IMPORTANCE Hypoglycemia is a critical obstacle to the care of patients with type 1 diabetes. Sensor-augmented insulin pump with automated low-glucose insulin suspension has the potential to reduce the incidence of major hypoglycemic events.OBJECTIVE To determine the incidence of severe and moderate hypoglycemia with sensor-augmented pump with low-glucose suspension compared with standard insulin pump therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA randomized clinical trial involving 95 patients with type 1 diabetes, recruited from December 2009 to January 2012 in Australia.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to insulin pump only or automated insulin suspension for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was the combined incidence of severe (hypoglycemic seizure or coma) and moderate hypoglycemia (an event requiring assistance for treatment). In a subgroup, counterregulatory hormone responses to hypoglycemia were assessed using the hypoglycemic clamp technique. RESULTSOf the 95 patients randomized, 49 were assigned to the standard-pump (pump-only) therapy and 46 to the low-glucose suspension group. The mean (SD) age was 18.6 (11.8) years; duration of diabetes, 11.0 (8.9) years; and duration of pump therapy, 4.1 (3.4) years. The baseline rate of severe and moderate hypoglycemic events in the pump-only group was 20.7 vs 129.6 events per 100 patient months in the low-glucose suspension group. After 6 months of treatment, the event rates decreased from 28 to 16 in the pump-only group vs 175 to 35 in the low-glucose suspension group. The adjusted incidence rate per 100 patient-months was 34.2 (95% CI, 22.0-53.3) for the pump-only group vs 9.5 (95% CI, 5.2-17.4) for the low-glucose suspension group. The incidence rate ratio was 3.6 (95% CI, 1.7-7.5; P <.001). There was no change in glycated hemoglobin in either group: mean, 7.4 (95% CI, 7.2-7.6) to 7.4 (95% CI, 7.2-7.7) in the pump-only group vs mean, 7.6 (95%, CI, 7.4-7.9) to 7.5 (95% CI, 7.3-7.7) in the low-glucose suspension group. Counterregulatory hormone responses to hypoglycemia were not changed. There were no episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis or hyperglycemia with ketosis.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Sensor-augmented pump therapy with automated insulin suspension reduced the combined rate of severe and moderate hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Summary Background The safety and effectiveness of a continuous, day-and-night automated glycaemic control system using insulin and glucagon has not been shown in a free-living, home-use setting. We aimed to assess whether bihormonal bionic pancreas initialised only with body mass can safely reduce mean glycaemia and hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes who were living at home and participating in their normal daily routines without restrictions on diet or physical activity. Methods We did a random-order crossover study in volunteers at least 18 years old who had type 1 diabetes and lived within a 30 min drive of four sites in the USA. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) in blocks of two using sequentially numbered sealed envelopes to glycaemic regulation with a bihormonal bionic pancreas or usual care (conventional or sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy) first, followed by the opposite intervention. Both study periods were 11 days in length, during which time participants continued all normal activities, including athletics and driving. The bionic pancreas was initialised with only the participant’s body mass. Autonomously adaptive dosing algorithms used data from a continuous glucose monitor to control subcutaneous delivery of insulin and glucagon. The coprimary outcomes were the mean glucose concentration and time with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) glucose concentration less than 3·3 mmol/L, analysed over days 2–11 in participants who completed both periods of the study. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092220. Findings We randomly assigned 43 participants between May 6, 2014, and July 3, 2015, 39 of whom completed the study: 20 who were assigned to bionic pancreas first and 19 who were assigned to the comparator first. The mean CGM glucose concentration was 7·8 mmol/L (SD 0·6) in the bionic pancreas period versus 9·0 mmol/L (1·6) in the comparator period (difference 1·1 mmol/L, 95% CI 0·7–1·6; p<0·0001), and the mean time with CGM glucose concentration less than 3·3 mmol/L was 0·6% (0·6) in the bionic pancreas period versus 1·9% (1·7) in the comparator period (difference 1·3%, 95% CI 0·8–1·8; p<0·0001). The mean nausea score on the Visual Analogue Scale (score 0–10) was greater during the bionic pancreas period (0·52 [SD 0·83]) than in the comparator period (0·05 [0·17]; difference 0·47, 95% CI 0·21–0·73; p=0·0024). Body mass and laboratory parameters did not differ between periods. There were no serious or unexpected adverse events in the bionic pancreas period of the study. Interpretation Relative to conventional and sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy, the bihormonal bionic pancreas, initialised only with participant weight, was able to achieve superior glycaemic regulation without the need for carbohydrate counting. Larger and longer studies are needed to establish the long-term benefits and risks of automated glycaemic management with a bihormonal bionic pancreas. Funding National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the...

Purpose The first hybrid closed loop (HCL) system, which automates insulin delivery but requires user inputs, was approved for treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D) by the US Food and Drug Administration in September 2016. The purpose of this study was to explore the benefits, expectations, and attitudes of individuals with T1D following a clinical trial of an HCL system. Methods Thirty-two individuals with T1D (17 adults, 15 adolescents) participated in focus groups after 4 to 5 days of system use. Content analysis generated themes regarding perceived benefits, hassles, and limitations. Results Some participants felt misled by terms such as "closed loop" and "artificial pancreas," which seemed to imply a more "hands-off" experience. Perceived benefits were improved glycemic control, anticipated reduction of long-term complications, better quality of life, and reduced mental burden of diabetes. Hassles and limitations included unexpected tasks for the user, difficulties wearing the system, concerns about controlling highs, and being reminded of diabetes. Conclusion Users are willing to accept some hassles and limitations if they also perceive health and quality-of-life benefits beyond current self-management. It is important for clinicians to provide a balanced view of positives and negatives to help manage expectations.

No abstract

OBJECTIVENocturnal hypoglycemia can cause seizures and is a major impediment to tight glycemic control, especially in young children with type 1 diabetes. We conducted an in-home randomized trial to assess the efficacy and safety of a continuous glucose monitor–based overnight predictive low-glucose suspend (PLGS) system.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSIn two age-groups of children with type 1 diabetes (11–14 and 4–10 years of age), a 42-night trial for each child was conducted wherein each night was assigned randomly to either having the PLGS system active (intervention night) or inactive (control night). The primary outcome was percent time <70 mg/dL overnight.RESULTSMedian time at <70 mg/dL was reduced by 54% from 10.1% on control nights to 4.6% on intervention nights (P < 0.001) in 11–14-year-olds (n = 45) and by 50% from 6.2% to 3.1% (P < 0.001) in 4–10-year-olds (n = 36). Mean overnight glucose was lower on control versus intervention nights in both age-groups (144 ± 18 vs. 152 ± 19 mg/dL [P < 0.001] and 153 ± 14 vs. 160 ± 16 mg/dL [P = 0.004], respectively). Mean morning blood glucose was 159 ± 29 vs. 176 ± 28 mg/dL (P < 0.001) in the 11–14-year-olds and 154 ± 25 vs. 158 ± 22 mg/dL (P = 0.11) in the 4–10-year-olds, respectively. No differences were found between intervention and control in either age-group in morning blood ketosis.CONCLUSIONSIn 4–14-year-olds, use of a nocturnal PLGS system can substantially reduce overnight hypoglycemia without an increase in morning ketosis, although overnight mean glucose is slightly higher.

Background: Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices help detect glycemic excursions associated with exercise, meals, and insulin dosing in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, the delay between interstitial and blood glucose may result in CGM underestimating the true change in glycemia during activity. The purpose of this study was to examine CGM discrepancies during exercise and the meal postexercise versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Methods: Seventeen adults with T1D using insulin pump therapy and CGM completed 60 min of aerobic exercise on three occasions. A standardized meal was given 30 min postexercise. SMBG was measured during exercise and in recovery using OmniPod Ò Personal Diabetes Manager (PDM; Insulet, Billerica, MA) with builtin glucose meter (FreeStyle; Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL), while CGM was measured with Dexcom G4 Ò with 505 algorithm (n = 4) or G5 Ò (n = 13), which were calibrated with subjects' own PDM. Results: SMBG showed a large drop in glycemia during exercise, while CGM showed a lag of 12-11 (meanstandard deviation) minutes and bias of-7-19 mg/dL/min during activity. Mean absolute relative difference (MARD) for CGM versus SMBG was 13 (6-22)% [median (interquartile range)] during exercise and 8 (5-14)% during mealtime. Clarke error grids showed CGM values were in zones A and B 94%-99% of the time for SMBG. Conclusion: In summary, the drop in CGM lags behind the drop in blood glucose during prolonged aerobic exercise by 12-11 min, and MARD increases to 13 (6-22)% during exercise as well. Therefore, if hypoglycemia is suspected during exercise, individuals should confirm glucose levels with a capillary glucose measurement.

We conclude that CLC technology has matured and is safe for prolonged use in patients' natural environment. Based on these promising results, a large randomized trial is warranted to assess long-term CLC efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVETo determine the safety and efficacy of an automated unified safety system (USS) in providing overnight closed-loop (OCL) control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes attending diabetes summer camps.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSThe Diabetes Assistant (DIAS) USS used the Dexcom G4 Platinum glucose sensor (Dexcom) and t:slim insulin pump (Tandem Diabetes Care). An initial inpatient study was completed for 12 participants to evaluate safety. For the main camp study, 20 participants with type 1 diabetes were randomized to either OCL or sensor-augmented therapy (control conditions) per night over the course of a 5- to 6-day diabetes camp.RESULTSSubjects completed 54 OCL nights and 52 control nights. On an intention-to-treat basis, with glucose data analyzed regardless of system status, the median percent time in range, from 70–150 mg/dL, was 62% (29, 87) for OCL nights versus 55% (25, 80) for sensor-augmented pump therapy (P = 0.233). A per-protocol analysis allowed for assessment of algorithm performance. The median percent time in range, from 70–150 mg/dL, was 73% (50, 89) for OCL nights (n = 41) versus 52% (24, 83) for control conditions (n = 39) (P = 0.037). There was less time spent in the hypoglycemic range <50, <60, and <70 mg/dL during OCL compared with the control period (P = 0.019, P = 0.009, and P = 0.023, respectively).CONCLUSIONSThe DIAS USS algorithm is effective in improving time spent in range as well as reducing nocturnal hypoglycemia during the overnight period in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in a diabetes camp setting.