Dassau, Eyal

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).

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.

Abstract Introduction: Patients and their families and medical providers have assumed that psychologic stress impacts glucose control in T1D (Type 1 Diabetes) though studies providing confirmatory evidence in real world settings are, to our knowledge, lacking. We hypothesized that self-reported psychologic stress worsens glucose control in T1D. Method: We studied 20 adults with T1D on continuous glucose monitor (CGM), sensor augmented insulin pump (SAP) prospectively at 2 clinical research centers. Patients reported psychological stress through stress diaries for 5 weeks on a severity scale of 1-7 using hard copy logs including time of onset and offset of stress and severity. For analytic purpose, grades 1-4 are classified as mild and grades 5-7 as severe. Results: Baseline characteristics were age 44.9±15.0 years, F/M 12/8, HbA1c 6.8 ± 0.7%, and diabetes duration of 22.9±15.9 years. We analyzed glucose variability during days of stress versus days without stress. During a 24 hour period, patients experienced less hypoglycemia during days with stress versus days without stress (p value 0.03). During the 5 week period, patients reported 23 ± 19.5 events. We analyzed the impact of self-reported stress on CGM data streams after excluding stress events associated with missing CGM data, nocturnal events (from 12 MN to 6 AM, too few events) and events for which subjects did not provide duration of stress. Thus, we analyzed 19.5 ± 17 events per patient from 6AM to 12MN. From 6 AM to 12 MN, the episodes lasted 179 ± 255 minutes with 83 % episodes being mild/moderate and 17% moderate/ severe. Number of CGM readings during daytime stress episodes were 717± 1120 compared to 8768± 1238 during non-stress periods. Impact of stress from 6 AM to 12 MN (Mid-Night) on CGM glucose was analyzed using matched paired t test. Mean glucose (160.6±41.9 vs 148.3± 28.6) and SD (53.2 ±17.7 vs 56.1±14.6) did not show a difference; however % of time spent below 70 mg/dl was less (4 ± 5) in patients during stressful periods compared to times without stress (6.3± 5.5, P value 0.02). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study attempting to analyze the impact of self-reported stress using daily stress diaries on CGM data streams in T1D patients on SAP. The study revealed significant challenges experienced by patients in reporting adequate data. Self-reported stress was not associated with hyperglycemia. However, days of self-reported stress and periods during patients reported stress were characterized by less hypoglycemia on CGM data streams.

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.

Objective: The objective was to investigate the relationship of body mass index (BMI) to differing glycemic responses to psychological stress in patients with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Continuous blood glucose monitor (CGM) data were collected for 1 week from a total of 37 patients with BMI ranging from 21.5-39.4 kg/m 2 (mean = 28.2 ± 4.9). Patients reported daily stress levels (5-point Likert-type scale, 0 = none, 4 = extreme), physical activity, carbohydrate intake, insulin boluses and basal rates. Daily reported carbohydrates, total insulin bolus, and average blood glucose (BG from CGM) were compared among patients based on their BMI levels on days with different stress levels. In addition, daily averages of a model-based “effectiveness index” (quantifying the combined impact of insulin and carbohydrate on glucose levels) were defined and compared across stress levels to capture meal and insulin independent glycemic changes. Results: Analyses showed that patient BMI likely moderated stress related glycemic changes. Linear mixed effect model results were significant for the stress-BMI interaction on both behavioral and behavior-independent glycemic changes. Across participants, under stress, an increase was observed in daily carbohydrate intake and effectiveness index at higher BMI. There was no significant interactive effect on daily insulin or average BG. Conclusion: Findings suggest that (1) stress has both behavioral and nonbehavioral glycemic effects on T1D patients and (2) the direction and magnitude of these effects are potentially influenced by level of stress and patient BMI. Possibly responsible for these observed effects are T1D/BMI related alterations in endocrine response.

OBJECTIVE Artificial pancreas (AP) systems are best positioned for optimal treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and are currently being tested in outpatient clinical trials. Our consortium developed and tested a novel adaptive AP in an outpatient, single-arm, uncontrolled multicenter clinical trial lasting 12 weeks. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Thirty adults with T1D completed a continuous glucose monitor (CGM)-augmented 1-week sensor-augmented pump (SAP) period. After the AP was started, basal insulin delivery settings used by the AP for initialization were adapted weekly, and carbohydrate ratios were adapted every 4 weeks by an algorithm running on a cloud-based server, with automatic data upload from devices. Adaptations were reviewed by expert study clinicians and patients. The primary end point was change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Outcomes are reported adhering to consensus recommendations on reporting of AP trials. RESULTS Twenty-nine patients completed the trial. HbA1c, 7.0 ± 0.8% at the start of AP use, improved to 6.7 ± 0.6% after 12 weeks (−0.3, 95% CI −0.5 to −0.2, P &lt; 0.001). Compared with the SAP run-in, CGM time spent in the hypoglycemic range improved during the day from 5.0 to 1.9% (−3.1, 95% CI −4.1 to −2.1, P &lt; 0.001) and overnight from 4.1 to 1.1% (−3.1, 95% CI −4.2 to −1.9, P &lt; 0.001). Whereas carbohydrate ratios were adapted to a larger extent initially with minimal changes thereafter, basal insulin was adapted throughout. Approximately 10% of adaptation recommendations were manually overridden. There were no protocol-related serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS Use of our novel adaptive AP yielded significant reductions in HbA1c and hypoglycemia.