Fully Closed-Loop Glucose Control Compared With Insulin Pump Therapy With Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes and Suboptimal Glycemic Control: A Single-Center, Randomized, Crossover Study

Author:

Boughton Charlotte K.12ORCID,Hartnell Sara2,Lakshman Rama1,Nwokolo Munachiso1,Wilinska Malgorzata E.1,Ware Julia13,Allen Janet M.1,Evans Mark L.12,Hovorka Roman1

Affiliation:

1. 1Wellcome-MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, U.K.

2. 2Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Wolfson Diabetes and Endocrine Clinic, Cambridge, U.K.

3. 3Department of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE We evaluated the safety and efficacy of fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control compared with insulin pump therapy with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This single-center, randomized, crossover study enrolled 26 adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin pump therapy with suboptimal glycemic control (mean ± SD, age 41 ± 12 years, HbA1c 9.2 ± 1.1% [77 ± 12 mmol/mol]). Participants underwent two 8-week periods of unrestricted living to compare fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro (CamAPS HX system) with insulin pump therapy with CGM in random order. RESULTS In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time glucose was in range (primary end point 3.9–10.0 mmol/L) was higher during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD 50.0 ± 9.6% vs. 36.2 ± 12.2%, mean difference 13.2 percentage points [95% CI 9.5, 16.9], P < 0.001). Time with glucose >10.0 mmol/L and mean glucose were lower during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD time >10.0 mmol/L: 49.0 ± 9.9 vs. 62.9 ± 12.6%, mean difference −13.3 percentage points [95% CI −17.2, −9.5], P < 0.001; mean ± SD glucose 10.7 ± 1.1 vs. 12.0 ± 1.6 mmol/L, mean difference −1.2 mmol/L [95% CI −1.8, −0.7], P < 0.001). The proportion of time with glucose <3.9 mmol/L was similar between periods (median [interquartile range (IQR)] closed-loop 0.88% [0.51–1.55] vs. pump with CGM 0.64% [0.28–1.10], P = 0.102). Total daily insulin requirements did not differ (median [IQR] closed-loop 51.9 units/day [35.7–91.2] vs. pump with CGM 50.7 units/day [34.0–70.0], P = 0.704). No severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred. CONCLUSIONS Fully closed-loop insulin delivery with CamAPS HX improved glucose control compared with insulin pump therapy with CGM in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control.

Funder

National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre

Publisher

American Diabetes Association

Subject

Advanced and Specialized Nursing,Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism,Internal Medicine

Cited by 9 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3