Closed-Loop Insulin Therapy Improves Glycemic Control in Adolescents and Young Adults: Outcomes from the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial

Basal Insulin Degludec and Glycemic Control Compared to Aspart Via Insulin Pump in Type 1 Diabetes (BIGLEAP): A Single-Center, Open-Label, Randomized, Crossover Trial

OBJECTIVE

We compared the efficacy of the second-generation basal insulin degludec (IDeg) to that of insulin aspart via pump using continuous glucose monitoring in patients with well-controlled type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

In this 40-week, single-center, randomized, crossover-controlled trial, adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes (hemoglobin A1C of <7.5% [<58 mmol/mol]) (N = 52) who were using an insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring were randomized to 1 of 2 treatments for a 20-week period: a single daily injection of IDeg with bolus aspart via pump or a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with aspart, followed by crossover to the other treatment. The primary endpoint was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) during the final 2 weeks of each treatment period.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were randomized and completed both treatment periods. The time in range for IDeg and CSII was 71.5% and 70.9%, respectively (P = .553). The time in level 1 hypoglycemia for the 24-hour period with IDeg and CSII was 2.19% and 1.75%, respectively (P = .065). The time in level 2 hypoglycemia for the 24-hour period with IDeg and CSII was 0.355% and 0.271%, respectively (P = .212), and the nocturnal period was 0.330% and 0.381%, respectively (P = .639). The mean standard deviation of blood glucose levels for the 24-hour period for IDeg and CSII was 52.4 mg/dL and 51.0 mg/dL, respectively (P = .294). The final hemoglobin A1C level for each treatment was 7.04% (53 mmol/mol) with IDeg, and 6.95% (52 mmol/mol) with CSII (P = .288). Adverse events were similar between treatments.

CONCLUSION

We observed similar glycemic control between IDeg and insulin aspart via CSII for basal insulin coverage in patients with well-controlled type 1 diabetes.

Dual-hormone artificial pancreas for management of type 1 diabetes: Recent progress and future directions

Over the last few years, technological advances have led to tremendous improvement in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D). Artificial pancreas systems have been shown to improve glucose control compared with conventional insulin pump therapy. However, clinically significant hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic episodes still occur with the artificial pancreas. Postprandial glucose excursions and exercise-induced hypoglycemia represent major hurdles in improving glucose control and glucose variability in many patients with T1D. In this regard, dual-hormone artificial pancreas systems delivering other hormones in addition to insulin (glucagon or amylin) may better reproduce the physiology of the endocrine pancreas and have been suggested as an alternative tool to overcome these limitations in clinical practice. In addition, novel ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogs with a more physiological time-action profile are currently under investigation for use in artificial pancreas devices, aiming to address the unmet need for further improvements in postprandial glucose control. This review article aims to discuss the current progress and future outlook in the development of novel ultra-rapid insulin analogs and dual-hormone closed-loop systems, which offer the next steps to fully closing the loop in the artificial pancreas.

Advanced Closed-Loop Control System Improves Postprandial Glycemic Control Compared With a Hybrid Closed-Loop System Following Unannounced Meal

OBJECTIVE

Meals are a major hurdle to glycemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Our objective was to test a fully automated closed-loop control (CLC) system in the absence of announcement of carbohydrate ingestion among adolescents with T1D, who are known to commonly omit meal announcement.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Eighteen adolescents with T1D (age 15.6 ± 1.7 years; HbA1c 7.4 ± 1.5%; 9 females/9 males) participated in a randomized crossover clinical trial comparing our legacy hybrid CLC system (Unified Safety System Virginia [USS]-Virginia) with a novel fully automated CLC system (RocketAP) during two 46-h supervised admissions (each with one announced and one unannounced dinner), following 2 weeks of data collection. Primary outcome was the percentage time-in-range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) following the unannounced meal, with secondary outcomes related to additional continuous glucose monitoring-based metrics.

RESULTS

Both TIR and time-in-tight-range 70-140 mg/dL (TTR) were significantly higher using RocketAP than using USS-Virginia during the 6 h following the unannounced meal (83% [interquartile range 64-93] vs. 53% [40-71]; P = 0.004 and 49% [41-59] vs. 27% [22-36]; P = 0.002, respectively), primarily driven by reduced time-above-range (TAR >180 mg/dL: 17% [1.3-34] vs. 47% [28-60]), with no increase in time-below-range (TBR <70 mg/dL: 0% median for both). RocketAP also improved control following the announced meal (mean difference TBR: -0.7%, TIR: +7%, TTR: +6%), overall (TIR: +5%, TAR: -5%, TTR: +8%), and overnight (TIR: +7%, TTR: +19%, TAR: -5%). RocketAP delivered less insulin overall (78 ± 23 units vs. 85 ± 20 units, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

A new fully automated CLC system with automatic prandial dosing was proven to be safe and feasible and outperformed our legacy USS-Virginia in an adolescent population with and without meal announcement.

Has COVID-19 lockdown improved glycaemic control in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes? An analysis of continuous glucose monitoring metrics

AIMS

Our observational study aimed to evaluate the impact of the lockdown period due to 2019 Coronavirus disease pandemic on glycaemic control in a cohort of paediatric patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

Eighty-five patients with T1D aged 5-18 years using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems were enrolled. Demographic and clinical data, including glucose metrics generated by CGM-specific web-based cloud platforms, were collected in three different periods (pre-lockdown phase, lockdown phase, and post-lockdown phase) of 90 days each and were statistically analysed.

RESULTS

During the lockdown period, a clear improvement in almost all CGM metrics (time in range, time above range, coefficient of variation, and glucose management indicator) was observed in our study population, regardless of age and insulin type treatment. In the months following lockdown, maintaining satisfactory diabetes outcomes was confirmed only in younger patients (aged 5-9 years) and in those individuals on hybrid closed loop therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The increasing use of innovative technological devices together with data sharing systems and interaction with multidisciplinary diabetes team through telemedicine allowed paediatric patients with T1D to improve glucose metrics during the lockdown period. However, our findings showed that the achievement of better glycaemic control was transient for most patients.

Time-in-range for monitoring glucose control: Is it time for a change?

The HbA1c value has been the gold standard for evaluating glucose control for decades. However, it has limitations such as the lack of information on glycemic variability or the risk of hypoglycemia. The increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring has provided patients and healthcare professionals with a range of useful metrics for the management of diabetes. Among them, Time in Range (TIR) is a simple and intuitive metric that gives information regarding the quality of glucose control. It is defined as the time spent in an individual's target glucose range. TIR is strongly correlated with HbA1c, and it has been linked to the risk of developing microvascular and macrovascular complications. The International Consensus on Time in Range has recently set targets for different diabetes populations. For the majority of people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, a TIR (70-180 mg/dL or 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) of >70%, a time below range (TBR) <70 mg/dL (<3.9 mmol/L) of <4% and a TBR <54 (<3.0 mmol/L) of <1% are recommended. In this review, we address the latest evidence for the use of TIR as an essential parameter in the management of diabetes.

Benefits and Challenges of Current Closed-Loop Technologies in Children and Young People With Type 1 Diabetes

Recent advances in diabetes technology have led to the development of closed-loop insulin delivery systems for the management of type 1 diabetes. Several such systems are now commercially available for children and young people. While all available systems have been shown to improve glycaemic control and quality of life in this population, qualitative data also highlights the challenges in using closed-loop systems, which vary among different pediatric age-groups. Very young children require systems that are able to cope with low insulin doses and significant glycaemic variability due to their high insulin sensitivity and unpredictable eating and exercise patterns. Adolescents' compliance is often related to size and number of devices, usability of the systems, need for calibrations, and their ability to interact with the system. Given the speed of innovations, understanding the capabilities and key similarities and differences of current systems can be challenging for healthcare professionals, caregivers and young people with type 1 diabetes alike. The aim of this review is to summarize the key evidence on currently available closed-loop systems for children and young people with type 1 diabetes, as well as commenting on user experience, where real-world data are available. We present findings on a system-basis, as well as identifying specific challenges in different pediatric age-groups and commenting on how current systems might address these. Finally, we identify areas for future research with regards to closed-loop technology tailored for pediatric use and how these might inform reimbursement and alleviate disease burden.

A comparison of two hybrid closed-loop systems in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes (FLAIR): a multicentre, randomised, crossover trial

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.