Search

Background: A smartphone-based automated insulin delivery (AID) controller device can facilitate use of interoperable components and acceptance in adolescents and children., Methods: Pediatric participants (N = 20, 8F) with type 1 diabetes were enrolled in three sequential age-based cohorts: adolescents (12-<18 years, n = 8, 5F), school-age (8-<12 years, n = 7, 2F), and young children (2-<8 years, n = 5, 1F). Participants used the interoperable artificial pancreas system (iAPS) and zone model predictive control (MPC) on an unlocked smartphone for 48 hours, consumed unrestricted meals of their choice, and engaged in various unannounced exercises. Primary outcomes and stopping criteria were defined using fingerstick blood glucose (BG) data; secondary outcomes compared continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data with preceding sensor augmented pump (SAP) therapy., Results: During AID, there was no more than one BG <50 mg/dL except in one young child participant; no instance of more than two episodes of BG ≥300 mg/dL lasting longer than 2 hours; and no adverse events. Despite large meals (total of 404.9 grams of carbs) and unannounced exercise (total of 182 minutes), overall CGM percent time in range (TIR) of 70 to 180 mg/dL during AID was statistically similar to SAP (63.5% vs 57.3%, respectively, P = .145). Overnight glucose standard deviation was 43 mg/dL (vs SAP 57.9 mg/dL, P = .009) and coefficient of variation was 25.7% (vs SAP 34.9%, P < .001). The percent time in closed-loop mode and connected to the CGM was 92.7% and 99.6%, respectively. Surveys indicated that participants and parents/guardians were satisfied with the system., Conclusions: The smartphone-based AID was feasible and safe in sequentially younger cohorts of adolescents and children., Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04255381 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04255381)., 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: S.A.W. has received honoraria for serving as a speaker for Abbott and Dexcom, has served as consultant for Zealand, and receives grant support from NIH and Abbott. L.M.N. receives grant support from the NIH and product support from Dexcom. L.M.L. participates in consulting and on advisory boards for Medtronic, Insulet, Dexcom, Roche, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Provention, and Dompe, and receives grant support from NIH, JDRF, and Helmsley Charitable Trust. F.J.D. reports equity, licensed IP and is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Mode AGC. E.D. reports receiving grants from JDRF, NIH, and Helmsley Charitable Trust, personal fees from Roche and Eli Lilly, patents on artificial pancreas technology, and product support from Dexcom, Insulet, Tandem, and Roche. E.D. is currently an employee and shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. The work presented in this manuscript was performed as part of his academic appointment and is independent of his employment with Eli Lilly and Company. All other authors report no conflict of interest related to this article.

Objective: Very young children with type 1 diabetes often struggle to achieve glycemic targets, putting them at risk for long-term complications and creating an immense management burden for caregivers. We conducted the first evaluation of the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System in this population., Research Design and Methods: A total of 80 children aged 2.0-5.9 years used the investigational system in a single-arm study for 13 weeks following 14 days of baseline data collection with their usual therapy., Results: There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis. By study end, HbA1c decreased by 0.55% (6.0 mmol/mol) (P < 0.0001). Time with sensor glucose levels in target range 70-180 mg/dL increased by 10.9%, or 2.6 h/day (P < 0.0001), while time with levels <70 mg/dL declined by median 0.27% (P = 0.0204)., Conclusions: Use of the automated insulin delivery system was safe, and participants experienced improved glycemic measures and reduced hypoglycemia during the study phase compared with baseline., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Context: Postprandial hyperglycemia remains a challenge in type 1 diabetes (T1D) due, in part, to dysregulated increases in plasma glucagon levels after meals., Objective: This study was undertaken to examine whether 3 to 4 weeks of therapy with pramlintide or liraglutide might help to blunt postprandial hyperglycemia in T1D by suppressing plasma glucagon responses to mixed-meal feedings., Design: Two parallel studies were conducted in which participants underwent mixed-meal tolerance tests (MMTTs) without premeal bolus insulin administration before and after 3 to 4 weeks of treatment with either pramlintide (8 participants aged 20 ± 3 years, hemoglobin A1c 6.9 ± 0.5%) or liraglutide (10 participants aged 22 ± 3 years, hemoglobin A1c 7.6 ± 0.9%)., Results: Compared with pretreatment responses to the MMTT, treatment with pramlintide reduced the peak increment in glucagon from 32 ± 16 to 23 ± 12 pg/mL (P < 0.02). In addition, the incremental area under the plasma glucagon curve from 0 to 120 minutes dropped from 1988 ± 590 to 737 ± 577 pg/mL/min (P < 0.001), which was accompanied by a similar reduction in the meal-stimulated increase in the plasma glucose curve from 11,963 ± 1424 mg/dL/min pretreatment vs 2493 ± 1854 mg/dL/min after treatment (P < 0.01). In contrast, treatment with liraglutide had no effect on plasma glucagon and glucose responses during the MMTT., Conclusions: Adjunctive treatment with pramlintide may provide an effective means to blunt postmeal hyperglycemia in T1D by suppressing dysregulated plasma glucagon responses. In contrast, plasma glucose and glucagon responses were unchanged after 3 to 4 weeks of treatment with liraglutide.

Objective: An integrated sensor-augmented pump system has been introduced that interrupts basal insulin infusion for 2 h if patients fail to respond to low-glucose alarms. It has been suggested that such interruptions of basal insulin due to falsely low glucose levels detected by sensor could lead to diabetic ketoacidosis. We hypothesized that random suspension of basal insulin for 2 h in the overnight period would not lead to clinically important increases in blood β-hydroxybutyrate levels despite widely varying glucose values prior to the suspension., Research Design and Methods: Subjects measured blood glucose and blood β-hydroxybutyrate levels using a meter each night at 9:00 p.m., then fasted until the next morning. On control nights, the usual basal rates were continued; on experimental nights, the basal insulin infusion was reprogrammed for a 2-h zero basal rate at random times after 11:30 p.m., Results: In 17 type 1 diabetic subjects (mean age 24 ± 9 years, diabetes duration 14 ± 11 years, A1C level 7.3 ± 0.5% [56 mmol/mol]), blood glucose and blood β-hydroxybutyrate levels were similar at 9:00 p.m. on suspend nights (144 ± 63 mg/dL and 0.09 ± 0.07 mmol/L) and nonsuspend nights (151 ± 65 mg/dL and 0.08 ± 0.06 mmol/L) (P = 0.39 and P = 0.47, respectively). Fasting morning blood glucose levels increased after suspend nights compared with nonsuspend nights (191 ± 68 vs. 141 ± 75 mg/dL, P < 0.0001), and the frequency of fasting hypoglycemia decreased the morning following suspend nights (P < 0.0001). Morning blood β-hydroxybutyrate levels were slightly higher after suspension (0.13 ± 0.14 vs. 0.09 ± 0.11 mmol/L, P = 0.053), but the difference was not clinically important., Conclusions: Systems that suspend basal insulin for 2 h are safe and do not lead to clinically significant ketonemia even if the blood glucose level is elevated at the time of the suspension.