of severe hypoglycemia. The other two more recently developed rapid-acting insulins (aspart, glulisine) demonstrated non-inferiority to lispro on HbA1c. Long-term observational studies and real-life experience indicate that the increasing use of optimized MDI- and CSII-regimens with insulin lispro was associated with improvements in overall glycemic control.

CONCLUSIONS

For almost 20 years, rapid-acting insulins, in particular insulin lispro as the first-in-class, have contributed to broadening the treatment options for the unique needs of pediatric patients with type-1-diabetes across all age-groups, and have enabled more physiological insulin administration. Now widely used, they have allowed pediatric patients to safely reach better glycemic control, with more flexibility in their daily lives.

Randomized Summer Camp Crossover Trial in 5- to 9-Year-Old Children: Outpatient Wearable Artificial Pancreas Is Feasible and Safe

OBJECTIVE

The Pediatric Artificial Pancreas (PedArPan) project tested a children-specific version of the modular model predictive control (MMPC) algorithm in 5- to 9-year-old children during a camp.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A 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 sensor-augmented pump (SAP).

RESULTS

Overnight 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 = 0.002), without a significant change of time-in-target, mean: 56.0% (SD 22.5) vs. 59.7% (21.2) (P = 0.430), but with increased mean glucose 173 mg/dL (36) vs. 150 mg/dL (39) (P = 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 = 0.022) and increased mean glucose 169 mg/dL (23) vs. 147 mg/dL (23) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This 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.

The Hypoglycaemia-Hyperglycaemia Minimizer System in the Management of Type 1 Diabetes

Living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) presents many challenges in terms of daily living. Insulin users need to frequently monitor their blood glucose levels and take multiple injections per day and/or multiple boluses through an insulin infusion pump, with the consequences of failing to match the insulin dose to the body's needs resulting in hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia. The former can result in seizures, coma and even death; the latter can have both acute and long-term health implications. Many patients with T1D also fail to meet their treatment goals. In order to reduce the burdens of self-administering insulin, and improve efficacy and safety, there is a need to at least partially remove the patient from the loop via a closed-loop 'artificial pancreas’ system. The Hypoglycaemia-Hyperglycaemia Minimizer (HHM) System, comprising a continuous, subcutaneous insulin infusion pump, continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and closed-loop insulin dosing algorithm, is able to predict changes in blood glucose and adjust insulin delivery accordingly to help keep the patient at normal glucose levels. Early clinical data indicate that this system is feasible, effective and safe, and has the potential to dramatically improve the therapeutic outcomes and quality of life for people with T1D.

Artificial Pancreas Project at Cambridge 2013

The development and clinical testing of closed-loop systems (the artificial pancreas) is underpinned by advances in continuous glucose monitoring and benefits from concerted academic and industry collaborative efforts. This review describes the progress of the Artificial Pancreas Project at the University of Cambridge from 2006 to 2014. Initial studies under controlled laboratory conditions, designed to collect representative safety and performance data, were followed by short to medium free-living unsupervised outpatient studies demonstrating the safety and efficacy of closed-loop insulin delivery using a model predictive control algorithm. Accompanying investigations included assessment of the psychosocial impact and key factors affecting glucose control such as insulin kinetics and glucose absorption. Translation to other disease conditions such as critical illness and Type 2 diabetes took place. It is concluded that innovation of iteratively enhanced closed-loop systems will provide tangible means to improve outcomes and quality of life in people with Type 1 diabetes and their families in the next decade.

Pharmacokinetics of diluted (U20) insulin aspart compared with standard (U100) in children aged 3-6 years with type 1 diabetes during closed-loop insulin delivery: a randomised clinical trial

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics of two different concentrations of insulin aspart (B28Asp human insulin) in children aged 3-6 years with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

Young children with type 1 diabetes underwent an open-label, randomised, two-period crossover study in a clinical research facility, 2-6 weeks apart. In random order, diluted (1:5 dilution with saline [154 mmol/l NaCl]; 20 U/ml) or standard strength (100 U/ml) insulin aspart was administered via an insulin pump as a meal bolus and then overnight by closed-loop insulin delivery as determined by a model predictive algorithm. Plasma insulin was measured every 30-60 min from 17:00 hours on day 1 to 8:00 hours on day 2. We measured the time-to-peak insulin concentration (tmax), insulin metabolic clearance rate (MCR(I)) and background insulin concentration (ins(c)) using compartmental modelling.

RESULTS

Eleven children (six male; age range 3.75-6.96 years, HbA1c 7.6% ± 1.3% [60 ± 14 mmol/mol], BMI standard deviation score 1.0 ± 0.8, duration of diabetes 2.2 ± 1.0 years, total daily dose 12.9 [10.6-16.5] U, fasting C-peptide concentration 5 [5-17.1] pmol/l; mean ± SD or median [interquartile range]) participated in the study. No differences between standard and diluted insulin were observed in terms of t max (59.2 ± 14.4 vs 61.6 ± 8.7) min for standard vs diluted, p = 0.59; MCR I (1.98 × 10(-2) ± 0.99 × 10(-2) vs 1.89 × 10(-2) ± 0.82 × 10(-2) 1/kg/min, p = 0.47), and ins c (34 [1-72] vs 23 [3-65] pmol/l, p = 0.66). However, t max showed less intersubject variability following administration of diluted aspart (SD 14.4 vs 8.7 min, p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Diluting insulin aspart does not change its pharmacokinetics. However, it may result in less variable absorption and could be used in young children with type 1 diabetes undergoing closed-loop insulin delivery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01557634.

FUNDING

FUNDING was provided by the JDRF, 7th Framework Programme of the European Union, Wellcome Trust Strategic Award and the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.