52
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Closed-loop insulin delivery in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, 12-week randomised trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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.

          Summary

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

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

          Current state of type 1 diabetes treatment in the U.S.: updated data from the T1D Exchange clinic registry.

          To examine the overall state of metabolic control and current use of advanced diabetes technologies in the U.S., we report recent data collected on individuals with type 1 diabetes participating in the T1D Exchange clinic registry. Data from 16,061 participants updated between 1 September 2013 and 1 December 2014 were compared with registry enrollment data collected from 1 September 2010 to 1 August 2012. Mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was assessed by year of age from 75 years. The overall average HbA1c was 8.2% (66 mmol/mol) at enrollment and 8.4% (68 mmol/mol) at the most recent update. During childhood, mean HbA1c decreased from 8.3% (67 mmol/mol) in 2-4-year-olds to 8.1% (65 mmol/mol) at 7 years of age, followed by an increase to 9.2% (77 mmol/mol) in 19-year-olds. Subsequently, mean HbA1c values decline gradually until ∼30 years of age, plateauing at 7.5-7.8% (58-62 mmol/mol) beyond age 30 until a modest drop in HbA1c below 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) in those 65 years of age. Severe hypoglycemia (SH) and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) remain all too common complications of treatment, especially in older (SH) and younger patients (DKA). Insulin pump use increased slightly from enrollment (58-62%), and use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) did not change (7%). Although the T1D Exchange registry findings are not population based and could be biased, it is clear that there remains considerable room for improving outcomes of treatment of type 1 diabetes across all age-groups. Barriers to more effective use of current treatments need to be addressed and new therapies are needed to achieve optimal metabolic control in people with type 1 diabetes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Risk of hypoglycaemia in types 1 and 2 diabetes: effects of treatment modalities and their duration.

            (2007)
            We explored the epidemiology of hypoglycaemia in individuals with insulin-treated diabetes by testing the hypothesis that diabetes type and duration of insulin treatment influence the risk of hypoglycaemia. This was an observational study over 9-12 months in six UK secondary care diabetes centres. Altogether 383 patients were involved. Patients were divided into the following three treatment groups for type 2 diabetes: (1) sulfonylureas, (2) insulin for 5 years, and into two treatment groups for type 1 diabetes, namely 15 years disease duration. Self-reported (mild and severe) and biochemical episodes (interstitial glucose 15 years group, 3.2.episodes per subject-year). During early insulin use in type 2 diabetes, the frequency of hypoglycaemia is generally equivalent to that observed in patients treated with sulfonylureas and considerably lower than during the first 5 years of treatment in type 1 diabetes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Frequency of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type I diabetes with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia.

              To determine the frequency of hypoglycemia in patients with type I diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia by prospective assessment. A prospective study was undertaken for 12 months in 60 patients with type I diabetes: 29 had impaired awareness of hypoglycemia and 31 retained normal awareness of hypoglycemia. The two groups of patients were matched for age, age at onset of diabetes, duration of diabetes, and glycemic control. Episodes of severe hypoglycemia were recorded within 24 h of the event and verified where possible by witnesses. During the 12 months, 19 (66%) of the patients with impaired awareness had one or more episodes of severe hypoglycemia with an overall incidence of 2.8 episodes.patient-1.year-1. By comparison, 8 (26%) of the patients with normal awareness experienced severe hypoglycemia (P < 0.01) with an annual incidence of 0.5 episode.patient-1.year-1 (P < 0.001). Severe hypoglycemia occurred at different times of the day in the two groups: patients with impaired awareness experienced a greater proportion of episodes during the evening (P = 0.03), and patients with normal awareness experienced a greater proportion in the early morning (P = 0.05). An assessment of fear of hypoglycemia revealed that patients with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia worried more about hypoglycemia than did patients with normal awareness (P = 0.008), but did not modify their behavior accordingly. This prospective evaluation demonstrated that impaired awareness of hypoglycemia predisposes to a sixfold increase in the frequency of severe hypoglycemia, much of which occurred at home during waking hours.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet
                Lancet
                Lancet (London, England)
                Elsevier
                0140-6736
                1474-547X
                13 October 2018
                13 October 2018
                : 392
                : 10155
                : 1321-1329
                Affiliations
                [a ]Wellcome Trust-MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
                [b ]Department of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
                [c ]Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
                [d ]Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust and University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [e ]Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, FL, USA
                [f ]Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Edinburgh, UK
                [g ]Leeds Children's Hospital, Leeds, UK
                [h ]International Diabetes Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA
                [i ]Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Roman Hovorka, University of Cambridge Metabolic Research Laboratories and NlHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust-MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK rh347@ 123456cam.ac.uk
                [†]

                Members are listed in the appendix

                Article
                S0140-6736(18)31947-0
                10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31947-0
                6182127
                30292578
                dbbf74b2-e108-4e02-850a-4090d9f3cec3
                © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article