22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Glucose Outcomes with the In-Home Use of a Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery System in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

      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.

          Abstract

          Background: The safety and effectiveness of the in-home use of a hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system that automatically increases, decreases, and suspends insulin delivery in response to continuous glucose monitoring were investigated.

          Methods: Adolescents ( n = 30, ages 14–21 years) and adults ( n = 94, ages 22–75 years) with type 1 diabetes participated in a multicenter (nine sites in the United States, one site in Israel) pivotal trial. The Medtronic MiniMed ® 670G system was used during a 2-week run-in phase without HCL control, or Auto Mode, enabled (Manual Mode) and, thereafter, with Auto Mode enabled during a 3-month study phase. A supervised hotel stay (6 days/5 nights) that included a 24-h frequent blood sample testing with a reference measurement (i-STAT) occurred during the study phase.

          Results: Adolescents (mean ± standard deviation [SD] 16.5 ± 2.29 years of age and 7.7 ± 4.15 years of diabetes) used the system for a median 75.8% (interquartile range [IQR] 68.0%–88.4%) of the time (2977 patient-days). Adults (mean ± SD 44.6 ± 12.79 years of age and 26.4 ± 12.43 years of diabetes) used the system for a median 88.0% (IQR 77.6%–92.7%) of the time (9412 patient-days). From baseline run-in to the end of study phase, adolescent and adult HbA 1c levels decreased from 7.7% ± 0.8% to 7.1% ± 0.6% ( P < 0.001) and from 7.3% ± 0.9% to 6.8% ± 0.6% ( P < 0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test), respectively. The proportion of overall in-target (71–180 mg/dL) sensor glucose (SG) values increased from 60.4% ± 10.9% to 67.2% ± 8.2% ( P < 0.001) in adolescents and from 68.8% ± 11.9% to 73.8% ± 8.4% ( P < 0.001) in adults. During the hotel stay, the proportion of in-target i-STAT ® blood glucose values was 67.4% ± 27.7% compared to SG values of 72.0% ± 11.6% for adolescents and 74.2% ± 17.5% compared to 76.9% ± 8.3% for adults. There were no severe hypoglycemic or diabetic ketoacidosis events in either cohort.

          Conclusions: HCL therapy was safe during in-home use by adolescents and adults and the study phase demonstrated increased time in target, and reductions in HbA 1c, hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, compared to baseline. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02463097.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • 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

            Outpatient glycemic control with a bionic pancreas in type 1 diabetes.

            The safety and effectiveness of automated glycemic management have not been tested in multiday studies under unrestricted outpatient conditions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Home Use of an Artificial Beta Cell in Type 1 Diabetes.

              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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Diabetes Technol Ther
                Diabetes Technol. Ther
                dia
                Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
                Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. (140 Huguenot Street, 3rd FloorNew Rochelle, NY 10801USA )
                1520-9156
                1557-8593
                01 March 2017
                01 March 2017
                01 March 2017
                : 19
                : 3
                : 155-163
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado Denver , Aurora, Colorado.
                [ 2 ]Yale University , New Haven, Connecticut.
                [ 3 ]Stanford University , Stanford, California.
                [ 4 ]Atlanta Diabetes Associates , Atlanta, Georgia.
                [ 5 ]AMCR Institute , Escondido, California.
                [ 6 ]Rainier Clinical Research Center , Renton, Washington.
                [ 7 ]Sheba Medical Center , Tel Hashomer, Israel.
                [ 8 ]University of Virginia , Charlottesville, Virginia.
                [ 9 ]International Diabetes Center , Minneapolis, Minnesota.
                [ 10 ]Medtronic , Northridge, California.
                Author notes
                [*]

                Editor-in-Chief, DTT.

                Address correspondence to: Satish K. Garg, MD, Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado Denver 1775 Aurora Court, Aurora, CO 80045, E-mail: satish.garg@ 123456ucdenver.edu
                Article
                10.1089/dia.2016.0421
                10.1089/dia.2016.0421
                5359676
                28134564
                a1c7b4c6-4634-4d51-95ef-bf8f289071d9
                © Satish K. Garg et al., 2017; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

                This Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 4, References: 39, Pages: 9
                Categories
                Original Articles

                hybrid closed loop,insulin pump,continuous glucose monitoring,type 1 diabetes,hyperglycemia,hypoglycemia,sensor

                Comments

                Comment on this article