Doyle, Francis J

Sharing research code in an open access version-controlled repository offers significant benefits for both science as a whole and for individual researchers. In this article, we focus on this practice, which is fully aligned with the NIH’s Gold Standard Science (GSS) program as well as FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) and TRUST (transparency, responsibility, user focus, sustainability, technology) principles. Gold Standard Science supports open science by emphasizing transparency, reproducibility, and the use of best practices that enable others to verify and extend research. Pairing a research article’s cited data snapshot with a versioned, environment-specific code release, deposited in a companion code repository, ensures that, upon submission to a medical journal, readers and reviewers can directly verify results. An executable and updatable companion code repository complements, rather than replaces, established research data repositories. When code underlying medical research results is made openly available, then other scientists can inspect, run, and validate analyses. These activities enhance reproducibility, which is a core aim of GSS. Shared code also facilitates collaborative innovation by allowing researchers to extend the utility of the code to new datasets and applications. For researchers, code sharing can increase visibility, credibility, and citation impact. Demonstrating transparency through shared executable and updatable code builds trust with journal readers, peer reviewers, funders, and peers. Shared code in an open access repository signals adherence to high standards of scientific integrity and attracts opportunities for collaboration. A researcher who shares code receives recognition as a leader in reproducible, trustworthy research consistent with NIH’s GSS principles.

The development of automated insulin delivery systems has seen tremendous improvements from individual components to interoperable system combinations of devices and new drugs besides insulin. The components have become progressively smaller, more accurate, and more user friendly. This article summarizes the history of the artificial pancreas from the earliest concepts to fully functional systems to research into further improvements in the future. The authors include many of the developers of this technology who received research support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at various stages to develop these systems.

The development of automated insulin delivery systems has seen tremendous improvements from individual components to interoperable system combinations of devices and new drugs besides insulin. The components have become progressively smaller, more accurate, and more user friendly. This article summarizes the history of the artificial pancreas from the earliest concepts to fully functional systems to research into further improvements in the future. The authors include many of the developers of this technology who received research support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at various stages to develop these systems.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have proven effective in increasing time-in-range during both clinical trials and real-world use. Further improvements in outcomes for single-hormone (insulin only) AID may be limited by suboptimal insulin delivery settings. Methods: Adults (≥18 years of age) with type 1 diabetes were randomized to either sensor-augmented pump (SAP) (inclusive of predictive low-glucose suspend) or adaptive zone model predictive control AID for 13 weeks, then crossed over to the other arm. Each week, the AID insulin delivery settings were sequentially and automatically updated by an adaptation system running on the study phone. Primary outcome was sensor glucose time-in-range 70–180 mg/dL, with noninferiority in percent time below 54 mg/dL as a hierarchical outcome. Results: Thirty-five participants completed the trial (mean age 39 ± 16 years, HbA1c at enrollment 6.9% ± 1.0%). Mean time-in-range 70–180 mg/dL was 66% with SAP versus 69% with AID (mean adjusted difference +2% [95% confidence interval: −1% to +6%], P = 0.22). Median time <70 mg/dL improved from 3.0% with SAP to 1.6% with AID (−1.5% [−2.4% to −0.5%], P = 0.002). The adaptation system decreased initial basal rates by a median of 4% (−8%, 16%) and increased initial carbohydrate ratios by a median of 45% (32%, 59%) after 13 weeks. Conclusions: Automated adaptation of insulin delivery settings with AID use did not significantly improve time-in-range in this very well-controlled population. Additional study and further refinement of the adaptation system are needed, especially in populations with differing degrees of baseline glycemic control, who may show larger benefits from adaptation.

Background: Pregnancies in type 1 diabetes are high risk, and data in the United States are limited regarding continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based hypoglycemia throughout pregnancy while on sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy. Materials and Methods: Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes in the LOIS-P Study (Longitudinal Observation of Insulin use and glucose Sensor metrics in Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes using continuous glucose monitors and insulin pumps) were enrolled before 17 weeks gestation at three U.S. centers and we used their personal insulin pump and a study Dexcom G6 CGM. We analyzed data of 25 pregnant women for CGM hypoglycemia based on international consensus guidelines for percentage time <63 and 54 mg/dL, hypoglycemic events and prolonged hypoglycemia events for 24-h, daytime, and overnight periods, and severe hypoglycemia (SH) episodes. Results: For a 24-h period, biweekly median percentage of time <63 mg/dL ranged from 0.8% at biweek 4–5 to 3.7% at biweek 14–15 with high variability throughout pregnancy. Median percentage of time <63 and 54 mg/dL was higher overnight than daytime ( P < 0.01). Hypoglycemic events occurred throughout the pregnancy, ranged 1–4 events per 2 weeks, significantly decreased after the 20th week, and occurred predominantly during daytime ( P < 0.01). For overnight period, hypoglycemia and events were more concentrated from 12 to 3 am. Seven prolonged hypoglycemia events without any associated SH occurred in four participants (16%), primarily overnight. Three participants experienced a single episode of SH. Conclusions: Our results suggest a higher overall risk of hypoglycemia throughout pregnancy during the overnight period with continued daytime risk of hypoglycemic events in pregnancies complicated by type 1 diabetes.

Background: A composite metric for the quality of glycemia from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) tracings could be useful for assisting with basic clinical interpretation of CGM data. Methods: We assembled a data set of 14-day CGM tracings from 225 insulin-treated adults with diabetes. Using a balanced incomplete block design, 330 clinicians who were highly experienced with CGM analysis and interpretation ranked the CGM tracings from best to worst quality of glycemia. We used principal component analysis and multiple regressions to develop a model to predict the clinician ranking based on seven standard metrics in an Ambulatory Glucose Profile: very low–glucose and low-glucose hypoglycemia; very high–glucose and high-glucose hyperglycemia; time in range; mean glucose; and coefficient of variation. Results: The analysis showed that clinician rankings depend on two components, one related to hypoglycemia that gives more weight to very low-glucose than to low-glucose and the other related to hyperglycemia that likewise gives greater weight to very high-glucose than to high-glucose. These two components should be calculated and displayed separately, but they can also be combined into a single Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia (r = 0.95). The GRI can be displayed graphically on a GRI Grid with the hypoglycemia component on the horizontal axis and the hyperglycemia component on the vertical axis. Diagonal lines divide the graph into five zones (quintiles) corresponding to the best (0th to 20th percentile) to worst (81st to 100th percentile) overall quality of glycemia. The GRI Grid enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals. Conclusion: The GRI is a single-number summary of the quality of glycemia. Its hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia components provide actionable scores and a graphical display (the GRI Grid) that can be used by clinicians and researchers to determine the glycemic effects of prescribed and investigational treatments.

Objective: Evaluating the feasibility of closed-loop insulin delivery with a zone model predictive control (zone-MPC) algorithm designed for pregnancy complicated by type 1 diabetes (T1D). Research Design and Methods: Pregnant women with T1D from 14 to 32 weeks gestation already using continuous glucose monitor (CGM) augmented pump therapy were enrolled in a 2-day multicenter supervised outpatient study evaluating pregnancy-specific zone-MPC based closed-loop control (CLC) with the interoperable artificial pancreas system (iAPS) running on an unlocked smartphone. Meals and activities were unrestricted. The primary outcome was the CGM percentage of time between 63 and 140 mg/dL compared with participants' 1-week run-in period. Early (2-h) postprandial glucose control was also evaluated. Results: Eleven participants completed the study (age: 30.6 ± 4.1 years; gestational age: 20.7 ± 3.5 weeks; weight: 76.5 ± 15.3 kg; hemoglobin A1c: 5.6% ± 0.5% at enrollment). No serious adverse events occurred. Compared with the 1-week run-in, there was an increased percentage of time in 63–140 mg/dL during supervised CLC (CLC: 81.5%, run-in: 64%, P = 0.007) with less time >140 mg/dL (CLC: 16.5%, run-in: 30.8%, P = 0.029) and time <63 mg/dL (CLC: 2.0%, run-in:5.2%, P = 0.039). There was also less time <54 mg/dL (CLC: 0.7%, run-in:1.6%, P = 0.030) and >180 mg/dL (CLC: 4.9%, run-in: 13.1%, P = 0.032). Overnight glucose control was comparable, except for less time >250 mg/dL (CLC: 0%, run-in:3.9%, P = 0.030) and lower glucose standard deviation (CLC: 23.8 mg/dL, run-in:42.8 mg/dL, P = 0.007) during CLC. Conclusion: In this pilot study, use of the pregnancy-specific zone-MPC was feasible in pregnant women with T1D. Although the duration of our study was short and the number of participants was small, our findings add to the limited data available on the use of CLC systems during pregnancy (NCT04492566).

Background: Suboptimal glycemic control is associated with maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality in pregnancy complicated by type 1 diabetes (T1D). Prospective analysis of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics, insulin pump settings, and insulin delivery can better characterize the changes in glycemic levels and insulin use throughout pregnancy with T1D. Materials and Methods: Prescribed parameters, insulin delivery, carbohydrate intake, and CGM data for 25 pregnant women with T1D from three U.S. sites were collected. Participants enrolled before 17 weeks gestation and used personal insulin pumps and study CGM. Mean daily total, basal, and bolus insulin doses (units/kg), CGM time in range (TIR: 63–140 mg/dL), and pump-entered carbohydrates were analyzed for every 2-week gestational interval. Linear mixed-effects regression models were used to evaluate changes across gestational ages compared to 12–14 weeks. Results: Basal insulin was higher during weeks 6–12 and 24–40. Daily bolus and total insulin were higher during weeks 20–40. Pump parameters were adjusted to intensify insulin therapy from 22 weeks onward. Average TIR across pregnancy was 59% ± 14%. Between 18 and 30 weeks, TIR was significantly lower, and time above range was significantly higher compared to the reference biweek. Time below target was lower between 22 and 34 weeks. Seven participants achieved >70% recommended TIR for pregnancy. Participants with maternal complications or infant neonatal intensive care unit admissions had lower TIR. Conclusion: While insulin dosing changed significantly with advancing gestation, most participants did not achieve >70% TIR. Customized anticipatory pump setting adjustments and automated systems aimed toward the designated TIR are needed to improve outcomes for this population. NCT03761615

OBJECTIVE Limited information is available about glycemic outcomes with a closed-loop control (CLC) system compared with a predictive low-glucose suspend (PLGS) system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS After 6 months of use of a CLC system in a randomized trial, 109 participants with type 1 diabetes (age range, 14–72 years; mean HbA1c, 7.1% [54 mmol/mol]) were randomly assigned to CLC (N = 54, Control-IQ) or PLGS (N = 55, Basal-IQ) groups for 3 months. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitor (CGM)-measured time in range (TIR) for 70–180 mg/dL. Baseline CGM metrics were computed from the last 3 months of the preceding study. RESULTS All 109 participants completed the study. Mean ± SD TIR was 71.1 ± 11.2% at baseline and 67.6 ± 12.6% using intention-to-treat analysis (69.1 ± 12.2% using per-protocol analysis excluding periods of study-wide suspension of device use) over 13 weeks on CLC vs. 70.0 ± 13.6% and 60.4 ± 17.1% on PLGS (difference = 5.9%; 95% CI 3.6%, 8.3%; P &lt; 0.001). Time &gt;180 mg/dL was lower in the CLC group than PLGS group (difference = −6.0%; 95% CI −8.4%, −3.7%; P &lt; 0.001) while time &lt;54 mg/dL was similar (0.04%; 95% CI −0.05%, 0.13%; P = 0.41). HbA1c after 13 weeks was lower on CLC than PLGS (7.2% [55 mmol/mol] vs. 7.5% [56 mmol/mol], difference −0.34% [−3.7 mmol/mol]; 95% CI −0.57% [−6.2 mmol/mol], −0.11% [1.2 mmol/mol]; P = 0.0035). CONCLUSIONS Following 6 months of CLC, switching to PLGS reduced TIR and increased HbA1c toward their pre-CLC values, while hypoglycemia remained similarly reduced with both CLC and PLGS.

OBJECTIVE Assess the efficacy of inControl AP, a mobile closed-loop control (CLC) system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This protocol, NCT02985866, is a 3-month parallel-group, multicenter, randomized unblinded trial designed to compare mobile CLC with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. Eligibility criteria were type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year, use of insulin pumps for at least 6 months, age ≥14 years, and baseline HbA1c &lt;10.5% (91 mmol/mol). The study was designed to assess two coprimary outcomes: superiority of CLC over SAP in continuous glucose monitor (CGM)–measured time below 3.9 mmol/L and noninferiority in CGM-measured time above 10 mmol/L. RESULTS Between November 2017 and May 2018, 127 participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to CLC (n = 65) versus SAP (n = 62); 125 participants completed the study. CGM time below 3.9 mmol/L was 5.0% at baseline and 2.4% during follow-up in the CLC group vs. 4.7% and 4.0%, respectively, in the SAP group (mean difference −1.7% [95% CI −2.4, −1.0]; P &lt; 0.0001 for superiority). CGM time above 10 mmol/L was 40% at baseline and 34% during follow-up in the CLC group vs. 43% and 39%, respectively, in the SAP group (mean difference −3.0% [95% CI −6.1, 0.1]; P &lt; 0.0001 for noninferiority). One severe hypoglycemic event occurred in the CLC group, which was unrelated to the study device. CONCLUSIONS In meeting its coprimary end points, superiority of CLC over SAP in CGM-measured time below 3.9 mmol/L and noninferiority in CGM-measured time above 10 mmol/L, the study has demonstrated that mobile CLC is feasible and could offer certain usability advantages over embedded systems, provided the connectivity between system components is stable.