Search

The usage and safety of the Boost and Ease-off features in the CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop system were analyzed in a retrospective analysis of real-world data from 7,464 users over a 12-month period. Boost was used more frequently than Ease-off, but for a shorter duration per use. Mean starting glucose was above range for Boost (229 ± 51 mg/dL), and within range for Ease-off (114 ± 29 mg/dL). Time spent below 70 mg/dL was low during Boost periods [median (interquartile range; IQR) 0.0% (0.0, 0.5%)], and lower than during no Boost periods [2.1% (1.2, 3.4%)], while time spent above 180 mg/dL was lower during Ease-off periods (15 ± 14%) compared with no Ease-off periods (25 ± 12%). There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis attributed to Boost or Ease-off use. Boost and Ease-off allow users to engage safely with CamAPS FX to manage their glucose levels during periods of more-than-usual and less-than-usual insulin needs.

Objective: We evaluated the effect of long-term intensive metabolic control with hybrid closed-loop (CL) on residual C-peptide secretion and glucose control compared with standard insulin therapy in youth with type 1 diabetes over 48 months., Research Design and Methods: Following the 24-month primary phase of a multicenter, randomized, parallel trial of 96 newly diagnosed youth aged 10 to 16.9 years, participants were invited to an extension phase using treatment allocated at randomization. They continued with hybrid CL using the Cambridge algorithm or standard insulin therapy (control) until 48 months after diagnosis. Analysis was by intention-to-treat., Results: At 24 months after diagnosis, 81 participants (mean ± SD age 14 ± 2 years) continued in the extension phase (47 CL, 34 control). There was no difference in fasting C-peptide corrected for fasting glucose at 48 months between groups (CL: 5 ± 9 vs. control: 6 ± 14 pmol/L per mmol/L; mean adjusted difference -2 [95% CI -7, 4; P = 0.54]). Central laboratory HbA1c remained lower in the CL group by 0.9% (10 mmol/mol [95% CI 0.2, 1.5; 3, 17 mmol/mol); P = 0.009). Time in target range of 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L was 12 percentage points (95% CI 3, 20; P = 0.008) higher in the CL group compared with control. There were 11 severe hypoglycemic events (6 CL, 5 control) and 7 diabetic ketoacidosis events (3 CL, 4 control) during the extension phase., Conclusions: Improved glycemic control was sustained over 48 months after diagnosis with CL insulin delivery compared with standard therapy in youth with type 1 diabetes. This did not appear to confer a protective effect on residual C-peptide secretion., (© 2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To determine whether continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived glycemic patterns can characterize pregnancies with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) as diagnosed by standard oral glucose tolerance test at 24-28 weeks' gestation compared with those without GDM., Research Design and Methods: The analysis includes 768 individuals enrolled from two sites prior to 17 weeks' gestation between June 2020 and December 2021 in a prospective observational study. Participants wore blinded Dexcom G6 CGMs throughout gestation. Main outcome of interest was a diagnosis of GDM by oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Glycemic levels in participants with GDM versus without GDM were characterized using CGM-measured glycemic metrics., Results: Participants with GDM (n = 58 [8%]) had higher mean glucose (109 ± 13 vs. 100 ± 8 mg/dL [6.0 ± 0.7 vs. 5.6 ± 0.4 mmol/L], P < 0.001), greater glucose SD (23 ± 4 vs. 19 ± 3 mg/dL [1.3 ± 0.2 vs. 1.1 ± 0.2 mmol/L], P < 0.001), less time in range 63-120 mg/dL (3.5-6.7 mmol/L) (70% ± 17% vs. 84% ± 8%, P < 0.001), greater percent time >120 mg/dL (>6.7 mmol/L) (median 23% vs. 12%, P < 0.001), and greater percent time >140 mg/dL (>7.8 mmol/L) (median 7.4% vs. 2.7%, P < 0.001) than those without GDM throughout gestation prior to OGTT. Median percent time >120 mg/dL (>6.7 mmol/L) and time >140 mg/dL (>7.8 mmol/L) were higher as early as 13-14 weeks of gestation (32% vs. 14%, P < 0.001, and 5.2% vs. 2.0%, P < 0.001, respectively) and persisted during the entire study period prior to OGTT., Conclusions: Prior to OGTT at 24-34 weeks' gestation, pregnant individuals who develop GDM have higher CGM-measured glucose levels and more hyperglycemia compared with those who do not develop GDM., (© 2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To evaluate whether continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived glycemic patterns observed throughout pregnancy were associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, specifically fetal growth disorders and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP)., Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of individuals with viable singleton pregnancies and screening hemoglobin A 1c levels less than 6.5%. Those with preexisting diabetes were excluded. Enrollment occurred at the earliest gestational age before 17 weeks. Participants wore blinded continuous glucose monitors consecutively as willing until delivery. Those with at least 14 days of CGM data were included in analysis. Rates of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates, small-for-gestational age (SGA) neonates, and HDP were assessed. Continuous glucose monitoring-derived glycemic metrics were calculated, including mean glucose level and percent time above and below thresholds. Two-sample t tests were used to compare glycemic metrics between participants with and without adverse perinatal outcomes., Results: Of 937 participants enrolled, 760 met inclusion criteria. Those delivering LGA neonates or who were diagnosed with HDP had higher mean glucose levels (102±9 vs 100±8, P =.01 and 103±8 vs 99±8, P <.001) and spent more time above 120 mg/dL (median 16% vs 12%, P =.006, and 16% vs 12%, P <.001, respectively) and above 140 mg/dL (median 3.9% vs 2.8%, P =.006, and 3.5% vs 2.8%, P <.001, respectively) throughout gestation than those without these outcomes. These findings were present regardless of gestational diabetes mellitus status. Participants with SGA neonates had lower mean glucose levels (97±7 vs 101±8, P =.01) and spent less time above 140 mg/dL (median 1.6% vs 2.3%, P =.01) and more time below 63 mg/dL (median 3.0% vs 2.3%, P =.02) than those without SGA neonates., Conclusion: Individuals with LGA neonates or HDP exhibit a slightly higher mean glucose levels and spend more time hyperglycemic in early pregnancy than those who do not experience these outcomes., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Celeste Durnwald reports advisory work for Dexcom for GDM patient facing materials and system implementation. Money was paid to her institution from the Jaeb Center for Health Research. Roy W. Beck reports no personal financial disclosures but reports that his institution has received funding on his behalf as follows: grant funding and study supplies from Dexcom. Rich M. Bergenstal has received research support, has acted as a consultant, or has been on the scientific advisory board for Abbott Diabetes Care, Ascensia, Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc., CeQur, DexCom, Eli Lilly, Embecta, Hygieia, Insulet, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Onduo, Roche Diabetes Care, Tandem Diabetes Care, Sanofi, United Healthcare, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Zealand Pharma. Rich M. Bergenstal's employer, non-profit HealthPartners Institute, contracts for his services and he receives no personal income for any of these activities. ALC reports no personal financial disclosures but reports that his institution has received funding on his behalf as follows; research support from Medtronic, Tandem, Insulet, Abbott, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, NovoNordisk, Sanofi and United Health Group and consultancy fees from Mannkind and NovoNordisk. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the performance of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-measured glycemic metrics in predicting development of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and select perinatal complications. Research Methods: In a prospective observational study, CGM data were collected from 760 pregnant females throughout gestation after study enrollment. GDM was diagnosed using the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at 24-34 weeks of gestation. Predictive models were built using logistic and elastic net regression. Predictive performance was assessed by the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Results: The AUROCs of using second trimester percent time >140 mg/dL (TA140) and week 13-14 TA140 in predicting GDM were 0.81 and 0.74, respectively. The AUROCs for predicting large-for-gestational-age (LGA) births and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) using second trimester TA140 were both 0.58. When matching the specificity of OGTT, a model using TA140 in weeks 13-14 achieved similar sensitivity to OGTT in predicting HDP (13% vs. 10%, respectively) and LGA (6% for both methods). Elastic net also demonstrated similar AUROC and diagnostic performance with no meaningful improvement by using multiple predictors. Conclusion: CGM-measured hyperglycemic metrics such as TA140 predicted GDM with high AUROCs as early as 13-14 weeks of gestation. These metrics were also similar statistically to the OGTT at 24-34 weeks in predicting perinatal complications, although sensitivity was low for both. CGM could potentially be used as an early screening tool for elevated hyperglycemia during gestation, which could be used in addition to or instead of the OGTT.

Background/objective: The main objective of this study is to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of the Cambridge hybrid closed-loop automated insulin delivery (AID) algorithm versus usual care for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D)., Methods: This multicenter, binational, parallel-controlled trial randomized 133 insulin pump using participants aged 6 to 18 years to either AID (n = 65) or usual care (n = 68) for 6 months. Both within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness were analyzed. Analysis focused on the treatment subgroup (n = 21) who received the much more reliable CamAPS FX hardware iteration and their contemporaneous control group (n = 24). Lifetime complications and costs were simulated via an updated Sheffield T1D policy model., Results: Within-trial, both groups had indistinguishable and statistically unchanged health-related quality of life, and statistically similar hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) event rates. Total health care utilization was higher in the treatment group. Both the overall treatment group and CamAPS FX subgroup exhibited improved HbA 1C (-0.32%, 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.04; P = .02, and -1.05%, 95% CI: -1.43 to -0.67; P < .001, respectively). Modeling projected increased expected lifespan of 5.36 years and discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 1.16 (U.K. tariffs) and 1.52 (U.S. tariffs) in the CamAPS FX subgroup. Estimated ICERs for the subgroup were £19 324/QALY (United Kingdom) and -$3917/QALY (United States). For subgroup patients already using continuous glucose monitors (CGM), ICERs were £10 096/QALY (United Kingdom) and -$33 616/QALY (United States). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis generated mean ICERs of £19 342/QALY (95% CI: £15 903/QALY to £22 929/QALY) (United Kingdom) and -$28 283/QALY (95% CI: -$59 607/QALY to $1858/QALY) (United States)., Conclusions: For children and adolescents with T1D on insulin pump therapy, AID using the Cambridge algorithm appears cost-effective below a £20 000/QALY threshold (United Kingdom) and cost saving (United States)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: MT reports receiving speaking and advisory fees from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, and Abbott. RPW reports receiving grant support from MannKind, and Novo Nordisk, grant support and lecture fees from Dexcom, grant support, and advisory board fees from Eli Lilly, and grant support, travel support, and lecture fees from Tandem Diabetes Care. BAB reports receiving grant support, donated supplies, and advisory board fees from ConvaTec, grant support from Dexcom, grant support and honoraria from Insulet, grant support and advisory board fees from Medtronic MiniMed, and grant support from Tandem Diabetes Care. LADM reports grants from Medtronic. NM reports receiving grant support for devices from Medtronic. REJB reports receiving speaking honoraria from Eli Lilly and Springer Healthcare. SAW reports receiving consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Sanofi US Services, and Zealand, speaker honoraria from Dexcom, Insulet, Medtronic, and Tandem Diabetes Care, and grant support to his institution from Abbott and Medtronic. LK reports receiving grant support from Tandem Diabetes Care. CK reports receiving grant support from Tandem Diabetes Care. RWB reports receiving grant support and donated supplies from Abbott Diabetes Care, Ascensia Diabetes Care US, Beta Bionics, and Roche Diabetes Care, grant support, donated supplies, and consulting fees from Dexcom, Novo Nordisk, and Tandem Diabetes Care, grant support and consulting fees from Bigfoot Biomedical, and consulting fees from Eli Lilly and Insulet. RH reports receiving speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Dexcom and Novo Nordisk, receiving license fees from B. Braun and Medtronic; patents related to closed-loop, and being director at CamDiab. MEW reports patents related to closed-loop and being a consultant at CamDiab. JW reports receiving speaker honoraria from Ypsomed and Novo Nordisk. KKH reports receiving consulting fees from Cecelia Health and Havas Health. CKB reports receiving consultancy fees from CamDiab and speaker honoraria from Ypsomed, JMA, AT, JS, LD, FC, ND, AG, and DSF declare no competing financial interests exist.

Background: Hybrid closed-loop insulin therapy has shown promise for management of type 1 diabetes during pregnancy; however, its efficacy is unclear., Methods: In this multicenter, controlled trial, we randomly assigned pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and a glycated hemoglobin level of at least 6.5% at nine sites in the United Kingdom to receive standard insulin therapy or hybrid closed-loop therapy, with both groups using continuous glucose monitoring. The primary outcome was the percentage of time in the pregnancy-specific target glucose range (63 to 140 mg per deciliter [3.5 to 7.8 mmol per liter]) as measured by continuous glucose monitoring from 16 weeks' gestation until delivery. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary outcomes were the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state (glucose level >140 mg per deciliter), overnight time in the target range, the glycated hemoglobin level, and safety events., Results: A total of 124 participants with a mean (±SD) age of 31.1±5.3 years and a mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level of 7.7±1.2% underwent randomization. The mean percentage of time that the maternal glucose level was in the target range was 68.2±10.5% in the closed-loop group and 55.6±12.5% in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference, 10.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.0 to 14.0; P<0.001). Results for the secondary outcomes were consistent with those of the primary outcome; participants in the closed-loop group spent less time in a hyperglycemic state than those in the standard-care group (difference, -10.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -13.8 to -6.6); had more overnight time in the target range (difference, 12.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 8.3 to 16.2), and had lower glycated hemoglobin levels (difference, -0.31 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.50 to -0.12). Little time was spent in a hypoglycemic state. No unanticipated safety problems associated with the use of closed-loop therapy during pregnancy occurred (6 instances of severe hypoglycemia, vs. 5 in the standard-care group; 1 instance of diabetic ketoacidosis in each group; and 12 device-related adverse events in the closed-loop group, 7 related to closed-loop therapy)., Conclusions: Hybrid closed-loop therapy significantly improved maternal glycemic control during pregnancy complicated by type 1 diabetes. (Funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Program; AiDAPT ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN56898625.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Introduction: Multiple daily injection insulin therapy frequently fails to meet hospital glycemic goals and is prone to hypoglycemia. Automated insulin delivery (AID) with remote glucose monitoring offers a solution to these shortcomings. Research Design and Methods: In a single-arm multicenter pilot trial, we tested the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of the Omnipod 5 AID System with real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for up to 10 days in hospitalized patients with insulin-requiring diabetes on nonintensive care unit medical-surgical units. Primary endpoints included the proportion of time in automated mode and percent time-in-range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) among participants with >48 h of CGM data. Safety endpoints included incidence of severe hypoglycemia and diabetes-related ketoacidosis (DKA). Additional glycemic endpoints, CGM accuracy, and patient satisfaction were also explored. Results: Twenty-two participants were enrolled; 18 used the system for a total of 96 days (mean 5.3 ± 3.1 days per patient), and 16 had sufficient CGM data required for analysis. Median percent time in automated mode was 95% (interquartile range 92%-98%) for the 18 system users, and the 16 participants with >48 h of CGM data achieved an overall TIR of 68% ± 16%, with 0.17% ± 0.3% time <70 mg/dL and 0.06% ± 0.2% time <54 mg/dL. Sensor mean glucose was 167 ± 21 mg/dL. There were no DKA or severe hypoglycemic events. All participants reported satisfaction with the system at study end. Conclusions: The use of AID with a disposable tubeless patch-pump along with remote real-time CGM is feasible in the hospital setting. These results warrant further investigation in randomized trials.

Aim: To examine changes in the lived experience of type 1 diabetes after use of hybrid closed loop (CL), including the CamAPS FX CL system., Materials and Methods: The primary study was conducted as an open-label, single-period, randomized, parallel design contrasting CL versus insulin pump (with or without continuous glucose monitoring). Participants were asked to complete patient-reported outcomes before starting CL and 3 and 6 months later. Surveys assessed diabetes distress, hypoglycaemia concerns and quality of life. Qualitative focus group data were collected at the completion of the study., Results: In this sample of 98 youth (age range 6-18, mean age 12.7 ± 2.8 years) and their parents, CL use was not associated with psychosocial benefits overall. However, the subgroup (n = 12) using the CamAPS FX system showed modest improvements in quality of life and parent distress, reinforced by both survey (p < .05) and focus group responses. There were no negative effects of CL use reported by study participants., Conclusions: Closed loop use via the CamAPS FX system was associated with modest improvements in aspects of the lived experience of managing type 1 diabetes in youth and their families. Further refinements of the system may optimize the user experience., (© 2022 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The Medtronic advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) and MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems provide the option to temporarily increase the glucose target to 150 mg/dL (8.3 mmol/L). This analysis investigated the efficacy of the AHCL compared with that of the HCL after the use of this setting. Data from 60 participants in the Fuzzy Logic Automated Insulin Regulation (FLAIR) study were used to compare the AHCL and HCL systems after the use of the temporary target (TT), and during analogous periods where this setting was not used. Differences in time in range 70-180 mg/dL between the systems were similar after the use of the TT setting and during analogous non-TT periods (interaction P  = 0.87). Similar trends were observed for mean glucose, percentage time >180 mg/dL, and percentage time >250 mg/dL. Differences between AHCL and HCL systems were similar after the use of the TT setting compared with those of non-TT periods. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03040414.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop (HCL) automated insulin delivery in very young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) on caregivers' well-being, fear of hypoglycemia, and sleepiness., Research Design and Methods: We conducted a multinational, open-label, randomized crossover study. Children (age 1-7 years) with T1D received treatment for two 4-month periods in random order, comparing HCL with sensor augmented pump (control). At baseline and after each treatment period, caregivers were invited to complete World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index, Hypoglycemia Fear Survey, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale questionnaires., Results: Caregivers of 74 children (mean ± SD age 5 ± 2 years and baseline HbA1c 7.3 ± 0.7%; 42% female) participated. Results revealed significantly lower scores for hypoglycemia fear (P < 0.001) and higher scores for well-being (P < 0.001) after HCL treatment. A trend toward a reduction in sleepiness score was observed (P = 0.09)., Conclusions: Our results suggest better well-being and less hypoglycemia fear in caregivers of very young children with T1D on CamAPS FX HCL., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Background: Whether improved glucose control with hybrid closed-loop therapy can preserve C-peptide secretion as compared with standard insulin therapy in persons with new-onset type 1 diabetes is unclear., Methods: In a multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized trial, we assigned youths 10.0 to 16.9 years of age within 21 days after a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes to receive hybrid closed-loop therapy or standard insulin therapy (control) for 24 months. The primary end point was the area under the curve (AUC) for the plasma C-peptide level (after a mixed-meal tolerance test) at 12 months after diagnosis. The analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis., Results: A total of 97 participants (mean [±SD] age, 12±2 years) underwent randomization: 51 were assigned to receive closed-loop therapy and 46 to receive control therapy. The AUC for the C-peptide level at 12 months (primary end point) did not differ significantly between the two groups (geometric mean, 0.35 pmol per milliliter [interquartile range, 0.16 to 0.49] with closed-loop therapy and 0.46 pmol per milliliter [interquartile range, 0.22 to 0.69] with control therapy; mean adjusted difference, -0.06 pmol per milliliter [95% confidence interval {CI}, -0.14 to 0.03]). There was not a substantial between-group difference in the AUC for the C-peptide level at 24 months (geometric mean, 0.18 pmol per milliliter [interquartile range, 0.06 to 0.22] with closed-loop therapy and 0.24 pmol per milliliter [interquartile range, 0.05 to 0.30] with control therapy; mean adjusted difference, -0.04 pmol per milliliter [95% CI, -0.14 to 0.06]). The arithmetic mean glycated hemoglobin level was lower in the closed-loop group than in the control group by 4 mmol per mole (0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 0 to 8 mmol per mole [0.0 to 0.7 percentage points]) at 12 months and by 11 mmol per mole (1.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 7 to 15 mmol per mole [0.5 to 1.5 percentage points]) at 24 months. Five cases of severe hypoglycemia occurred in the closed-loop group (in 3 participants), and one occurred in the control group; one case of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group., Conclusions: In youths with new-onset type 1 diabetes, intensive glucose control for 24 months did not appear to prevent the decline in residual C-peptide secretion. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and others; CLOuD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02871089.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: We recently reported that use of an "advanced" hybrid closed-loop system reduced hyperglycemia without increasing hypoglycemia compared to a first-generation system. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate whether this improved performance was specifically related to better mealtime glycemic control. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of postprandial glycemic control in an open-label, multinational, randomized crossover trial of 112 participants with type 1 diabetes, aged 14-29, of the Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed-loop system (670G) versus the Medtronic advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system, for 12 weeks each. We compared glycemic and insulin delivery metrics over a 3 h horizon across all meals to assess system performance and outcomes. Results: Overall meal size and premeal insulin on board were similar during run-in and between 670G and AHCL arms. Compared with 670G arm, premeal, peak, and mean glucose levels were numerically lower in the AHCL arm (167 ± 23, 231 ± 23, and 177 ± 20 mg/dL vs. 175 ± 23, 235 ± 23, and 180 ± 19 mg/dL, respectively), with a trend to lower hyperglycemia level 2 in AHCL arm. Adjusting for premeal glucose level, all postmeal outcomes between 670G and AHCL were statistically similar. Prandial insulin delivery also was similar in both treatment arms (21 ± 9 vs. 23 ± 10 U), with a shift in basal/bolus ratio from 28%/71% in 670G arm to 20%/80% in AHCL arm. Conclusions: Reduced hyperglycemia with AHCL compared to 670G was not related to early postprandial glycemic excursions after adjusting for premeal glucose level (<3 h after meal), but likely to later (>3 h) postprandial or overnight improvements. Further refinements to mealtime bolus algorithms and strategies may more optimally control prandial glycemic excursions.

Background: Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes strive for tight glucose targets (3.5-7.8 mmol/L) to minimise the risks of obstetric and neonatal complications. Despite using diabetes technologies including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), insulin pumps and contemporary insulin analogues, most women struggle to achieve and maintain the recommended pregnancy glucose targets. This study aims to evaluate whether the use of automated closed-loop insulin delivery improves antenatal glucose levels in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes., Methods/design: A multicentre, open label, randomized, controlled trial of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and a HbA1c of ≥48 mmol/mol (6.5%) at pregnancy confirmation and ≤ 86 mmol/mol (10%) at randomization. Participants who provide written informed consent before 13 weeks 6 days gestation will be entered into a run-in phase to collect 96 h (24 h overnight) of CGM glucose values. Eligible participants will be randomized on a 1:1 basis to CGM (Dexcom G6) with usual insulin delivery (control) or closed-loop (intervention). The closed-loop system includes a model predictive control algorithm (CamAPS FX application), hosted on an android smartphone that communicates wirelessly with the insulin pump (Dana Diabecare RS) and CGM transmitter. Research visits and device training will be provided virtually or face-to-face in conjunction with 4-weekly antenatal clinic visits where possible. Randomization will stratify for clinic site. One hundred twenty-four participants will be recruited. This takes into account 10% attrition and 10% who experience miscarriage or pregnancy loss. Analyses will be performed according to intention to treat. The primary analysis will evaluate the change in the time spent in the target glucose range (3.5-7.8 mmol/l) between the intervention and control group from 16 weeks gestation until delivery. Secondary outcomes include overnight time in target, time above target (> 7.8 mmol/l), standard CGM metrics, HbA1c and psychosocial functioning and health economic measures. Safety outcomes include the number and severity of ketoacidosis, severe hypoglycaemia and adverse device events., Discussion: This will be the largest randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of closed-loop insulin delivery during type 1 diabetes pregnancy., Trial Registration: ISRCTN 56898625 Registration Date: 10 April, 2018., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The possible advantage of hybrid closed-loop therapy (i.e., artificial pancreas) over sensor-augmented pump therapy in very young children with type 1 diabetes is unclear., Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, crossover trial, we recruited children 1 to 7 years of age with type 1 diabetes who were receiving insulin-pump therapy at seven centers across Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom. Participants received treatment in two 16-week periods, in random order, in which the closed-loop system was compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy (control). The primary end point was the between-treatment difference in the percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was in the target range (70 to 180 mg per deciliter) during each 16-week period. The analysis was conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary end points included the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state (glucose level, >180 mg per deciliter), the glycated hemoglobin level, the mean sensor glucose level, and the percentage of time spent in a hypoglycemic state (glucose level, <70 mg per deciliter). Safety was assessed., Results: A total of 74 participants underwent randomization. The mean (±SD) age of the participants was 5.6±1.6 years, and the baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 7.3±0.7%. The percentage of time with the glucose level in the target range was 8.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.4 to 9.9) higher during the closed-loop period than during the control period (P<0.001). The mean adjusted difference (closed-loop minus control) in the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state was -8.5 percentage points (95% CI, -9.9 to -7.1), the difference in the glycated hemoglobin level was -0.4 percentage points (95% CI, -0.5 to -0.3), and the difference in the mean sensor glucose level was -12.3 mg per deciliter (95% CI, -14.8 to -9.8) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). The time spent in a hypoglycemic state was similar with the two treatments (P = 0.74). The median time spent in the closed-loop mode was 95% (interquartile range, 92 to 97) over the 16-week closed-loop period. One serious adverse event of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the closed-loop period. One serious adverse event that was deemed to be unrelated to treatment occurred., Conclusions: A hybrid closed-loop system significantly improved glycemic control in very young children with type 1 diabetes, without increasing the time spent in hypoglycemia. (Funded by the European Commission and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03784027.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

This article reports on the lived experience of Medtronic advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) in comparison to first generation hybrid closed-loop (HCL) in a randomized, open-label, two-period crossover trial. Patient-reported outcome (PROs) measures were administered before randomization and at the end of each study period in 113 adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Glucose monitoring satisfaction subscales for emotional burden and behavioral burden improved significantly ( P  < 0.01) over time with use of AHCL versus HCL and co-occurred with glycemic improvements (reduced percent time above 180 mg/dL during the day and no change in % time less than 54 mg/dL across 24 h) and greater time in Auto Mode. PROs, including distress, technology attitudes, and hypoglycemia confidence, were not different. AHCL use was associated with improved glucose monitoring satisfaction. Satisfaction was greater in those participants who had more appreciable glycemic benefit and stayed in Auto Mode more often. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03040414.

Background: Type 1 diabetes in young children is a heavy parental burden. As part of pilot phase of the KIDSAP01 study, we conducted a baseline assessment in parents to study the association between hypoglycemia fear, parental well-being and child behavior., Methods: All parents were invited to fill in baseline questionnaires: hypoglycemia fear survey (HFS), WHO-5, Epworth Sleepiness Scale and Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)., Results: 24 children (median age: 5-year, range 1-7 years, 63% male, mean diabetes duration: 3 ± 1.7 years) participated. 23/24 parents filled out the questionnaires. We found a higher score for the hypoglycemia fear behavior 33.9 ± 5.6 compared to hypoglycemia worry 34.6 ± 12.2. Median WHO-5 score was 16 (8 - 22) with poor well-being in two parents. Median daytime sleepiness score was high in five parents (>10). For six children a high total behavioral difficulty score (>16) was reported. Pro social behavior score was lower than normal in six children (<6). Parental well-being was negatively associated with HFS total ( r = - 0.50, p <.05) and subscale scores ( r = - 0.44, p <.05 for HFS-Worry and HFS-Behavior), child behavior ( r = - 0.45, p = .05) and positively with child age and diabetes duration ( r = 0.58, p <.01, r = 0.6, p <.01). HFS, parental well-being nor daytime sleepiness are associated with the HbA1c., Conclusion: Regular screening of parental well-being, hypoglycemia fear and child behavior should be part of routine care to target early intervention., Competing Interests: MT reports having received speaker honoraria from Minimed Medtronic and Novo Nordisk. MFr has received speaker honoraria from Minimed Medtronic and has served on advisory boards for Eli Lilly. JM is a member in the advisory board of Becton-Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Medtronic and Sanofi, and has received speaker honoraria from ABBOTT Diabetes Care, Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Nintamed, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Servier and Takeda. MW has received license fees from Becton Dickinson and has served as a consultant to Beckton Dickinson. SH declares speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly and Sanofi. EF-R reports having received speaker honoraria from Minimed Medtronic and Eli Lilly, serving on advisory boards for Eli Lilly. TK has received speaker honoraria from Minimed Medtronic, Roche and Eli Lilly and is member of an advisory board for ABBOTTt Diabetes Care. CdB has received speaker honoraria from Minimed Medtronic and is member of their European Psychology Advisory Board. FC does attend Advisory Boards and obtain speaking fees for ABBOTTt, Medtronic, Lilly, and NovoNordisk. BR-M reports having received speaker honoraria from Minimed Medtronic, Eli Lilly, Roche, Menarini and Novo Nordisk, serving on advisory boards for Eli Lilly. RH reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Dexcom and Novo Nordisk, receiving license fees from Medtronic, and being director at CamDiab. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 de Beaufort, Pit-ten Cate, Schierloh, Cohen, Boughton, Tauschmann, Allen, Nagl, Fritsch, Yong, Metcalfe, Schaeffer, Fichelle, Thiele, Abt, Faninger, Mader, Slegtenhorst, Ashcroft, Wilinska, Sibayan, Kollman, Hofer, Fröhlich-Reiterer, Kapellen, Acerini, Campbell, Rami-Merhar and Hovorka.)

Aim: To evaluate the use of hybrid closed-loop glucose control with faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D)., Research Design and Methods: In a double-blind, multinational, randomized, crossover study, 25 adults with T1D using insulin pump therapy (mean ± SD, age 38 ± 9 years, HbA1c 7.4% ± 0.8% [57 ± 8 mmol/mol]) underwent two 8-week periods of unrestricted living comparing hybrid closed-loop with Fiasp and hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin aspart in random order. During both interventions the CamAPS FX closed-loop system incorporating the Cambridge model predictive control algorithm was used., Results: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time sensor glucose was in the target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L; primary endpoint) was not different between interventions (75% ± 8% vs. 75% ± 8% for hybrid closed-loop with Fiasp vs. hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin aspart; mean-adjusted difference -0.6% [95% CI -1.8% to 0.7%]; p < .001 for non-inferiority [non-inferiority margin 5%]). The proportion of time with sensor glucose less than 3.9 mmol/L (median [IQR] 2.4% [1.2%-3.2%] vs. 2.9% [1.7%-4.0%]; p = .01) and less than 3.0 mmol/L (median [IQR] 0.4% [0.2%-0.7%] vs. 0.7% [0.2%-0.9%]; p = .03) was reduced with Fiasp versus standard insulin aspart. There was no difference in mean glucose (8.1 ± 0.8 vs. 8.0 ± 0.8 mmol/L; p = .13) or glucose variability (SD of sensor glucose 2.9 ± 0.5 vs. 2.9 ± 0.5 mmol/L; p = .90). Total daily insulin requirements did not differ (49 ± 15 vs. 49 ± 15 units/day; p = .45). No severe hypoglycaemia or ketoacidosis occurred., Conclusions: The use of Fiasp in the CamAPS FX closed-loop system may reduce hypoglycaemia without compromising glucose control compared with standard insulin aspart in adults with T1D., (© 2021 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Diabetes management in very young children remains challenging. Glycaemic targets are achieved at the expense of high parental diabetes management burden and frequent hypoglycaemia, impacting quality of life for the whole family. Our objective is to assess whether automated insulin delivery can improve glycaemic control and alleviate the burden of diabetes management in this particular age group., Methods and Analysis: The study adopts an open-label, multinational, multicentre, randomised, crossover design and aims to randomise 72 children aged 1-7 years with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy. Following screening, participants will receive training on study insulin pump and study continuous glucose monitoring devices. Participants will be randomised to 16-week use of the hybrid closed-loop system (intervention period) or to 16-week use of sensor-augmented pump therapy (control period) with 1-4 weeks washout period before crossing over to the other arm. The order of the two study periods will be random. The primary endpoint is the between-group difference in time spent in the target glucose range from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L based on sensor glucose readings during the 16-week study periods. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Key secondary endpoints are between group differences in time spent above and below target glucose range, glycated haemoglobin and average sensor glucose. Participants' and caregivers' experiences will be evaluated using questionnaires and qualitative interviews, and sleep quality will be assessed. A health economic analysis will be performed., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval has been obtained from Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee (UK), Ethics Committees of the University of Innsbruck, the University of Vienna and the University of Graz (Austria), Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Leipzig (Germany) and Comité National d'Ethique de Recherche (Luxembourg). The results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations., Trial Registration Number: NCT03784027., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SEH declares speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Sanofi. EF-R reports having received speaker honoraria from Minimed Medtronic and Eli Lilly, serving on advisory boards for Eli Lilly. TMK has received speaker honoraria from Minimed Medtronic, Roche and Eli Lilly and consulted Sanofi-Aventis. CdB has received speaker honoraria from Minimed Medtronic, and is member of their European Psychology Advisory Board. BR-M reports having received speaker honoraria from Abbott, Minimed Medtronic, Eli Lilly, Roche, Menarini and Novo Nordisk, serving on advisory boards for Eli Lilly. FC has received speaking fees from Abbott, Medtronic and Eli Lilly. RH reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, serving on advisory panel for Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk; receiving license fees from BBraun and Medtronic; having served as a consultant to BBraun, patents and patent applications related to closed-loop insulin delivery, and director at CamDiab. JKM is shareholder of Decide Clinical Software, a member in the advisory board of Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Prediktor A/S, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi-Aventis and received speaker honoraria from Abbott Diabetes Care, Astra Zeneca, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, NovoNordisk A/S, Roche Diabetes Care, Servier and Takeda., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Management of type 1 diabetes is challenging. We compared outcomes using a commercially available hybrid closed-loop system versus a new investigational system with features potentially useful for adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes., Methods: In this multinational, randomised, crossover trial (Fuzzy Logic Automated Insulin Regulation [FLAIR]), individuals aged 14-29 years old, with a clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes with a duration of at least 1 year, using either an insulin pump or multiple daily insulin injections, and glycated haemoglobin (HbA 1c ) levels of 7·0-11·0% (53-97 mmol/mol) were recruited from seven academic-based endocrinology practices, four in the USA, and one each in Germany, Israel, and Slovenia. After a run-in period to teach participants how to use the study pump and continuous glucose monitor, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated sequence, with a permuted block design (block sizes of two and four), stratified by baseline HbA 1c and use of a personal MiniMed 670G system (Medtronic) at enrolment, to either use of a MiniMed 670G hybrid closed-loop system (670G) or the investigational advanced hybrid closed-loop system (Medtronic) for the first 12-week period, and then participants were crossed over with no washout period, to the other group for use for another 12 weeks. Masking was not possible due to the nature of the systems used. The coprimary outcomes, measured with continuous glucose monitoring, were proportion of time that glucose levels were above 180 mg/dL (>10·0 mmol/L) during 0600 h to 2359 h (ie, daytime), tested for superiority, and proportion of time that glucose levels were below 54 mg/dL (<3·0 mmol/L) calculated over a full 24-h period, tested for non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin 2%). Analysis was by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all participants randomly assigned to treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03040414, and is now complete., Findings: Between June 3 and Aug 22, 2019, 113 individuals were enrolled into the trial. Mean age was 19 years (SD 4) and 70 (62%) of 113 participants were female. Mean proportion of time with daytime glucose levels above 180 mg/dL (>10·0 mmol/L) was 42% (SD 13) at baseline, 37% (9) during use of the 670G system, and 34% (9) during use of the advanced hybrid closed-loop system (mean difference [advanced hybrid closed-loop system minus 670G system] -3·00% [95% CI -3·97 to -2·04]; p<0·0001). Mean 24-h proportion of time with glucose levels below 54 mg/dL (<3·0 mmol/L) was 0·46% (SD 0·42) at baseline, 0·50% (0·35) during use of the 670G system, and 0·46% (0·33) during use of the advanced hybrid closed-loop system (mean difference [advanced hybrid closed-loop system minus 670G system] -0·06% [95% CI -0·11 to -0·02]; p<0·0001 for non-inferiority). One severe hypoglycaemic event occurred in the advanced hybrid closed-loop system group, determined to be unrelated to study treatment, and none occurred in the 670G group., Interpretation: Hyperglycaemia was reduced without increasing hypoglycaemia in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes using the investigational advanced hybrid closed-loop system compared with the commercially available MiniMed 670G system. Testing an advanced hybrid closed-loop system in populations that are underserved due to socioeconomic factors and testing during pregnancy and in individuals with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia would advance the effective use of this technology FUNDING: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Management of newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (T1D) in children and adolescents is challenging for patients, families and healthcare professionals. The objective of this study is to determine whether continued intensive metabolic control using hybrid closed-loop (CL) insulin delivery following diagnosis of T1D can preserve C-peptide secretion, a marker of residual beta-cell function, compared with standard multiple daily injections (MDI) therapy., Methods and Analysis: The study adopts an open-label, multicentre, randomised, parallel design, and aims to randomise 96 participants aged 10-16.9 years, recruited within 21 days of diagnosis with T1D. Following a baseline mixed meal tolerance test (MMTT), participants will be randomised to receive 24 months treatment with conventional MDI therapy or with CL insulin delivery. A further 24-month optional extension phase will be offered to all participants to continue with the allocated treatment. The primary outcome is the between group difference in area under the stimulated C-peptide curve (AUC) of the MMTT at 12 months post diagnosis. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Key secondary outcomes are between group differences in time spent in target glucose range (3.9-10 mmol/L), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and time spent in hypoglycaemia (<3.9 mmol/L) at 12 months. Secondary efficacy outcomes include between group differences in stimulated C-peptide AUC at 24 months, time spent in target glucose range, glucose variability, hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia as recorded by periodically applied masked continuous glucose monitoring devices, total, basal and bolus insulin dose, and change in body weight. Cognitive, emotional and behavioural characteristics of participants and parents will be evaluated, and a cost-utility analysis performed to support adoption of CL as a standard treatment modality following diagnosis of T1D., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval has been obtained from Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee. The results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations., Trial Registration Number: NCT02871089; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RH reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, serving on advisory panel for Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, receiving licence fees from BBraun and Medtronic. RH and MEW report patient patents and patent applications. MT has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic and Novo Nordisk. SH is a member of Sigma (Dexcom) advisory board and reports having received training honoraria from Medtronic and Sanofi. TLR has received speaker honoraria from Novo Nordisk and serves as a consultant for Abbott Diabetes Care. KH has received research support from Dexcom, Inc for an investigator-initiated project; he has received consultant fees from Lilly Innovation Center, Bigfoot Biomedical, and Insulet, Inc., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To evaluate the experiences of families with very young children aged 1 to 7 years (inclusive) with type 1 diabetes using day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery., Methods: Parents/caregivers of 20 children aged 1 to 7 years with type 1 diabetes completed a closed-loop experience survey following two 3-week periods of unrestricted day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin therapy using Cambridge FlorenceM system at home. Benefits, limitations, and improvements of closed-loop technology were explored., Results: Responders reported reduced burden of diabetes management, less time spent managing diabetes, and improved quality of sleep with closed-loop. Ninety percent of the responders felt less worried about their child's glucose control using closed-loop. Size of study devices, battery performance and connectivity issues were identified as areas for improvement. Parents/caregivers wished for more options to input information to the system such as temporary glucose targets., Conclusions: Parents/caregivers of very young children reported important quality of life benefits associated with using closed-loop, supporting adoption of this technology in this population., (© 2019 The Authors. Pediatric Diabetes published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To quantify age-related variability of insulin needs during day and night closed-loop insulin delivery., Research Design and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from hybrid closed-loop studies involving young children (1-6 years old, n = 20), children (7-12 years, n = 21), adolescents (13-17 years, n = 15), and adults (>18 years, n = 58) with type 1 diabetes. The coefficient of variation quantified variability of insulin needs during 3 weeks of unrestricted-living hybrid closed-loop use., Results: Data from 2,365 nights and 2,367 days in 114 participants were analyzed. The coefficient of variation of insulin delivery was higher in young children compared with adults (mean difference at nighttime 10.7 percentage points [95% CI 2.9-18.4], P = 0.003; daytime 6.4 percentage points [95% CI 2.0-10.9], P = 0.002) and compared with adolescents (mean difference at nighttime 10.2 percentage points [95% CI 0.0-20.4], P = 0.049; daytime 7.0 percentage points [95% CI 1.1-12.8], P = 0.014)., Conclusions: Diabetes management in young children is complicated by higher variability in insulin requirements, supporting fast-track clinical practice adoption of closed-loop in this vulnerable population., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Introduction: Closed-loop systems titrate insulin based on sensor glucose levels, providing novel means to reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia while improving glycaemic control. We will assess effectiveness of 6-month day-and-night closed-loop insulin delivery compared with usual care (conventional or sensor-augmented pump therapy) in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes., Methods and Analysis: The trial adopts an open-label, multicentre, multinational (UK and USA), randomised, single-period, parallel design. Participants (n=130) are children and adolescents (aged ≥6 and <19 years) with type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year, and insulin pump use for at least 3 months with suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin ≥58 mmol/mol (7.5%) and ≤86 mmol/mol (10%)). After a 2-3 week run-in period, participants will be randomised to 6-month use of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery, or to usual care. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome is glycated haemoglobin at 6 months. Other key endpoints include time in the target glucose range (3.9-10 mmol/L, 70-180 mg/dL), mean sensor glucose and time spent above and below target. Secondary outcomes include SD and coefficient of variation of sensor glucose levels, time with sensor glucose levels <3.5 mmol/L (63 mg/dL) and <3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL), area under the curve of glucose <3.5 mmol/L (63 mg/dL), time with glucose levels >16.7 mmol/L (300 mg/dL), area under the curve of glucose >10.0 mmol/L (180 mg/dL), total, basal and bolus insulin dose, body mass index z-score and blood pressure. Cognitive, emotional and behavioural characteristics of participants and caregivers and their responses to the closed-loop and clinical trial will be assessed. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for closed-loop will be estimated., Ethics and Dissemination: Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee and Jaeb Center for Health Research Institutional Review Office approved the study. The findings will be disseminated by peer-review publications and conference presentations., Trial Registration Number: NCT02925299; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RH reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, serving on advisory panel for Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, receiving licence fees from BBraun and Medtronic. RH and MEW report patent patents and patent applications. MT has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic and NovoNordisk. PW reports receiving speaker honoraria from Dexcom and serving on advisory panels for Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk and research support from Bigfoot Biomedical, Dexcom, Lexicon, Mannkind and Novo Nordisk. BAB is on Advisory Boards for Novo Nordisk and Convatec, has received research support from Medtronic Diabetes, Tandem Diabetes, Insulet, Convatec and Dexcom. SW has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Insulet and Tandem, and has received consultant honoraria from Sanofi and Zealand Pharmaceuticals. KH has received research support from Dexcom for an investigator-initiated project; he has received consultant fees from Lilly Innovation Center, Bigfoot Biomedical and Insulet. LDM reports grants from Medtronic., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

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., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Background: The achievement of glycaemic control remains challenging for patients with type 1 diabetes. We assessed the effectiveness of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in people with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older., Methods: In this open-label, multicentre, multinational, single-period, parallel randomised controlled trial, participants were recruited from diabetes outpatient clinics at four hospitals in the UK and two centres in the USA. We randomly assigned participants with type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older treated with insulin pump and with suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin [HbA 1c ] 7·5-10·0%) to receive either hybrid closed-loop therapy or sensor-augmented pump therapy over 12 weeks of free living. Training on study insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring took place over a 4-week run-in period. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned using central randomisation software. Allocation to the two study groups was unblinded, and randomisation was stratified within centre by low (<8·5%) or high (≥8·5%) HbA 1c . The primary endpoint was the proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range of 3·9-10·0 mmol/L at 12 weeks post randomisation. Analyses of primary outcome and safety measures were done in all randomised patients. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02523131, and is closed to accrual., Findings: From May 12, 2016, to Nov 17, 2017, 114 individuals were screened, and 86 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive hybrid closed-loop therapy (n=46) or sensor-augmented pump therapy (n=40; control group). The proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range was significantly higher in the closed-loop group (65%, SD 8) compared with the control group (54%, SD 9; mean difference in change 10·8 percentage points, 95% CI 8·2 to 13·5; p<0·0001). In the closed-loop group, HbA 1c was reduced from a screening value of 8·3% (SD 0·6) to 8·0% (SD 0·6) after the 4-week run-in, and to 7·4% (SD 0·6) after the 12-week intervention period. In the control group, the HbA 1c values were 8·2% (SD 0·5) at screening, 7·8% (SD 0·6) after run-in, and 7·7% (SD 0·5) after intervention; reductions in HbA 1c percentages were significantly greater in the closed-loop group compared with the control group (mean difference in change 0·36%, 95% CI 0·19 to 0·53; p<0·0001). The time spent with glucose concentrations below 3·9 mmol/L (mean difference in change -0·83 percentage points, -1·40 to -0·16; p=0·0013) and above 10·0 mmol/L (mean difference in change -10·3 percentage points, -13·2 to -7·5; p<0·0001) was shorter in the closed-loop group than the control group. The coefficient of variation of sensor-measured glucose was not different between interventions (mean difference in change -0·4%, 95% CI -1·4% to 0·7%; p=0·50). Similarly, total daily insulin dose was not different (mean difference in change 0·031 U/kg per day, 95% CI -0·005 to 0·067; p=0·09) and bodyweight did not differ (mean difference in change 0·68 kg, 95% CI -0·34 to 1·69; p=0·19). No severe hypoglycaemia occurred. One diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group due to infusion set failure. Two participants in each study group had significant hyperglycaemia, and there were 13 other adverse events in the closed-loop group and three in the control group., Interpretation: Hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery improves glucose control while reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia across a wide age range in patients with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes., Funding: JDRF, NIHR, and Wellcome Trust., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Despite therapeutic advances, many individuals with type 1 diabetes are unable to achieve tight glycaemic target without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. The objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a 3-month day-and-night home closed-loop glucose control combined with a pump suspend feature, compared with sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy in youths and adults with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes., Methods and Analysis: The study adopts an open-label, multi-centre, multi-national (UK and USA), randomised, single-period, parallel design and aims for 84 randomised patients. Participants are youths (6-21 years) or adults (>21 years) with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy and suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.5% (58 mmol/mol) and ≤10% (86 mmol/mol)). Following a 4-week run-in period, eligible participants will be randomised to a 3-month use of automated closed-loop insulin delivery combined with pump suspend feature or to sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome is the time spent in the target glucose range from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L based on continuous glucose monitoring levels during the 3-month free-living phase. Secondary outcomes include HbA1c at 3 months, mean glucose, time spent below and above target; time with glucose levels <3.5 and <2.8 mmol/L; area under the curve when sensor glucose is <3.5 mmol/L, time with glucose levels >16.7 mmol/L, glucose variability; total, basal and bolus insulin dose and change in body weight. Participants' and their families' perception in terms of lifestyle change, daily diabetes management and fear of hypoglycaemia will be evaluated., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics/institutional review board approval has been obtained. Before screening, all participants/guardians will be provided with oral and written information about the trial. The study will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations., Trial Registration Number: NCT02523131; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SH serves as a consultant for Novo-Nordisk and for the ONSET group and reports having received speaker/training honoraria from Medtronic. MLE reports having received speaker honoraria from Abbott Diabetes Care, Novo Nordisk and Animas and serving on advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Abbott Diabetes Care, Medtronic, Roche and Cellnovo. RH reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Astra Zeneca; serving on advisory panel for Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk; receiving license fees from BBraun and Medtronic and having served as a consultant to BBraun. MEW has received license fees from Becton Dickinson and has served as a consultant to Beckton Dickinson. MT reports having received speaker honoraria from Novo Nordisk and Medtronic. RH and MEW report patent patents and patent applications. LL reports having received speaker honoraria from Minimed Medtronic, Animas, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk and serving on advisory panel for Animas Minimed Medtronic and Novo Nordisk. VNS had received speaking fees from the Dexcom Inc. VNS employer received research funding from T1D Exchange and Sanofi. LB, HT, JMA, JE, VH, JS, SB, PC, MB, JL, DE, CLA, FC, AC, MLE, DBD, CK and RMB declare no competing financial interests exist., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: Nocturnal hypoglycemia can cause seizures and is a major impediment to tight glycemic control, especially in young children with type 1 diabetes. We conducted an in-home randomized trial to assess the efficacy and safety of a continuous glucose monitor-based overnight predictive low-glucose suspend (PLGS) system., Research Design and Methods: In two age-groups of children with type 1 diabetes (11-14 and 4-10 years of age), a 42-night trial for each child was conducted wherein each night was assigned randomly to either having the PLGS system active (intervention night) or inactive (control night). The primary outcome was percent time <70 mg/dL overnight., Results: Median time at <70 mg/dL was reduced by 54% from 10.1% on control nights to 4.6% on intervention nights (P < 0.001) in 11-14-year-olds (n = 45) and by 50% from 6.2% to 3.1% (P < 0.001) in 4-10-year-olds (n = 36). Mean overnight glucose was lower on control versus intervention nights in both age-groups (144 ± 18 vs. 152 ± 19 mg/dL [P < 0.001] and 153 ± 14 vs. 160 ± 16 mg/dL [P = 0.004], respectively). Mean morning blood glucose was 159 ± 29 vs. 176 ± 28 mg/dL (P < 0.001) in the 11-14-year-olds and 154 ± 25 vs. 158 ± 22 mg/dL (P = 0.11) in the 4-10-year-olds, respectively. No differences were found between intervention and control in either age-group in morning blood ketosis., Conclusions: In 4-14-year-olds, use of a nocturnal PLGS system can substantially reduce overnight hypoglycemia without an increase in morning ketosis, although overnight mean glucose is slightly higher., (© 2015 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: Nocturnal hypoglycemia is a common problem with type 1 diabetes. In the home setting, we conducted a pilot study to evaluate the safety of a system consisting of an insulin pump and continuous glucose monitor communicating wirelessly with a bedside computer running an algorithm that temporarily suspends insulin delivery when hypoglycemia is predicted., Research Design and Methods: After the run-in phase, a 21-night randomized trial was conducted in which each night was randomly assigned 2:1 to have either the predictive low-glucose suspend (PLGS) system active (intervention night) or inactive (control night). Three predictive algorithm versions were studied sequentially during the study for a total of 252 intervention and 123 control nights. The trial included 19 participants 18-56 years old with type 1 diabetes (hemoglobin A1c level of 6.0-7.7%) who were current users of the MiniMed Paradigm® REAL-Time Revel™ System and Sof-sensor® glucose sensor (Medtronic Diabetes, Northridge, CA)., Results: With the final algorithm, pump suspension occurred on 53% of 77 intervention nights. Mean morning glucose level was 144±48 mg/dL on the 77 intervention nights versus 133±57 mg/dL on the 37 control nights, with morning blood ketones >0.6 mmol/L following one intervention night. Overnight hypoglycemia was lower on intervention than control nights, with at least one value ≤70 mg/dL occurring on 16% versus 30% of nights, respectively, with the final algorithm., Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the PLGS system in the home setting is safe and feasible. The preliminary efficacy data appear promising with the final algorithm reducing nocturnal hypoglycemia by almost 50%.