Safety, efficacy and glucose turnover of reduced prandial boluses during closed-loop therapy in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial

Aims To evaluate safety, efficacy and glucose turnover during closed‐loop with meal announcement using reduced prandial insulin boluses in adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods We conducted a randomized crossover study comparing closed‐loop therapy with standard prandial insulin boluses ve...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inDiabetes, obesity & metabolism Vol. 17; no. 12; pp. 1173 - 1179
Main Authors Elleri, D., Biagioni, M., Allen, J. M., Kumareswaran, K., Leelarathna, L., Caldwell, K., Nodale, M., Wilinska, M. E., Haidar, A., Calhoun, P., Kollman, C., Jackson, N. C., Umpleby, A. M., Acerini, C. L., Dunger, D. B., Hovorka, R.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.12.2015
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Aims To evaluate safety, efficacy and glucose turnover during closed‐loop with meal announcement using reduced prandial insulin boluses in adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods We conducted a randomized crossover study comparing closed‐loop therapy with standard prandial insulin boluses versus closed‐loop therapy with prandial boluses reduced by 25%. Eight adolescents with T1D [3 males; mean (standard deviation) age 15.9 (1.5) years, glycated haemoglobin 74 (17) mmol/mol; median (interquartile range) total daily dose 0.9 (0.7, 1.1) IU/kg/day] were studied on two 36‐h‐long visits. In random order, subjects received closed‐loop therapy with either standard or reduced insulin boluses administered with main meals (50–80 g carbohydrates) but not with snacks (15–30 g carbohydrates). Stable‐label tracer dilution methodology measured total glucose appearance (Ra_total) and glucose disposal (Rd). Results The median (interquartile range) time spent in target (3.9–10 mmol/l) was similar between the two interventions [74 (66, 84)% vs 80 (65, 96)%; p = 0.87] as was time spent above 10 mmol/l [21.8 (16.3, 33.5)% vs 18.0 (4.1, 34.2)%; p = 0.87] and below 3.9 mmol/l [0 (0, 1.5)% vs 0 (0, 1.8)%; p = 0.88]. Mean plasma glucose was identical during the two interventions [8.4 (0.9) mmol/l; p = 0.98]. Hypoglycaemia occurred once 1.5 h post‐meal during closed‐loop therapy with standard bolus. Overall insulin delivery was lower with reduced prandial boluses [61.9 (55.2, 75.0) vs 72.5 (63.6, 80.3) IU; p = 0.01] and resulted in lower mean plasma insulin concentration [186 (171, 260) vs 252 (198, 336) pmol/l; p = 0.002]. Lower plasma insulin was also documented overnight [160 (136, 192) vs 191 (133, 252) pmol/l; p = 0.01, pooled nights]. Ra_total was similar [26.3 (21.9, 28.0) vs 25.4 (21.0, 29.2) µmol/kg/min; p = 0.19] during the two interventions as was Rd [25.8 (21.0, 26.9) vs 25.2 (21.2, 28.8) µmol/kg/min; p = 0.46]. Conclusions A 25% reduction in prandial boluses during closed‐loop therapy maintains similar glucose control in adolescents with T1D whilst lowering overall plasma insulin levels. It remains unclear whether closed‐loop therapy with a 25% reduction in prandial boluses would prevent postprandial hypoglycaemia.
Bibliography:Investigator-Initiated Study Program of Animas Corporation
istex:9C3ECE1672B23D7A81A0647B008B6E2259AD40E8
ark:/67375/WNG-T6PPZC9H-B
US National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases - No. 1R01DK085621
NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre
Diabetes UK
Figure S1. Flow chart of study participants. Table S1. Variable administration of glucose tracer [6,6-2H2]glucose during the study. Table S2. Glucose turnover data overnight. Table S3. Study outcomes based on sensor glucose levels. Table S4. Study outcomes during the day-time and night-time based on plasma glucose.
Wellcome Strategic Award - No. 100574/Z/12/Z
JDRF
ArticleID:DOM12549
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
ObjectType-News-3
content type line 23
ISSN:1462-8902
1463-1326
DOI:10.1111/dom.12549