Sybil A McAuley1,2, Steven Trawley1,3, Sara Vogrin1, Glenn M Ward1,2, Spiros Fourlanos1,4, Charlotte A Grills1,2, Melissa H Lee1,2, Andisheh Mohammad Alipoor1,2, David N O'Neal1,2, Niamh A O'Regan5, Vijaya Sundararajan1,6, Peter G Colman1,4, Richard J MacIsaac1,2. 1. Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Department of Endocrinology & Diabetes, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Department of Psychology, Cairnmillar Institute, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 5. Department of Geriatric Medicine, Waterford Integrated Care for Older People, University Hospital Waterford, Waterford, Ireland. 6. Department of Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy among older adults with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This open-label, randomized (1:1), crossover trial compared 4 months of closed-loop versus sensor-augmented pump therapy. Eligible adults were aged ≥60 years, with type 1 diabetes (duration ≥10 years), using an insulin pump. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) time in range (TIR; 3.9-10.0 mmol/L). RESULTS: There were 30 participants (mean age 67 [SD 5] years), with median type 1 diabetes duration of 38 years (interquartile range [IQR] 20-47), randomized (n = 15 to each sequence); all completed the trial. The mean TIR was 75.2% (SD 6.3) during the closed-loop stage and 69.0% (9.1) during the sensor-augmented pump stage (difference of 6.2 percentage points [95% CI 4.4 to 8.0]; P < 0.0001). All prespecified CGM metrics favored closed loop over the sensor-augmented pump; benefits were greatest overnight. Closed loop reduced CGM time <3.9 mmol/L during 24 h/day by 0.5 percentage points (95% CI 0.3 to 1.1; P = 0.0005) and overnight by 0.8 percentage points (0.4 to 1.1; P < 0.0001) compared with sensor-augmented pump. There was no significant difference in HbA1c between closed-loop versus sensor-augmented pump stages (7.3% [IQR, 7.1-7.5] (56 mmol/mol [54-59]) vs. 7.5% [7.1-7.9] (59 mmol/mol [54-62]), respectively; P = 0.13). Three severe hypoglycemia events occurred during the closed-loop stage and two occurred during the sensor-augmented pump stage; no hypoglycemic events required hospitalization. One episode of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred during the sensor-augmented pump stage; no serious adverse events occurred during the closed-loop stage. CONCLUSIONS: Closed-loop therapy is an effective treatment option for older adults with long-duration type 1 diabetes, and no safety issues were identified. These older adults had higher TIR accompanied by less time below range during closed loop than during sensor-augmented pump therapy. Of particular clinical importance, closed loop reduced the time spent in hypoglycemic range overnight.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy among older adults with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This open-label, randomized (1:1), crossover trial compared 4 months of closed-loop versus sensor-augmented pump therapy. Eligible adults were aged ≥60 years, with type 1 diabetes (duration ≥10 years), using an insulin pump. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) time in range (TIR; 3.9-10.0 mmol/L). RESULTS: There were 30 participants (mean age 67 [SD 5] years), with median type 1 diabetes duration of 38 years (interquartile range [IQR] 20-47), randomized (n = 15 to each sequence); all completed the trial. The mean TIR was 75.2% (SD 6.3) during the closed-loop stage and 69.0% (9.1) during the sensor-augmented pump stage (difference of 6.2 percentage points [95% CI 4.4 to 8.0]; P < 0.0001). All prespecified CGM metrics favored closed loop over the sensor-augmented pump; benefits were greatest overnight. Closed loop reduced CGM time <3.9 mmol/L during 24 h/day by 0.5 percentage points (95% CI 0.3 to 1.1; P = 0.0005) and overnight by 0.8 percentage points (0.4 to 1.1; P < 0.0001) compared with sensor-augmented pump. There was no significant difference in HbA1c between closed-loop versus sensor-augmented pump stages (7.3% [IQR, 7.1-7.5] (56 mmol/mol [54-59]) vs. 7.5% [7.1-7.9] (59 mmol/mol [54-62]), respectively; P = 0.13). Three severe hypoglycemia events occurred during the closed-loop stage and two occurred during the sensor-augmented pump stage; no hypoglycemic events required hospitalization. One episode of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred during the sensor-augmented pump stage; no serious adverse events occurred during the closed-loop stage. CONCLUSIONS: Closed-loop therapy is an effective treatment option for older adults with long-duration type 1 diabetes, and no safety issues were identified. These older adults had higher TIR accompanied by less time below range during closed loop than during sensor-augmented pump therapy. Of particular clinical importance, closed loop reduced the time spent in hypoglycemic range overnight.
Authors: Kellee M Miller; Lauren G Kanapka; Michael R Rickels; Andrew J Ahmann; Grazia Aleppo; Lynn Ang; Anuj Bhargava; Bruce W Bode; Anders Carlson; Naomi S Chaytor; Gail Gannon; Robin Goland; Irl B Hirsch; Lisa Kiblinger; Davida Kruger; Yogish C Kudva; Carol J Levy; Janet B McGill; Grenye O'Malley; Anne L Peters; Louis H Philipson; Athena Philis-Tsimikas; Rodica Pop-Busui; Maamoun Salam; Viral N Shah; Michael J Thompson; Francesco Vendrame; Alandra Verdejo; Ruth S Weinstock; Laura Young; Richard Pratley Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 7.337