Buckingham, Bruce

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: We investigated the potential benefits of automated insulin delivery (AID) among individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in sub-populations of baseline device use determined by continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use status and insulin delivery via multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump. Materials and Methods: In a six-month randomized, multicenter trial, 168 individuals were assigned to closed-loop control (CLC, Control-IQ, Tandem Diabetes Care), or sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. The trial included a two- to eight-week run-in phase to train participants on study devices. The participants were stratified into four subgroups: insulin pump and CGM (pump+CGM), pump-only, MDI and CGM (MDI+CGM), and MDI users without CGM (MDI-only) users. We compared glycemic outcomes among four subgroups. Results: At baseline, 61% were pump+CGM users, 18% pump-only users, 10% MDI+CGM users, and 11% MDI-only users. Mean time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) improved from baseline in the four subgroups using CLC: pump+CGM, 62% to 73%; pump-only, 61% to 70%; MDI+CGM, 54% to 68%; and MDI-only, 61% to 69%. The reduction in time below 70 mg/dL from baseline was comparable among the four subgroups. No interaction effect was detected with baseline device use for TIR ( P = .67) or time below ( P = .77). On the System Usability Questionnaire, scores were high at 26 weeks for all subgroups: pump+CGM: 87.2 ± 12.1, pump-only: 89.4 ± 8.2, MDI+CGM 87.2 ± 9.3, MDI: 78.1 ± 15. Conclusions: There was a consistent benefit in patients with T1D when using CLC, regardless of baseline insulin delivery modality or CGM use. These data suggest that this CLC system can be considered across a wide range of patients.

Background: Standard insulin infusion sets (IISs) are to be replaced every 2 to 3 days to avoid complications and diabetic ketosis due to set failure. This pivotal trial evaluated the safety and performance of a new extended-wear infusion set (EIS) when used for 7 days by adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: This single-arm, nonrandomized trial enrolled adults (18–80 years of age) with T1D, who used their own MiniMed™ 670G system with insulin lispro or insulin aspart and the EIS for up to 7 days, across 12 consecutive wears. Safety endpoints included incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse device effects (SADEs), unanticipated adverse device effects (UADEs), severe hypoglycemia (SevHypo), severe hyperglycemia (SevHyper), diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and skin infection. The EIS failure rate due to unexplained hyperglycemia (i.e., suspected occlusion), the overall EIS survival rate, glycemic control outcomes (i.e., A1C, mean sensor glucose and time spent in established glucose ranges), total daily insulin delivered, and satisfaction with the EIS were determined. Results: The intention to treat population ( n = 259, 48% men, 45.0 ± 14.1 years) wore a total of 3041 EIS devices. No SADE, UADE, or DKA events was reported. Overall rates of SAEs, SevHypo, SevHyper, and skin infection were 3.8, 2.5, 104.1, and 20.1 events per 100 participant-years. The rate of EIS failure due to unexplained hyperglycemia at the end of day 7 was 0.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03–0.51) and 0.4% (95% CI: 0.16–1.00) for insulin lispro and aspart use, respectively. Overall EIS survival rate at the end of day 7 was 77.8% (95% CI: 76.2–79.3), glycemic control did not change, and participants reported greater satisfaction with the EIS compared with standard IISs worn before the study ( P < 0.001). Conclusions: This investigation demonstrates that the EIS, when worn for up to 7 days, was safe and rated with high satisfaction, without adversely affecting glycemic control in adults with T1D. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04113694 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04113694 ).

Background: Closed-loop control (CLC) has been shown to improve glucose time in range and other glucose metrics; however, randomized trials >3 months comparing CLC with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy are limited. We recently reported glucose control outcomes from the 6-month international Diabetes Closed-Loop (iDCL) trial; we now report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in this iDCL trial. Methods: Participants were randomized 2:1 to CLC ( N = 112) versus SAP ( N = 56) and completed questionnaires, including Hypoglycemia Fear Survey, Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), Hypoglycemia Awareness, Hypoglycemia Confidence, Hyperglycemia Avoidance, and Positive Expectancies of CLC (INSPIRE) at baseline, 3, and 6 months. CLC participants also completed Diabetes Technology Expectations and Acceptance and System Usability Scale (SUS). Results: The Hypoglycemia Fear Survey Behavior subscale improved significantly after 6 months of CLC compared with SAP. DDS did not differ except for powerless subscale scores, which worsened at 3 months in SAP. Whereas Hypoglycemia Awareness and Hyperglycemia Avoidance did not differ between groups, CLC participants showed a tendency toward improved confidence in managing hypoglycemia. The INSPIRE questionnaire showed favorable scores in the CLC group for teens and parents, with a similar trend for adults. At baseline and 6 months, CLC participants had high positive expectations for the device with Diabetes Technology Acceptance and SUS showing high benefit and low burden scores. Conclusion: CLC improved some PROs compared with SAP. Participants reported high benefit and low burden with CLC. Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT03563313.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of closed-loop control (CLC) insulin delivery system in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Research Design and Methods: Prespecified subanalysis of outcomes in adolescents and young adults aged 14–24 years old with type 1 diabetes in a previously published 6-month multicenter randomized trial. Participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to CLC (Tandem Control-IQ) or sensor augmented pump (SAP, various pumps+Dexcom G6 CGM) and followed for 6 months. Results: Mean age of the 63 participants was 17 years, median type 1 diabetes duration was 7 years, and mean baseline HbA1c was 8.1%. All 63 completed the trial. Time in range (TIR) increased by 13% with CLC versus decreasing by 1% with SAP (adjusted treatment group difference = +13% [+3.1 h/day]; 95% confidence interval [CI] 9–16, P < 0.001), which largely reflected a reduction in time >180 mg/dL (adjusted difference −12% [−2.9 h/day], P < 0.001). Time <70 mg/dL decreased by 1.6% with CLC versus 0.3% with SAP (adjusted difference −0.7% [−10 min/day], 95% CI −1.0% to −0.2%, P = 0.002). CLC use averaged 89% of the time for 6 months. The mean adjusted difference in HbA1c after 6 months was 0.30% in CLC versus SAP (95% CI −0.67 to +0.08, P = 0.13). There was one diabetic ketoacidosis episode in the CLC group. Conclusions: CLC use for 6 months was substantial and associated with improved TIR and reduced hypoglycemia in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Thus, CLC has the potential to improve glycemic outcomes in this challenging age group. The clinical trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03563313).

Background: Data are limited on the need for and benefits of pump setting optimization with automated insulin delivery. We examined clinical management of a closed-loop control (CLC) system and its relationship to glycemic outcomes. Materials and Methods: We analyzed personal parameter adjustments in 168 participants in a 6-month multicenter trial of CLC with Control-IQ versus sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. Preset parameters (BR = basal rates, CF = correction factors, CR = carbohydrate ratios) were optimized at randomization, 2 and 13 weeks, for safety issues, participant concerns, or initiation by participants' usual diabetes care team. Time in range (TIR 70–180 mg/dL) was compared in the week before and after parameter changes. Results: In 607 encounters for parameter changes, there were fewer adjustments for CLC than SAP (3.4 vs. 4.1/participant). Adjustments involved BR (CLC 69%, SAP 80%), CR (CLC 68%, SAP 50%), CF (CLC 44%, SAP 41%), and overnight parameters (CLC 62%, SAP 75%). TIR before and after adjustments was 71.2% and 71.3% for CLC and 61.0% and 62.9% for SAP. The highest baseline HbA 1c CLC subgroup had the largest TIR improvement (51.2% vs. 57.7%). When a CR was made more aggressive in the CLC group, postprandial time >180 mg/dL was 43.1% before the change and 36.0% after the change. The median postprandial time <70 mg/dL before making CR less aggressive was 1.8%, and after the change was 0.7%. Conclusions: No difference in TIR was detected with parameter changes overall, but they may have an effect in higher HbA 1c subgroups or following user-directed boluses, suggesting that changes may matter more in suboptimal control or during discrete periods of the day. Clinical Trials Registration number: NCT03563313.

This article is the work product of the Continuous Glucose Monitor and Automated Insulin Dosing Systems in the Hospital Consensus Guideline Panel, which was organized by Diabetes Technology Society and met virtually on April 23, 2020. The guideline panel consisted of 24 international experts in the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and automated insulin dosing (AID) systems representing adult endocrinology, pediatric endocrinology, obstetrics and gynecology, advanced practice nursing, diabetes care and education, clinical chemistry, bioengineering, and product liability law. The panelists reviewed the medical literature pertaining to five topics: (1) continuation of home CGMs after hospitalization, (2) initiation of CGMs in the hospital, (3) continuation of AID systems in the hospital, (4) logistics and hands-on care of hospitalized patients using CGMs and AID systems, and (5) data management of CGMs and AID systems in the hospital. The panelists then developed three types of recommendations for each topic, including clinical practice (to use the technology optimally), research (to improve the safety and effectiveness of the technology), and hospital policies (to build an environment for facilitating use of these devices) for each of the five topics. The panelists voted on 78 proposed recommendations. Based on the panel vote, 77 recommendations were classified as either strong or mild. One recommendation failed to reach consensus. Additional research is needed on CGMs and AID systems in the hospital setting regarding device accuracy, practices for deployment, data management, and achievable outcomes. This guideline is intended to support these technologies for the management of hospitalized patients with diabetes.