20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Safety and Glycemic Outcomes During the MiniMed™ Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Pivotal Trial in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

      research-article
      , MD 1 , , , MD, PhD 2 , , MD 3 , , MD 4 , , MD 5 , , MD 6 , , MD 7 , , MD, FACE 8 , , MD 9 , , MD 10 , , MD 11 , , MD 12 , , MD 4 , , MD 13 , , MD 14 , , PhD 15 , , PhD 15 , , MSc 15 , , PhD 15 , , PhD 15 , , PhD, MBA 15 , , PhD 15 , , MD 15 , , MD 15 , , MD 15
      (Collab)
      Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
      Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers
      Type 1 diabetes, A1C, Time-in-range, Advanced hybrid closed loop, Adolescents, Adults

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction:

          This trial assessed safety and effectiveness of an advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system with automated basal (Auto Basal) and automated bolus correction (Auto Correction) in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

          Materials and Methods:

          This multicenter single-arm study involved an intent-to-treat population of 157 individuals (39 adolescents aged 14–21 years and 118 adults aged ≥22–75 years) with T1D. Study participants used the MiniMed™ AHCL system during a baseline run-in period in which sensor-augmented pump +/− predictive low glucose management or Auto Basal was enabled for ∼14 days. Thereafter, Auto Basal and Auto Correction were enabled for a study phase (∼90 days), with glucose target set to 100 or 120 mg/dL for ∼45 days, followed by the other target for ∼45 days. Study endpoints included safety events and change in mean A1C, time in range (TIR, 70–180 mg/dL) and time below range (TBR, <70 mg/dL). Run-in and study phase values were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test or paired t-test.

          Results:

          Overall group time spent in closed loop averaged 94.9% ± 5.4% and involved only 1.2 ± 0.8 exits per week. Compared with run-in, AHCL reduced A1C from 7.5% ± 0.8% to 7.0% ± 0.5% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, n = 155), TIR increased from 68.8% ± 10.5% to 74.5% ± 6.9% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test), and TBR reduced from 3.3% ± 2.9% to 2.3% ± 1.7% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Similar benefits to glycemia were observed for each age group and were more pronounced for the nighttime (12 AM–6 AM). The 100 mg/dL target increased TIR to 75.4% ( n = 155), which was further optimized at a lower active insulin time (AIT) setting (i.e., 2 h), without increasing TBR. There were no severe hypoglycemic or diabetic ketoacidosis events during the study phase.

          Conclusions:

          These findings show that the MiniMed AHCL system is safe and allows for achievement of recommended glycemic targets in adolescents and adults with T1D. Adjustments in target and AIT settings may further optimize glycemia and improve user experience.

          Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03959423.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Effect of Intensive Treatment of Diabetes on the Development and Progression of Long-Term Complications in Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus

          Long-term microvascular and neurologic complications cause major morbidity and mortality in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). We examined whether intensive treatment with the goal of maintaining blood glucose concentrations close to the normal range could decrease the frequency and severity of these complications. A total of 1441 patients with IDDM--726 with no retinopathy at base line (the primary-prevention cohort) and 715 with mild retinopathy (the secondary-intervention cohort) were randomly assigned to intensive therapy administered either with an external insulin pump or by three or more daily insulin injections and guided by frequent blood glucose monitoring or to conventional therapy with one or two daily insulin injections. The patients were followed for a mean of 6.5 years, and the appearance and progression of retinopathy and other complications were assessed regularly. In the primary-prevention cohort, intensive therapy reduced the adjusted mean risk for the development of retinopathy by 76 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 62 to 85 percent), as compared with conventional therapy. In the secondary-intervention cohort, intensive therapy slowed the progression of retinopathy by 54 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 39 to 66 percent) and reduced the development of proliferative or severe nonproliferative retinopathy by 47 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 14 to 67 percent). In the two cohorts combined, intensive therapy reduced the occurrence of microalbuminuria (urinary albumin excretion of > or = 40 mg per 24 hours) by 39 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 21 to 52 percent), that of albuminuria (urinary albumin excretion of > or = 300 mg per 24 hours) by 54 percent (95 percent confidence interval 19 to 74 percent), and that of clinical neuropathy by 60 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 38 to 74 percent). The chief adverse event associated with intensive therapy was a two-to-threefold increase in severe hypoglycemia. Intensive therapy effectively delays the onset and slows the progression of diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy in patients with IDDM.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range

            Improvements in sensor accuracy, greater convenience and ease of use, and expanding reimbursement have led to growing adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). However, successful utilization of CGM technology in routine clinical practice remains relatively low. This may be due in part to the lack of clear and agreed-upon glycemic targets that both diabetes teams and people with diabetes can work toward. Although unified recommendations for use of key CGM metrics have been established in three separate peer-reviewed articles, formal adoption by diabetes professional organizations and guidance in the practical application of these metrics in clinical practice have been lacking. In February 2019, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address this issue. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations for relevant aspects of CGM data utilization and reporting among the various diabetes populations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              State of Type 1 Diabetes Management and Outcomes from the T1D Exchange in 2016–2018

              To provide a snapshot of the profile of adults and youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the United States and assessment of longitudinal changes in T1D management and clinical outcomes in the T1D Exchange registry.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Diabetes Technol Ther
                Diabetes Technol Ther
                dia
                Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
                Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers (140 Huguenot Street, 3rd Floor New Rochelle, NY 10801 USA )
                1520-9156
                1557-8593
                March 2022
                14 March 2022
                14 March 2022
                : 24
                : 3
                : 178-189
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]International Diabetes Center, HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
                [ 2 ]Yale University School of Medicine Pediatric Endocrinology, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
                [ 3 ]University of South Florida Diabetes and Endocrinology, Tampa, Florida, USA.
                [ 4 ]Barbara Davis Center of Childhood Diabetes, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
                [ 5 ]Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology and Diabetes, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
                [ 6 ]Atlanta Diabetes Associates, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
                [ 7 ]Rocky Mountain Diabetes and Osteoporosis Center, Idaho Falls, Idaho, USA.
                [ 8 ]Rainier Clinical Research Center, Renton, Washington, USA.
                [ 9 ]SoCal Diabetes, Torrance, California, USA.
                [ 10 ]Diabetes and Glandular Disease Clinic, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
                [ 11 ]Arkansas Diabetes and Endocrinology Center, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.
                [ 12 ]Endocrine Research Solutions, Inc., Roswell, Georgia, USA.
                [ 13 ]Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, La Jolla, California, USA.
                [ 14 ]Diablo Clinical Research Center, Walnut Creek, California, USA.
                [ 15 ]Medtronic, Northridge, California, USA.
                Author notes

                Portions of data within the article have been published and/or previously presented in virtual format through the following scientific conferences: American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions, June 2020; European Association for the Study of Diabetes 56th Annual Meeting, September 2020; International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes 46th Annual Conference, October 2020; 20th Annual Diabetes Technology Meeting, November 2020; 14th International Conference on Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes, June 2021; and the American Diabetes Association 81st Scientific Sessions, June 2021.

                [*]Address correspondence to: Anders L. Carlson, MD, International Diabetes Center, HealthPartners Institute, 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard, Minneapolis, MN 55416, USA anders.l.carlson@ 123456healthpartners.com
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4597-4194
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3546-3385
                Article
                10.1089/dia.2021.0319
                10.1089/dia.2021.0319
                8971997
                34694909
                1c9e6d4b-83c0-4b91-b025-1184fc5413ab
                © Anders L. Carlson, et al., 2022; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

                This Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 3, References: 43, Pages: 12
                Categories
                Original Articles

                type 1 diabetes,a1c,time-in-range,advanced hybrid closed loop,adolescents,adults

                Comments

                Comment on this article