1
|
Ware J, Boughton CK, Allen JM, Wilinska ME, Tauschmann M, Denvir L, Thankamony A, Campbell FM, Wadwa RP, Buckingham BA, Davis N, DiMeglio LA, Mauras N, Besser REJ, Ghatak A, Weinzimer SA, Hood KK, Fox DS, Kanapka L, Kollman C, Sibayan J, Beck RW, Hovorka R, Hovorka R, Acerini CL, Thankamony A, Allen JM, Boughton CK, Dovc K, Dunger DB, Ware J, Musolino G, Tauschmann M, Wilinska ME, Hayes JF, Hartnell S, Slegtenhorst S, Ruan Y, Haydock M, Mangat J, Denvir L, Kanthagnany SK, Law J, Randell T, Sachdev P, Saxton M, Coupe A, Stafford S, Ball A, Keeton R, Cresswell R, Crate L, Cripps H, Fazackerley H, Looby L, Navarra H, Saddington C, Smith V, Verhoeven V, Bratt S, Khan N, Moyes L, Sandhu K, West C, Wadwa RP, Alonso G, Forlenza G, Slover R, Towers L, Berget C, Coakley A, Escobar E, Jost E, Lange S, Messer L, Thivener K, Campbell FM, Yong J, Metcalfe E, Allen M, Ambler S, Waheed S, Exall J, Tulip J, Buckingham BA, Ekhlaspour L, Maahs D, Norlander L, Jacobson T, Twon M, Weir C, Leverenz B, Keller J, Davis N, Kumaran A, Trevelyan N, Dewar H, Price G, Crouch G, Ensom R, Haskell L, Lueddeke LM, Mauras N, Benson M, Bird K, Englert K, Permuy J, Ponthieux K, Marrero-Hernandez J, DiMeglio LA, Ismail H, Jolivette H, Sanchez J, Woerner S, Kirchner M, Mullen M, Tebbe M, Besser REJ, Basu S, London R, Makaya T, Ryan F, Megson C, Bowen-Morris J, Haest J, Law R, Stamford I, Ghatak A, Deakin M, Phelan K, Thornborough K, Shakeshaft J, Weinzimer SA, Cengiz E, Sherr JL, Van Name M, Weyman K, Carria L, Steffen A, Zgorski M, Sibayan J, Beck RW, Borgman S, Davis J, Rusnak J, Hellman A, Cheng P, Kanapka L, Kollman C, McCarthy C, Chalasani S, Hood KK, Hanes S, Viana J, Lanning M, Fox DS, Arreaza-Rubin G, Eggerman T, Green N, Janicek R, Gabrielson D, Belle SH, Castle J, Green J, Legault L, Willi SM, Wysham C. Cambridge hybrid closed-loop algorithm in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre 6-month randomised controlled trial. Lancet Digit Health 2022; 4:e245-e255. [PMID: 35272971 DOI: 10.1016/s2589-7500(22)00020-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2021] [Revised: 12/10/2021] [Accepted: 01/25/2022] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND 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. METHODS 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 HbA1c levels between 53 and 86 mmol/mol (7·0-10·0%). Using block randomisation and central randomisation software, we randomly assigned participants to either closed-loop insulin delivery (closed-loop group) or to usual care with insulin pump therapy (control group) for 6 months. Randomisation was stratified at each centre by local baseline HbA1c. The Cambridge closed-loop algorithm running on a smartphone was used with either (1) a modified Medtronic 640G pump, Medtronic Guardian 3 sensor, and Medtronic prototype phone enclosure (FlorenceM configuration), or (2) a Sooil Dana RS pump and Dexcom G6 sensor (CamAPS FX configuration). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c at 6 months combining data from both configurations. The primary analysis was done in all randomised patients (intention to treat). Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02925299. FINDINGS Of 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 HbA1c was 8·2% (SD 0·7) in the closed-loop group and 8·3% (0·7) in the control group. At 6 months, HbA1c was lower in the closed-loop group than in the control group (between-group difference -3·5 mmol/mol (95% CI -6·5 to -0·5 [-0·32 percentage points, -0·59 to -0·04]; p=0·023). Closed-loop usage was low with FlorenceM due to failing phone enclosures (median 40% [IQR 26-53]), but consistently high with CamAPS FX (93% [88-96]), impacting efficacy. A total of 155 adverse events occurred after randomisation (67 in the closed-loop group, 88 in the control group), including seven severe hypoglycaemia events (four in the closed-loop group, three in the control group), two diabetic ketoacidosis events (both in the closed-loop group), and two non-treatment-related serious adverse events. There were 23 reportable hyperglycaemia events (11 in the closed-loop group, 12 in the control group), which did not meet criteria for diabetic ketoacidosis. INTERPRETATION The 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. FUNDING National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
Collapse
|
3
|
Lawton J, Blackburn M, Allen J, Campbell F, Elleri D, Leelarathna L, Rankin D, Tauschmann M, Thabit H, Hovorka R. Patients' and caregivers' experiences of using continuous glucose monitoring to support diabetes self-management: qualitative study. BMC Endocr Disord 2018; 18:12. [PMID: 29458348 PMCID: PMC5819241 DOI: 10.1186/s12902-018-0239-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 76] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2017] [Accepted: 02/08/2018] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) enables users to view real-time interstitial glucose readings and provides information on the direction and rate of change of blood glucose levels. Users can also access historical data to inform treatment decisions. While the clinical and psychological benefits of CGM are well established, little is known about how individuals use CGM to inform diabetes self-management. We explored participants' experiences of using CGM in order to provide recommendations for supporting individuals to make optimal use of this technology. METHODS In-depth interviews (n = 24) with adults, adolescents and parents who had used CGM for ≥4 weeks; data were analysed thematically. RESULTS Participants found CGM an empowering tool because they could access blood glucose data effortlessly, and trend arrows enabled them to see whether blood glucose was rising or dropping and at what speed. This predicative information aided short-term lifestyle planning and enabled individuals to take action to prevent hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia. Having easy access to blood glucose data on a continuous basis also allowed participants to develop a better understanding of how insulin, activity and food impacted on blood glucose. This understanding was described as motivating individuals to make dietary changes and break cycles of over-treating hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia. Participants also described how historical CGM data provided a more nuanced picture of blood glucose control than was possible with blood glucose self-monitoring and, hence, better information to inform changes to background insulin doses and mealtime ratios. However, while participants expressed confidence making immediate adjustments to insulin and lifestyle to address impending hypoglycaemia and hypoglycaemia, most described needing and expecting health professionals to interpret historical CGM data and determine changes to background insulin doses and mealtime ratios. While alarms could reinforce a sense of hypoglycaemic safety, some individuals expressed ambivalent views, especially those who perceived alarms as signalling personal failure to achieve optimal glycaemic control. CONCLUSIONS CGM can be an empowering and motivational tool which enables participants to fine-tune and optimize their blood glucose control. However, individuals may benefit from psycho-social education, training and/or technological support to make optimal use of CGM data and use alarms appropriately.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J. Lawton
- Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - M. Blackburn
- Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - J. Allen
- Wellcome Trust-MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - D. Elleri
- Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Edinburgh, UK
| | - L. Leelarathna
- Manchester Diabetes Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - D. Rankin
- Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - M. Tauschmann
- Wellcome Trust-MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - H. Thabit
- Manchester Diabetes Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - R. Hovorka
- Wellcome Trust-MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Thabit H, Tauschmann M, Allen JM, Leelarathna L, Hartnell S, Wilinska ME, Acerini CL, Dellweg S, Benesch C, Heinemann L, Mader JK, Holzer M, Kojzar H, Exall J, Yong J, Pichierri J, Barnard KD, Kollman C, Cheng P, Hindmarsh PC, Campbell FM, Arnolds S, Pieber TR, Evans ML, Dunger DB, Hovorka R. Home Use of an Artificial Beta Cell in Type 1 Diabetes. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:2129-2140. [PMID: 26379095 PMCID: PMC4697362 DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa1509351] [Citation(s) in RCA: 315] [Impact Index Per Article: 35.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The feasibility, safety, and efficacy of prolonged use of an artificial beta cell (closed-loop insulin-delivery system) in the home setting have not been established. METHODS In two multicenter, crossover, randomized, controlled studies conducted under free-living home conditions, we compared closed-loop insulin delivery with sensor-augmented pump therapy in 58 patients with type 1 diabetes. The closed-loop system was used day and night by 33 adults and overnight by 25 children and adolescents. Participants used the closed-loop system for a 12-week period and sensor-augmented pump therapy (control) for a similar period. The primary end point was the proportion of time that the glucose level was between 70 mg and 180 mg per deciliter for adults and between 70 mg and 145 mg per deciliter for children and adolescents. RESULTS Among adults, the proportion of time that the glucose level was in the target range was 11.0 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1 to 13.8) greater with the use of the closed-loop system day and night than with control therapy (P<0.001). The mean glucose level was lower during the closed-loop phase than during the control phase (difference, -11 mg per deciliter; 95% CI, -17 to -6; P<0.001), as were the area under the curve for the period when the glucose level was less than 63 mg per deciliter (39% lower; 95% CI, 24 to 51; P<0.001) and the mean glycated hemoglobin level (difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -0.5 to -0.1; P=0.002). Among children and adolescents, the proportion of time with the nighttime glucose level in the target range was higher during the closed-loop phase than during the control phase (by 24.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 20.6 to 28.7; P<0.001), and the mean nighttime glucose level was lower (difference, -29 mg per deciliter; 95% CI, -39 to -20; P<0.001). The area under the curve for the period in which the day-and-night glucose levels were less than 63 mg per deciliter was lower by 42% (95% CI, 4 to 65; P=0.03). Three severe hypoglycemic episodes occurred during the closed-loop phase when the closed-loop system was not in use. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with type 1 diabetes, 12-week use of a closed-loop system, as compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy, improved glucose control, reduced hypoglycemia, and, in adults, resulted in a lower glycated hemoglobin level. (Funded by the JDRF and others; AP@home04 and APCam08 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01961622 and NCT01778348.).
Collapse
|