BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: In two multicenter, crossover, randomized, controlled studies conducted under free-living home conditions, we compared closed-loop insulin delivery with sensor-augmented pump therapy in 58 patients with type 1 diabetes. The closed-loop system was used day and night by 33 adults and overnight by 25 children and adolescents. Participants used the closed-loop system for a 12-week period and sensor-augmented pump therapy (control) for a similar period. The primary end point was the proportion of time that the glucose level was between 70 mg and 180 mg per deciliter for adults and between 70 mg and 145 mg per deciliter for children and adolescents. RESULTS: Among adults, the proportion of time that the glucose level was in the target range was 11.0 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1 to 13.8) greater with the use of the closed-loop system day and night than with control therapy (P<0.001). The mean glucose level was lower during the closed-loop phase than during the control phase (difference, -11 mg per deciliter; 95% CI, -17 to -6; P<0.001), as were the area under the curve for the period when the glucose level was less than 63 mg per deciliter (39% lower; 95% CI, 24 to 51; P<0.001) and the mean glycated hemoglobin level (difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -0.5 to -0.1; P=0.002). Among children and adolescents, the proportion of time with the nighttime glucose level in the target range was higher during the closed-loop phase than during the control phase (by 24.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 20.6 to 28.7; P<0.001), and the mean nighttime glucose level was lower (difference, -29 mg per deciliter; 95% CI, -39 to -20; P<0.001). The area under the curve for the period in which the day-and-night glucose levels were less than 63 mg per deciliter was lower by 42% (95% CI, 4 to 65; P=0.03). Three severe hypoglycemic episodes occurred during the closed-loop phase when the closed-loop system was not in use. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 1 diabetes, 12-week use of a closed-loop system, as compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy, improved glucose control, reduced hypoglycemia, and, in adults, resulted in a lower glycated hemoglobin level. (Funded by the JDRF and others; AP@home04 and APCam08 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01961622 and NCT01778348.).
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: In two multicenter, crossover, randomized, controlled studies conducted under free-living home conditions, we compared closed-loop insulin delivery with sensor-augmented pump therapy in 58 patients with type 1 diabetes. The closed-loop system was used day and night by 33 adults and overnight by 25 children and adolescents. Participants used the closed-loop system for a 12-week period and sensor-augmented pump therapy (control) for a similar period. The primary end point was the proportion of time that the glucose level was between 70 mg and 180 mg per deciliter for adults and between 70 mg and 145 mg per deciliter for children and adolescents. RESULTS: Among adults, the proportion of time that the glucose level was in the target range was 11.0 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1 to 13.8) greater with the use of the closed-loop system day and night than with control therapy (P<0.001). The mean glucose level was lower during the closed-loop phase than during the control phase (difference, -11 mg per deciliter; 95% CI, -17 to -6; P<0.001), as were the area under the curve for the period when the glucose level was less than 63 mg per deciliter (39% lower; 95% CI, 24 to 51; P<0.001) and the mean glycated hemoglobin level (difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -0.5 to -0.1; P=0.002). Among children and adolescents, the proportion of time with the nighttime glucose level in the target range was higher during the closed-loop phase than during the control phase (by 24.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 20.6 to 28.7; P<0.001), and the mean nighttime glucose level was lower (difference, -29 mg per deciliter; 95% CI, -39 to -20; P<0.001). The area under the curve for the period in which the day-and-night glucose levels were less than 63 mg per deciliter was lower by 42% (95% CI, 4 to 65; P=0.03). Three severe hypoglycemic episodes occurred during the closed-loop phase when the closed-loop system was not in use. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 1 diabetes, 12-week use of a closed-loop system, as compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy, improved glucose control, reduced hypoglycemia, and, in adults, resulted in a lower glycated hemoglobin level. (Funded by the JDRF and others; AP@home04 and APCam08 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01961622 and NCT01778348.).
Authors: Trang T Ly; Anirban Roy; Benyamin Grosman; John Shin; Alex Campbell; Salman Monirabbasi; Bradley Liang; Rie von Eyben; Satya Shanmugham; Paula Clinton; Bruce A Buckingham Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-06-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: J A McKnight; S H Wild; M J E Lamb; M N Cooper; T W Jones; E A Davis; S Hofer; M Fritsch; E Schober; J Svensson; T Almdal; R Young; J T Warner; B Delemer; P F Souchon; R W Holl; W Karges; D M Kieninger; S Tigas; A Bargiota; C Sampanis; V Cherubini; R Gesuita; I Strele; S Pildava; K J Coppell; G Magee; J G Cooper; S F Dinneen; K Eeg-Olofsson; A-M Svensson; S Gudbjornsdottir; H Veeze; H-J Aanstoot; M Khalangot; W V Tamborlane; K M Miller Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Jessica R Castle; Julia M Engle; Joseph El Youssef; Ryan G Massoud; Kevin C J Yuen; Ryland Kagan; W Kenneth Ward Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-03-23 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: William V Tamborlane; Roy W Beck; Bruce W Bode; Bruce Buckingham; H Peter Chase; Robert Clemons; Rosanna Fiallo-Scharer; Larry A Fox; Lisa K Gilliam; Irl B Hirsch; Elbert S Huang; Craig Kollman; Aaron J Kowalski; Lori Laffel; Jean M Lawrence; Joyce Lee; Nelly Mauras; Michael O'Grady; Katrina J Ruedy; Michael Tansey; Eva Tsalikian; Stuart Weinzimer; Darrell M Wilson; Howard Wolpert; Tim Wysocki; Dongyuan Xing Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bruce A Buckingham; Dan Raghinaru; Fraser Cameron; B Wayne Bequette; H Peter Chase; David M Maahs; Robert Slover; R Paul Wadwa; Darrell M Wilson; Trang Ly; Tandy Aye; Irene Hramiak; Cheril Clarson; Robert Stein; Patricia H Gallego; John Lum; Judy Sibayan; Craig Kollman; Roy W Beck Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-06-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Lalantha Leelarathna; Hood Thabit; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Lia Bally; Julia K Mader; Thomas R Pieber; Carsten Benesch; Sabine Arnolds; Terri Johnson; Lutz Heinemann; Norbert Hermanns; Mark L Evans; Roman Hovorka Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2019-03-31
Authors: Richard M Bergenstal; Mary Johnson; Rebecca Passi; Anuj Bhargava; Natalie Young; Davida F Kruger; Eran Bashan; Stanley G Bisgaier; Deanna J Marriott Isaman; Israel Hodish Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-02-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jordan E Pinsker; Alejandro J Laguna Sanz; Joon Bok Lee; Mei Mei Church; Camille Andre; Laura E Lindsey; Francis J Doyle; Eyal Dassau Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Joon Bok Lee; Eyal Dassau; Ravi Gondhalekar; Dale E Seborg; Jordan E Pinsker; Francis J Doyle Journal: Ind Eng Chem Res Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 3.720
Authors: Martin de Bock; Julie Dart; Anirban Roy; Raymond Davey; Wayne Soon; Carolyn Berthold; Adam Retterath; Benyamin Grosman; Natalie Kurtz; Elizabeth Davis; Timothy Jones Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2016-09-25