18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Mitigating Meal-Related Glycemic Excursions in an Insulin-Sparing Manner During Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery: The Beneficial Effects of Adjunctive Pramlintide and Liraglutide

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          OBJECTIVE

          Closed-loop (CL) insulin delivery effectively maintains glucose overnight but struggles when challenged with meals. Use of single-day, 30-μg/meal pramlintide lowers meal excursions during CL. We sought to further elucidate the potential benefits of adjunctive agents after 3–4 weeks of outpatient dose titration.

          RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

          Two CL studies were conducted: one evaluating adjunctive pramlintide and the other liraglutide. Ten subjects (age 16–23 years; A1C 7.2 ± 0.6% [55 ± 6.6 mmol/mol]) completed two 24-h sessions: one on CL alone and one on CL plus 60-μg pramlintide (CL + P), after a 3–4-week outpatient dose escalation. Eleven subjects (age 18–27 years; A1C 7.5 ± 0.9% [58 ± 9.8 mmol/mol]) were studied before and after treatment with 1.8 mg liraglutide (CL + L) after a similar 3–4-week dose escalation period. Timing and content of meals during CL were identical within experiments; meals were not announced.

          RESULTS

          Pramlintide delayed the time to peak plasma glucose (PG) excursion (CL 1.6 ± 0.5 h vs. CL + P 2.6 ± 0.9 h, P < 0.001) with concomitant blunting of peak postprandial increments in PG ( P < 0.0001) and reductions in postmeal incremental PG area under the curve (AUC) ( P = 0.0002). CL + L also led to reductions in PG excursions ( P = 0.05) and incremental PG AUC ( P = 0.004), with a 28% reduction in prandial insulin delivery. Outpatient liraglutide therapy led to a weight loss of 3.2 ± 1.8 kg, with a 26% reduction in total daily insulin dose.

          CONCLUSIONS

          Adjunctive pramlintide and liraglutide treatment mitigated postprandial hyperglycemia during CL control; liraglutide demonstrated the additional benefit of weight loss in an insulin-sparing manner. Further investigations of these and other adjunctive agents in long-term outpatient CL studies are needed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Fully automated closed-loop insulin delivery versus semiautomated hybrid control in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes using an artificial pancreas.

          The most promising beta-cell replacement therapy for children with type 1 diabetes is a closed-loop artificial pancreas incorporating continuous glucose sensors and insulin pumps. The Medtronic MiniMed external physiological insulin delivery (ePID) system combines an external pump and sensor with a variable insulin infusion rate algorithm designed to emulate the physiological characteristics of the beta-cell. However, delays in insulin absorption associated with the subcutaneous route of delivery inevitably lead to large postprandial glucose excursions. We studied the feasibility of the Medtronic ePID system in youth with type 1 diabetes and hypothesized that small manual premeal "priming" boluses would reduce postprandial excursions during closed-loop control. Seventeen adolescents (aged 15.9 +/- 1.6 years; A1C 7.1 +/- 0.8%) underwent 34 h of closed-loop control; 8 with full closed-loop (FCL) control and 9 with hybrid closed-loop (HCL) control (premeal priming bolus). Mean glucose levels were 135 +/- 45 mg/dl in the HCL group versus 141 +/- 55 mg/dl in the FCL group (P = 0.09); daytime glucose levels averaged 149 +/- 47 mg/dl in the HCL group versus 159 +/- 59 mg/dl in the FCL group (P = 0.03). Peak postprandial glucose levels averaged 194 +/- 47 mg/dl in the HCL group versus 226 +/- 51 mg/dl in the FCL group (P = 0.04). Nighttime control was similar in both groups (111 +/- 27 vs. 112 +/- 28 mg/dl). Closed-loop glucose control using an external sensor and insulin pump provides a means to achieve near-normal glucose concentrations in youth with type 1 diabetes during the overnight period. The addition of small manual priming bolus doses of insulin, given 15 min before meals, improves postprandial glycemic excursions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Manual closed-loop insulin delivery in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a phase 2 randomised crossover trial.

            Closed-loop systems link continuous glucose measurements to insulin delivery. We aimed to establish whether closed-loop insulin delivery could control overnight blood glucose in young people. We undertook three randomised crossover studies in 19 patients aged 5-18 years with type 1 diabetes of duration 6.4 years (SD 4.0). We compared standard continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and closed-loop delivery (n=13; APCam01); closed-loop delivery after rapidly and slowly absorbed meals (n=7; APCam02); and closed-loop delivery and standard treatment after exercise (n=10; APCam03). Allocation was by computer-generated random code. Participants were masked to plasma and sensor glucose. In APCam01, investigators were masked to plasma glucose. During closed-loop nights, glucose measurements were fed every 15 min into a control algorithm calculating rate of insulin infusion, and a nurse adjusted the insulin pump. During control nights, patients' standard pump settings were applied. Primary outcomes were time for which plasma glucose concentration was 3.91-8.00 mmol/L or 3.90 mmol/L or lower. Analysis was per protocol. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN18155883. 17 patients were studied for 33 closed-loop and 21 continuous infusion nights. Primary outcomes did not differ significantly between treatment groups in APCam01 (12 analysed; target range, median 52% [IQR 43-83] closed loop vs 39% [15-51] standard treatment, p=0.06;
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Feasibility of automating insulin delivery for the treatment of type 1 diabetes.

              An automated closed-loop insulin delivery system based on subcutaneous glucose sensing and subcutaneous insulin delivery was evaluated in 10 subjects with type 1 diabetes (2 men, 8 women, mean [+/-SD] age 43.4 +/- 11.4 years, duration of diabetes 18.2 +/- 13.5 years). Closed-loop control was assessed over approximately 30 h and compared with open-loop control assessed over 3 days. Closed-loop insulin delivery was calculated using a model of the beta-cell's multiphasic insulin response to glucose. Plasma glucose was 160 +/- 66 mg/dl at the start of closed loop and was thereafter reduced to 71 +/- 19 by 1:00 p.m. (preprandial lunch). Fasting glucose the subsequent morning on closed loop was not different from target (124 +/- 25 vs. 120 mg/dl, respectively; P > 0.05). Mean glucose levels were not different between the open and closed loop (133 +/- 63 vs. 133 +/- 52 mg/dl, respectively; P > 0.65). However, glucose was within the range 70-180 mg/dl 75% of the time under closed loop versus 63% for open loop. Incidence of biochemical hypoglycemia (blood glucose <60 mg/dl) was similar under the two treatments. There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia. The data provide proof of concept that glycemic control can be achieved by a completely automated external closed-loop insulin delivery system.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Diabetes Care
                Diabetes Care
                diacare
                dcare
                Diabetes Care
                Diabetes Care
                American Diabetes Association
                0149-5992
                1935-5548
                July 2016
                11 April 2016
                : 39
                : 7
                : 1127-1134
                Affiliations
                [1]Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Jennifer L. Sherr, jennifer.sherr@ 123456yale.edu .
                Article
                0089
                10.2337/dc16-0089
                4915555
                27208332
                86eeb3c9-8eae-40d9-87c0-079f4911baff
                © 2016 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.
                History
                : 13 January 2016
                : 11 April 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 4, Equations: 0, References: 26, Pages: 8
                Funding
                Funded by: JDRF http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100008871
                Award ID: 22-2009-799
                Award ID: 17-2013-5
                Award ID: 5-ECR-2014-112-A-N
                Funded by: National Institutes of Health http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000002
                Award ID: R01-DK-085618
                Award ID: K12-DK-094714
                Award ID: UL1-TR-000142
                Award ID: P30-DK-45735
                Categories
                The Artificial Pancreas in 2016: A Digital Treatment Ecosystem for Diabetes

                Endocrinology & Diabetes
                Endocrinology & Diabetes

                Comments

                Comment on this article