Search

Closed-loop insulin delivery systems have the potential to address suboptimal glucose control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. We compared safety and efficacy of the Cambridge hybrid closed-loop algorithm with usual care over 6 months in this population.In a multicentre, multinational, parallel randomised controlled trial, participants aged 6-18 years using insulin pump therapy were recruited at seven UK and five US paediatric diabetes centres. Key inclusion criteria were diagnosis of type 1 diabetes for at least 12 months, insulin pump therapy for at least 3 months, and screening HbAOf 147 people initially screened, 133 participants (mean age 13·0 years [SD 2·8]; 57% female, 43% male) were randomly assigned to either the closed-loop group (n=65) or the control group (n=68). Mean baseline HbAThe Cambridge hybrid closed-loop algorithm had an acceptable safety profile, and improved glycaemic control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. To ensure optimal efficacy of the closed-loop system, usage needs to be consistently high, as demonstrated with CamAPS FX.National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Aims To evaluate safety, efficacy and glucose turnover during closed‐loop with meal announcement using reduced prandial insulin boluses in adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods We conducted a randomized crossover study comparing closed‐loop therapy with standard prandial insulin boluses versus closed‐loop therapy with prandial boluses reduced by 25%. Eight adolescents with T1D [3 males; mean (standard deviation) age 15.9 (1.5) years, glycated haemoglobin 74 (17) mmol/mol; median (interquartile range) total daily dose 0.9 (0.7, 1.1) IU/kg/day] were studied on two 36‐h‐long visits. In random order, subjects received closed‐loop therapy with either standard or reduced insulin boluses administered with main meals (50–80 g carbohydrates) but not with snacks (15–30 g carbohydrates). Stable‐label tracer dilution methodology measured total glucose appearance (Ra_total) and glucose disposal (Rd). Results The median (interquartile range) time spent in target (3.9–10 mmol/l) was similar between the two interventions [74 (66, 84)% vs 80 (65, 96)%; p = 0.87] as was time spent above 10 mmol/l [21.8 (16.3, 33.5)% vs 18.0 (4.1, 34.2)%; p = 0.87] and below 3.9 mmol/l [0 (0, 1.5)% vs 0 (0, 1.8)%; p = 0.88]. Mean plasma glucose was identical during the two interventions [8.4 (0.9) mmol/l; p = 0.98]. Hypoglycaemia occurred once 1.5 h post‐meal during closed‐loop therapy with standard bolus. Overall insulin delivery was lower with reduced prandial boluses [61.9 (55.2, 75.0) vs 72.5 (63.6, 80.3) IU; p = 0.01] and resulted in lower mean plasma insulin concentration [186 (171, 260) vs 252 (198, 336) pmol/l; p = 0.002]. Lower plasma insulin was also documented overnight [160 (136, 192) vs 191 (133, 252) pmol/l; p = 0.01, pooled nights]. Ra_total was similar [26.3 (21.9, 28.0) vs 25.4 (21.0, 29.2) µmol/kg/min; p = 0.19] during the two interventions as was Rd [25.8 (21.0, 26.9) vs 25.2 (21.2, 28.8) µmol/kg/min; p = 0.46]. Conclusions A 25% reduction in prandial boluses during closed‐loop therapy maintains similar glucose control in adolescents with T1D whilst lowering overall plasma insulin levels. It remains unclear whether closed‐loop therapy with a 25% reduction in prandial boluses would prevent postprandial hypoglycaemia.

Aims To compare overnight closed‐loop and sensor‐augmented pump therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes by combining data collected during free‐living unsupervised randomized crossover home studies. Methods A total of 40 participants with type 1 diabetes, of whom 24 were adults [mean ± standard deviation (s.d.) age 43 ± 12 years and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 8.0 ± 0.9%] and 16 were adolescents (mean ± s.d. age 15.6 ± 3.6 years and HbA1c 8.1 ± 0.8%), underwent two periods of sensor‐augmented pump therapy in the home setting, in combination with or without an overnight closed‐loop insulin delivery system that uses a model predictive control algorithm to direct insulin delivery. The order of the two interventions was random; each period lasted 4 weeks in adults and 3 weeks in adolescents. The primary outcome was time during which sensor glucose readings were in the target range of 3.9–8.0 mmol/l. Results The proportion of time when sensor glucose was in the target range (3.9–8.0 mmol/l) overnight (between 24:00 and 08:00 hours) was 18.5% greater during closed‐loop insulin delivery than during sensor‐augmented therapy (p < 0.001). Closed‐loop therapy significantly reduced mean overnight glucose levels by 0.9 mmol/l (p < 0.001), with no difference in glycaemic variability, as measured by the standard deviation of sensor glucose. Time spent above the target range was reduced (p = 0.001), as was time spent in hypoglycaemia (

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of closed-loop therapy with meal announcement during reduction and omission of meal insulin boluses in adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Twelve adolescents with T1D [six male; mean (s.d.) age 15.9 (1.8) years; mean (s.d.) glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 77 (27) mmol/mol] were studied in a randomized crossover study comparing closed-loop therapy with meal announcement with conventional pump therapy over two 24-h stays at a clinical research facility. Identical meals were given on both occasions. The evening meal insulin bolus was calculated to cover half of the carbohydrate content of the meal and no bolus was delivered for lunch. Plasma glucose levels were in the target range of 3.9-10 mmol/l for a median [interquartile range (IQR)] of 74 (55,86)% of the time during closed-loop therapy with meal announcement and for 62 (49,75)% of the time during conventional therapy (p = 0.26). Median (IQR) time spent with plasma glucose levels10 mmol/l [23 (13,39) vs. 27 (10,50)%; p = 0.88] or3.9 mmol/l [1(0,4) vs. 5 (1,10)%; p = 0.24] and mean [standard deviation (SD)] glucose levels [8.0 (7.6,9.3) vs. 7.7 (6.6,10.1) mmol/l, p = 0.79] were also similar. In conclusion, these results assist home testing of closed-loop delivery with meal announcement in adolescents with poorly controlled T1D who miscalculate or miss meal insulin boluses.

Aims Using compartment modelling, we assessed the time delay between blood glucose and sensor glucose measured by the Guardian® RT continuous glucose monitoring system in young subjects with Type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods Twelve children and adolescents with T1D treated by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (male/female 7/5; age 13.1 ± 4.2 years; body mass index 21.9 ± 4.3 kg/m2; mean ± sd) were studied over 19 h in a Clinical Research Facility. Guardian® RT was calibrated every 6 h and sensor glucose measured every 5 min. Reference blood glucose was measured every 15 min using a YSI 2300 STAT Plus Analyser. A population compartment model of sensor glucose–blood glucose kinetics was adopted to estimate the time delay, the calibration scale and the calibration shift. Results The population median of the time delay was 15.8 (interquartile range 15.2, 16.5) min, which was corroborated by correlation analysis between blood glucose and 15-min delayed sensor glucose. The delay has a relatively low intersubject variability, with 95% of individuals predicted to have delays between 10.4 and 24.3 min. Population medians (interquartile range) for the scale and shift are 0.800 (0.777, 0.823) (unitless) and 1.66 (1.47, 1.84) mmol/l, respectively. Conclusions In young subjects with T1D, the total time delay associated with the Guardian® RT system was approximately 15 min. This is twice that expected on physiological grounds, suggesting a 5- to 10-min delay because of data processing. Delays above 25 min are rarely to be observed.

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of closed-loop therapy with meal announcement during reduction and omission of meal insulin boluses in adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Twelve adolescents with T1D [six male; mean (s.d.) age 15.9 (1.8) years; mean (s.d.) glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 77 (27) mmol/mol] were studied in a randomized crossover study comparing closed-loop therapy with meal announcement with conventional pump therapy over two 24-h stays at a clinical research facility. Identical meals were given on both occasions. The evening meal insulin bolus was calculated to cover half of the carbohydrate content of the meal and no bolus was delivered for lunch. Plasma glucose levels were in the target range of 3.9-10 mmol/l for a median [interquartile range (IQR)] of 74 (55,86)% of the time during closed-loop therapy with meal announcement and for 62 (49,75)% of the time during conventional therapy (p = 0.26). Median (IQR) time spent with plasma glucose levels > 10 mmol/l [23 (13,39) vs. 27 (10,50)%; p = 0.88] or < 3.9 mmol/l [1(0,4) vs. 5 (1,10)%; p = 0.24] and mean [standard deviation (SD)] glucose levels [8.0 (7.6,9.3) vs. 7.7 (6.6,10.1) mmol/l, p = 0.79] were also similar. In conclusion, these results assist home testing of closed-loop delivery with meal announcement in adolescents with poorly controlled T1D who miscalculate or miss meal insulin boluses