Search

Objective: Widespread use of carbohydrate counting is limited by its complex education. In this study we compared a Diabetes Interactive Diary (DID) with standard carbohydrate counting in terms of metabolic and weight control, time required for education, quality of life, and treatment satisfaction.Research Design and Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes were randomly assigned to DID (group A, n = 67) or standard education (group B, n = 63) and followed for 6 months. A subgroup also completed the SF-36 Health Survey (SF-36) and World Health Organization-Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (WHO-DTSQ) at each visit.Results: Of 130 patients (aged 35.7 +/- 9.4 years; diabetes duration 16.5 +/- 10.5 years), 11 dropped out. Time for education was 6 h (range 2-15 h) in group A and 12 h (2.5-25 h) in group B (P = 0.07). A1C reduction was similar in both groups (group A from 8.2 +/- 0.8 to 7.8 +/- 0.8% and group B from 8.4 +/- 0.7 to 7.9 +/- 1.1%; P = 0.68). Nonsignificant differences in favor of group A were documented for fasting blood glucose and body weight. No severe hypoglycemic episode occurred. WHO-DTSQ scores increased significantly more in group A (from 26.7 +/- 4.4 to 30.3 +/- 4.5) than in group B (from 27.5 +/- 4.8 to 28.6 +/- 5.1) (P = 0.04). Role Physical, General Health, Vitality, and Role Emotional SF-36 scores improved significantly more in group A than in group B.Conclusions: DID is at least as effective as traditional carbohydrate counting education, allowing dietary freedom for a larger proportion of type 1 diabetic patients. DID is safe, requires less time for education, and is associated with lower weight gain. DID significantly improved treatment satisfaction and several quality-of-life dimensions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.)

Objective: To explore the experiences of children with type 1 diabetes and their parents taking part in an artificial pancreas (AP) clinical trial during a 7-day summer camp., Research Design and Methods: A semistructured interview, composed of 14 questions based on the Technology Acceptance Model, was conducted at the end of the clinical trial. Participants also completed the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ, parent version) and the AP Acceptance Questionnaire., Results: Thirty children, aged 5-9 years, and their parents completed the study. A content analysis of the interviews showed that parents were focused on understanding the mechanisms, risks, and benefits of the new device, whereas the children were focused on the novelty of the new system. The parents' main concerns about adopting the new system seemed related to the quality of glucose control. The mean scores of DTSQ subscales indicated general parents' satisfaction (44.24 ± 5.99, range 32-53) and trustful views of diabetes control provided by the new system (7.8 ± 2.2, range 3-12). The AP Acceptance Questionnaire revealed that most parents considered the AP easy to use (70.5%), intended to use it long term (94.0%), and felt that it was apt to improve glucose control (67.0%)., Conclusions: Participants manifested a positive attitude toward the AP. Further studies are required to explore participants' perceptions early in the AP development to individualize the new treatment as much as possible, and to tailor it to respond to their needs and values., (© 2016 by the American Diabetes Association.)

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., (© 2016 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered.)

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a portable, wearable, wireless artificial pancreas system (the Diabetes Assistant [DiAs] running the Unified Safety System) on glucose control at home in overnight-only and 24/7 closed-loop control (CLC) modes in patients with type 1 diabetes., Research Design and Methods: At six clinical centers in four countries, 30 participants 18-66 years old with type 1 diabetes (43% female, 96% non-Hispanic white, median type 1 diabetes duration 19 years, median A1C 7.3%) completed the study. The protocol included a 2-week baseline sensor-augmented pump (SAP) period followed by 2 weeks of overnight-only CLC and 2 weeks of 24/7 CLC at home. Glucose control during CLC was compared with the baseline SAP., Results: Glycemic control parameters for overnight-only CLC were improved during the nighttime period compared with baseline for hypoglycemia (time <70 mg/dL, primary end point median 1.1% vs. 3.0%; P < 0.001), time in target (70-180 mg/dL: 75% vs. 61%; P < 0.001), and glucose variability (coefficient of variation: 30% vs. 36%; P < 0.001). Similar improvements for day/night combined were observed with 24/7 CLC compared with baseline: 1.7% vs. 4.1%, P < 0.001; 73% vs. 65%, P < 0.001; and 34% vs. 38%, P < 0.001, respectively., Conclusions: CLC running on a smartphone (DiAs) in the home environment was safe and effective. Overnight-only CLC reduced hypoglycemia and increased time in range overnight and increased time in range during the day; 24/7 CLC reduced hypoglycemia and increased time in range both overnight and during the day. Compared with overnight-only CLC, 24/7 CLC provided additional hypoglycemia protection during the day., (© 2016 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered.)

Objective: After testing of a wearable artificial pancreas (AP) during evening and night (E/N-AP) under free-living conditions in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), we investigated AP during day and night (D/N-AP) for 1 month., Research Design and Methods: Twenty adult patients with T1D who completed a previous randomized crossover study comparing 2-month E/N-AP versus 2-month sensor augmented pump (SAP) volunteered for 1-month D/N-AP nonrandomized extension. AP was executed by a model predictive control algorithm run by a modified smartphone wirelessly connected to a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and insulin pump. CGM data were analyzed by intention-to-treat with percentage time-in-target (3.9-10 mmol/L) over 24 h as the primary end point., Results: Time-in-target (mean ± SD, %) was similar over 24 h with D/N-AP versus E/N-AP: 64.7 ± 7.6 vs. 63.6 ± 9.9 (P = 0.79), and both were higher than with SAP: 59.7 ± 9.6 (P = 0.01 and P = 0.06, respectively). Time below 3.9 mmol/L was similarly and significantly reduced by D/N-AP and E/N-AP versus SAP (both P < 0.001). SD of blood glucose concentration (mmol/L) was lower with D/N-AP versus E/N-AP during whole daytime: 3.2 ± 0.6 vs. 3.4 ± 0.7 (P = 0.003), morning: 2.7 ± 0.5 vs. 3.1 ± 0.5 (P = 0.02), and afternoon: 3.3 ± 0.6 vs. 3.5 ± 0.8 (P = 0.07), and was lower with D/N-AP versus SAP over 24 h: 3.1 ± 0.5 vs. 3.3 ± 0.6 (P = 0.049). Insulin delivery (IU) over 24 h was higher with D/N-AP and SAP than with E/N-AP: 40.6 ± 15.5 and 42.3 ± 15.5 vs. 36.6 ± 11.6 (P = 0.03 and P = 0.0004, respectively)., Conclusions: D/N-AP and E/N-AP both achieved better glucose control than SAP under free-living conditions. Although time in the different glycemic ranges was similar between D/N-AP and E/N-AP, D/N-AP further reduces glucose variability., (© 2016 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered.)

Objective: We 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 Methods: Twenty 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., Results: The 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., Conclusions: CLC 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., (© 2014 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: Inpatient studies suggest that model predictive control (MPC) is one of the most promising algorithms for artificial pancreas (AP). So far, outpatient trials have used hypo/hyperglycemia-mitigation or medical-expert systems. In this study, we report the first wearable AP outpatient study based on MPC and investigate specifically its ability to control postprandial glucose, one of the major challenges in glucose control., Research Design and Methods: A new modular MPC algorithm has been designed focusing on meal control. Six type 1 diabetes mellitus patients underwent 42-h experiments: sensor-augmented pump therapy in the first 14 h (open-loop) and closed-loop in the remaining 28 h., Results: MPC showed satisfactory dinner control versus open-loop: time-in-target (70-180 mg/dL) 94.83 vs. 68.2% and time-in-hypo 1.25 vs. 11.9%. Overnight control was also satisfactory: time-in-target 89.4 vs. 85.0% and time-in-hypo: 0.00 vs. 8.19%., Conclusions: This outpatient study confirms inpatient evidence of suitability of MPC-based strategies for AP. These encouraging results pave the way to randomized crossover outpatient studies.

Objective: To compare two validated closed-loop (CL) algorithms versus patient self-control with CSII in terms of glycemic control., Research Design and Methods: This study was a multicenter, randomized, three-way crossover, open-label trial in 48 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus for at least 6 months, treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Blood glucose was controlled for 23 h by the algorithm of the Universities of Pavia and Padova with a Safety Supervision Module developed at the Universities of Virginia and California at Santa Barbara (international artificial pancreas [iAP]), by the algorithm of University of Cambridge (CAM), or by patients themselves in open loop (OL) during three hospital admissions including meals and exercise. The main analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Main outcome measures included time spent in target (glucose levels between 3.9 and 8.0 mmol/L or between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L after meals)., Results: Time spent in the target range was similar in CL and OL: 62.6% for OL, 59.2% for iAP, and 58.3% for CAM. While mean glucose level was significantly lower in OL (7.19, 8.15, and 8.26 mmol/L, respectively) (overall P = 0.001), percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) was almost threefold reduced during CL (6.4%, 2.1%, and 2.0%) (overall P = 0.001) with less time ≤2.8 mmol/L (overall P = 0.038). There were no significant differences in outcomes between algorithms., Conclusions: Both CAM and iAP algorithms provide safe glycemic control.

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of a wearable artificial pancreas system, the Diabetes Assistant (DiAs), which uses a smart phone as a closed-loop control platform., Research Design and Methods: Twenty patients with type 1 diabetes were enrolled at the Universities of Padova, Montpellier, and Virginia and at Sansum Diabetes Research Institute. Each trial continued for 42 h. The United States studies were conducted entirely in outpatient setting (e.g., hotel or guest house); studies in Italy and France were hybrid hospital-hotel admissions. A continuous glucose monitoring/pump system (Dexcom Seven Plus/Omnipod) was placed on the subject and was connected to DiAs. The patient operated the system via the DiAs user interface in open-loop mode (first 14 h of study), switching to closed-loop for the remaining 28 h. Study personnel monitored remotely via 3G or WiFi connection to DiAs and were available on site for assistance., Results: The total duration of proper system communication functioning was 807.5 h (274 h in open-loop and 533.5 h in closed-loop), which represented 97.7% of the total possible time from admission to discharge. This exceeded the predetermined primary end point of 80% system functionality., Conclusions: This study demonstrated that a contemporary smart phone is capable of running outpatient closed-loop control and introduced a prototype system (DiAs) for further investigation. Following this proof of concept, future steps should include equipping insulin pumps and sensors with wireless capabilities, as well as studies focusing on control efficacy and patient-oriented clinical outcomes.