Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec for Hyperglycemia Management in Noncritical Hospitalized Patients with Diabetes: An Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: To assess the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec administered in a basal-bolus regimen according to the GesTIO protocol in noncritical hospitalized patients with T1DM and T2DM. METHODS: Mean blood glucose levels (BG) and their standard deviations (SD) at admission vs. discharge were compared in 52 subjects (48.1% ≥75 years) managed through a basal-bolus scheme including degludec. The percentages of patients with BG at target (140-180 mg/dl) or below at discharge and the incidence rate (and the 95% confidence interval for it) of hypoglycemia were assessed. RESULTS: From admission to discharge, fasting BG decreased from 237 to 153 mg/dl (p < 0.0001) and SD dropped from 125 to 38 mg/dl (p < 0.0001); average BG decreased from 189 to 145 mg/dl (SD dropped from 57 to 32 mg/dl). At discharge, 28.9% had BG at target, while 50.0% had lower levels (average 119.0 ± 14.4 mg/dl). The incidence rate of hypoglycemia was 0.07 (0.05; 0.11) episodes per person-day; 1 out of 27 episodes occurred during the night. CONCLUSIONS: Degludec in hospitalized, mainly elderly patients is effective and minimizes glucose variability and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Diabetic pregnancy outcomes in mothers treated with basal insulin lispro protamine suspension or NPH insulin: a multicenter retrospective Italian study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to study the efficacy and safety of long-acting insulin analog insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) in diabetic pregnant women. METHODS: In a multicenter observational retrospective study, we evaluated pregnancy outcome in 119 women affected by type 1 diabetes and 814 with gestational diabetes (GDM) treated during pregnancy with ILPS, compared with a control group treated with neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH) insulin. RESULTS: Among type 1 diabetic patients, fasting blood glucose at the end of pregnancy was significantly lower in ILPS-treated than in NPH-treated patients. HbA1c levels across pregnancy did not differ between groups. Caesarean section and preterm delivery rates were significantly lower in the ILPS-women. Fetal outcomes were similar in the ILPS and NPH groups. Among GDM women, fasting blood glucose at the end of pregnancy was significantly lower in ILPS-treated than in NPH-treated patients. Duration of gestation was significantly longer, caesarian section and preterm delivery rates were lower in the ILPS-treated group. In addition, there were significantly fewer babies with an excessive ponderal index or neonatal hypoglycemic episodes in the ILPS group than in the NPH group. CONCLUSIONS: Association of ILPS with rapid-acting analogs in pregnancy is safe in terms of maternal and fetal outcomes.

Multicenter closed-loop insulin delivery study points to challenges for keeping blood glucose in a safe range by a control algorithm in adults and adolescents with type 1 diabetes from various sites.

BACKGROUND: The Control to Range Study was a multinational artificial pancreas study designed to assess the time spent in the hypo- and hyperglycemic ranges in adults and adolescents with type 1 diabetes while under closed-loop control. The controller attempted to keep the glucose ranges between 70 and 180 mg/dL. A set of prespecified metrics was used to measure safety. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied 53 individuals for approximately 22 h each during clinical research center admissions. Plasma glucose level was measured every 15-30 min (YSI clinical laboratory analyzer instrument [YSI, Inc., Yellow Springs, OH]). During the admission, subjects received three mixed meals (1 g of carbohydrate/kg of body weight; 100 g maximum) with meal announcement and automated insulin dosing by the controller. RESULTS: For adults, the mean of subjects' mean glucose levels was 159 mg/dL, and mean percentage of values 71-180 mg/dL was 66% overall (59% daytime and 82% overnight). For adolescents, the mean of subjects' mean glucose levels was 166 mg/dL, and mean percentage of values in range was 62% overall (53% daytime and 82% overnight). Whereas prespecified criteria for safety were satisfied by both groups, they were met at the individual level in adults only for combined daytime/nighttime and for isolated nighttime. Two adults and six adolescents failed to meet the daytime criterion, largely because of postmeal hyperglycemia, and another adolescent failed to meet the nighttime criterion. CONCLUSIONS: The control-to-range system performed as expected: faring better overnight than during the day and performing with variability between patients even after individualization based on patients' prior settings. The system had difficulty preventing postmeal excursions above target range.

First use of model predictive control in outpatient wearable artificial pancreas.

OBJECTIVE: Inpatient studies suggest that model predictive control (MPC) is one of the most promising algorithms for artificial pancreas (AP). So far, outpatient trials have used hypo/hyperglycemia-mitigation or medical-expert systems. In this study, we report the first wearable AP outpatient study based on MPC and investigate specifically its ability to control postprandial glucose, one of the major challenges in glucose control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A new modular MPC algorithm has been designed focusing on meal control. Six type 1 diabetes mellitus patients underwent 42-h experiments: sensor-augmented pump therapy in the first 14 h (open-loop) and closed-loop in the remaining 28 h. RESULTS: MPC showed satisfactory dinner control versus open-loop: time-in-target (70-180 mg/dL) 94.83 vs. 68.2% and time-in-hypo 1.25 vs. 11.9%. Overnight control was also satisfactory: time-in-target 89.4 vs. 85.0% and time-in-hypo: 0.00 vs. 8.19%. CONCLUSIONS: This outpatient study confirms inpatient evidence of suitability of MPC-based strategies for AP. These encouraging results pave the way to randomized crossover outpatient studies.

Day and night closed-loop control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a comparison of two closed-loop algorithms driving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus patient self-management.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two validated closed-loop (CL) algorithms versus patient self-control with CSII in terms of glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was a multicenter, randomized, three-way crossover, open-label trial in 48 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus for at least 6 months, treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Blood glucose was controlled for 23 h by the algorithm of the Universities of Pavia and Padova with a Safety Supervision Module developed at the Universities of Virginia and California at Santa Barbara (international artificial pancreas [iAP]), by the algorithm of University of Cambridge (CAM), or by patients themselves in open loop (OL) during three hospital admissions including meals and exercise. The main analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Main outcome measures included time spent in target (glucose levels between 3.9 and 8.0 mmol/L or between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L after meals). RESULTS: Time spent in the target range was similar in CL and OL: 62.6% for OL, 59.2% for iAP, and 58.3% for CAM. While mean glucose level was significantly lower in OL (7.19, 8.15, and 8.26 mmol/L, respectively) (overall P = 0.001), percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) was almost threefold reduced during CL (6.4%, 2.1%, and 2.0%) (overall P = 0.001) with less time ≤2.8 mmol/L (overall P = 0.038). There were no significant differences in outcomes between algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: Both CAM and iAP algorithms provide safe glycemic control.

Feasibility of outpatient fully integrated closed-loop control: first studies of wearable artificial pancreas.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of a wearable artificial pancreas system, the Diabetes Assistant (DiAs), which uses a smart phone as a closed-loop control platform. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twenty patients with type 1 diabetes were enrolled at the Universities of Padova, Montpellier, and Virginia and at Sansum Diabetes Research Institute. Each trial continued for 42 h. The United States studies were conducted entirely in outpatient setting (e.g., hotel or guest house); studies in Italy and France were hybrid hospital-hotel admissions. A continuous glucose monitoring/pump system (Dexcom Seven Plus/Omnipod) was placed on the subject and was connected to DiAs. The patient operated the system via the DiAs user interface in open-loop mode (first 14 h of study), switching to closed-loop for the remaining 28 h. Study personnel monitored remotely via 3G or WiFi connection to DiAs and were available on site for assistance. RESULTS: The total duration of proper system communication functioning was 807.5 h (274 h in open-loop and 533.5 h in closed-loop), which represented 97.7% of the total possible time from admission to discharge. This exceeded the predetermined primary end point of 80% system functionality. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that a contemporary smart phone is capable of running outpatient closed-loop control and introduced a prototype system (DiAs) for further investigation. Following this proof of concept, future steps should include equipping insulin pumps and sensors with wireless capabilities, as well as studies focusing on control efficacy and patient-oriented clinical outcomes.

Accuracy and reliability of continuous glucose monitoring systems: a head-to-head comparison.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the accuracy and reliability of three continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied the Animas® (West Chester, PA) Vibe™ with Dexcom® (San Diego, CA) G4™ version A sensor (G4A), the Abbott Diabetes Care (Alameda, CA) Freestyle® Navigator I (NAV), and the Medtronic (Northridge, CA) Paradigm® with Enlite™ sensor (ENL) in 20 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. All systems were investigated both in a clinical research center (CRC) and at home. In the CRC, patients received a meal with a delayed and increased insulin dose to induce a postprandial glucose peak and nadir. Hereafter, randomization determined which two of the three systems would be worn at home until the end of functioning, attempting use beyond manufacturer-specified lifetime. Patients performed at least five reference finger sticks per day. An analysis of variance was performed on all data points ≥15 min apart. RESULTS: Overall average mean absolute relative difference (MARD) (SD) measured at the CRC was 16.5% (14.3%) for NAV and 16.4% (15.6%) for ENL, outperforming G4A at 20.5% (18.2%) (P<0.001). Overall MARD when assessed at home was 14.5% (16.7%) for NAV and 16.5 (18.8%) for G4A, outperforming ENL at 18.9% (23.6%) (P=0.006). Median time until end of functioning was similar: 10.0 (1.0) days for G4A, 8.0 (3.5) days for NAV, and 8.0 (1.5) days for ENL (P=0.119). CONCLUSIONS: In the CRC, G4A was less accurate than NAV and ENL sensors, which seemed comparable. However, at home, ENL was less accurate than NAV and G4A. Moreover, CGM systems often show sufficient accuracy to be used beyond manufacturer-specified lifetime.