BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of continuous, multiday, automated glycaemic management has not been tested in outpatient studies of preadolescent children with type 1 diabetes. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a bihormonal bionic pancreas versus conventional insulin pump therapy in this population of patients in an outpatient setting. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, crossover study, we enrolled preadolescent children (aged 6-11 years) with type 1 diabetes (diagnosed for ≥1 year) who were on insulin pump therapy, from two diabetes camps in the USA. With the use of sealed envelopes, participants were randomly assigned in blocks of two to either 5 days with the bionic pancreas or conventional insulin pump therapy (control) as the first intervention, followed by a 3 day washout period and then 5 days with the other intervention. Study allocation was not masked. The autonomously adaptive algorithm of the bionic pancreas received data from a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device to control subcutaneous delivery of insulin and glucagon. Conventional insulin pump therapy was administered by the camp physicians and other clinical staff in accordance with their established protocols; participants also wore a CGM device during the control period. The coprimary outcomes, analysed by intention to treat, were mean CGM-measured glucose concentration and the proportion of time with a CGM-measured glucose concentration below 3·3 mmol/L, on days 2-5. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02105324. FINDINGS:Between July 20, and Aug 19, 2014, 19 children with a mean age of 9·8 years (SD 1·6) participated in and completed the study. The bionic pancreas period was associated with a lower mean CGM-measured glucose concentration on days 2-5 than was the control period (7·6 mmol/L [SD 0·6] vs 9·3 mmol/L [1·7]; p=0·00037) and a lower proportion of time with a CGM-measured glucose concentration below 3·3 mmol/L on days 2-5 (1·2% [SD 1·1] vs 2·8% [1·2]; p<0·0001). The median number of carbohydrate interventions given per participant for hypoglycaemia on days 1-5 (ie, glucose <3·9 mmol/L) was lower during the bionic pancreas period than during the control period (three [range 0-8] vs five [0-14]; p=0·037). No episodes of severe hypoglycaemia were recorded. Medium-to-large concentrations of ketones (range 0·6-3·6 mmol/dL) were reported on seven occasions in five participants during the control period and on no occasion during the bionic pancreas period (p=0·063). INTERPRETATION: The improved mean glycaemia and reduced hypoglycaemia with the bionic pancreas relative to insulin pump therapy in preadolescent children with type 1 diabetes in a diabetes camp setting is a promising finding. Studies of a longer duration during which children use the bionic pancreas during their normal routines at home and school should be done to investigate the potential for use of the bionic pancreas in real-world settings. FUNDING: The Leona M and Harry B Helmsley Charitable Trust and the US National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of continuous, multiday, automated glycaemic management has not been tested in outpatient studies of preadolescent children with type 1 diabetes. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a bihormonal bionic pancreas versus conventional insulin pump therapy in this population of patients in an outpatient setting. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, crossover study, we enrolled preadolescent children (aged 6-11 years) with type 1 diabetes (diagnosed for ≥1 year) who were on insulin pump therapy, from two diabetes camps in the USA. With the use of sealed envelopes, participants were randomly assigned in blocks of two to either 5 days with the bionic pancreas or conventional insulin pump therapy (control) as the first intervention, followed by a 3 day washout period and then 5 days with the other intervention. Study allocation was not masked. The autonomously adaptive algorithm of the bionic pancreas received data from a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device to control subcutaneous delivery of insulin and glucagon. Conventional insulin pump therapy was administered by the camp physicians and other clinical staff in accordance with their established protocols; participants also wore a CGM device during the control period. The coprimary outcomes, analysed by intention to treat, were mean CGM-measured glucose concentration and the proportion of time with a CGM-measured glucose concentration below 3·3 mmol/L, on days 2-5. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02105324. FINDINGS: Between July 20, and Aug 19, 2014, 19 children with a mean age of 9·8 years (SD 1·6) participated in and completed the study. The bionic pancreas period was associated with a lower mean CGM-measured glucose concentration on days 2-5 than was the control period (7·6 mmol/L [SD 0·6] vs 9·3 mmol/L [1·7]; p=0·00037) and a lower proportion of time with a CGM-measured glucose concentration below 3·3 mmol/L on days 2-5 (1·2% [SD 1·1] vs 2·8% [1·2]; p<0·0001). The median number of carbohydrate interventions given per participant for hypoglycaemia on days 1-5 (ie, glucose <3·9 mmol/L) was lower during the bionic pancreas period than during the control period (three [range 0-8] vs five [0-14]; p=0·037). No episodes of severe hypoglycaemia were recorded. Medium-to-large concentrations of ketones (range 0·6-3·6 mmol/dL) were reported on seven occasions in five participants during the control period and on no occasion during the bionic pancreas period (p=0·063). INTERPRETATION: The improved mean glycaemia and reduced hypoglycaemia with the bionic pancreas relative to insulin pump therapy in preadolescent children with type 1 diabetes in a diabetescamp setting is a promising finding. Studies of a longer duration during which children use the bionic pancreas during their normal routines at home and school should be done to investigate the potential for use of the bionic pancreas in real-world settings. FUNDING: The Leona M and Harry B Helmsley Charitable Trust and the US National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
Authors: David M Nathan; Patricia A Cleary; Jye-Yu C Backlund; Saul M Genuth; John M Lachin; Trevor J Orchard; Philip Raskin; Bernard Zinman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-12-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Firas H El-Khatib; Steven J Russell; David M Nathan; Robert G Sutherlin; Edward R Damiano Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2010-04-14 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Roy W Beck; William V Tamborlane; Richard M Bergenstal; Kellee M Miller; Stephanie N DuBose; Callyn A Hall Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2012-09-20 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Ruth S Weinstock; Dongyuan Xing; David M Maahs; Aaron Michels; Michael R Rickels; Anne L Peters; Richard M Bergenstal; Breanne Harris; Stephanie N Dubose; Kellee M Miller; Roy W Beck Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: David M Nathan; Judith Kuenen; Rikke Borg; Hui Zheng; David Schoenfeld; Robert J Heine Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-06-07 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Steven J Russell; Firas H El-Khatib; David M Nathan; Kendra L Magyar; John Jiang; Edward R Damiano Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jamie R Wood; Kellee M Miller; David M Maahs; Roy W Beck; Linda A DiMeglio; Ingrid M Libman; Maryanne Quinn; William V Tamborlane; Stephanie E Woerner Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-01-22 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jordan S Sherwood; Rabab Z Jafri; Courtney A Balliro; Hui Zheng; Firas H El-Khatib; Edward R Damiano; Steven J Russell; Melissa S Putman Journal: J Cyst Fibros Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Gregory P Forlenza; Faye M Cameron; Trang T Ly; David Lam; Daniel P Howsmon; Nihat Baysal; Georgia Kulina; Laurel Messer; Paula Clinton; Camilla Levister; Stephen D Patek; Carol J Levy; R Paul Wadwa; David M Maahs; B Wayne Bequette; Bruce A Buckingham Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Laya Ekhlaspour; Gregory P Forlenza; Daniel Chernavvsky; David M Maahs; R Paul Wadwa; Mark D Deboer; Laurel H Messer; Marissa Town; Jennifer Pinnata; Geoff Kruse; Boris P Kovatchev; Bruce A Buckingham; Marc D Breton Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: Firas H El-Khatib; Courtney Balliro; Mallory A Hillard; Kendra L Magyar; Laya Ekhlaspour; Manasi Sinha; Debbie Mondesir; Aryan Esmaeili; Celia Hartigan; Michael J Thompson; Samir Malkani; J Paul Lock; David M Harlan; Paula Clinton; Eliana Frank; Darrell M Wilson; Daniel DeSalvo; Lisa Norlander; Trang Ly; Bruce A Buckingham; Jamie Diner; Milana Dezube; Laura A Young; April Goley; M Sue Kirkman; John B Buse; Hui Zheng; Rajendranath R Selagamsetty; Edward R Damiano; Steven J Russell Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 79.321