, Volume 79, Issue 10, pp 1089–1101 | Cite as

Artificial Pancreas: Current Progress and Future Outlook in the Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes

  • Rozana Ramli
  • Monika Reddy
  • Nick OliverEmail author
Review Article


Type 1 diabetes is characterised by insulin deficiency caused by autoimmune destruction of the pancreatic beta cells. The treatment of type 1 diabetes is exogenous insulin in the form of multiple daily injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Advances in diabetes technology have been exponential in the past few decades, culminating in studies to develop an automated artificial pancreas, also known as the closed-loop system. This has recently led to a commercially available, hybrid artificial pancreas in the USA and Europe. This review article aims to provide an overview of the rationale for an artificial pancreas system and an update of the current state of artificial pancreas development. We explore the different types of artificial pancreas systems being studied, including the use of adjunctive therapy, and the use of these systems in different groups of users. In addition, we discuss the potential psychosocial impact and the challenges and limitations of implementing artificial pancreas use into clinical practice.



Infrastructure support is provided by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the NIHR Imperial Clinical Research Facility. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Compliance with Ethical Standards


No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.

Conflict of interest

Rozana Ramli has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article. Monika Reddy has received research funding towards an investigator-initiated study from Dexcom, and has participated in advisory boards for Roche Diabetes. Nick Oliver has received research funding towards investigator-initiated studies from Dexcom, and has participated in advisory boards for Roche Diabetes, Dexcom and Medtronic Diabetes.


  1. 1.
    International Diabetes Federation. Diabetes facts and figures. 2017. Accessed 8 June 2019.
  2. 2.
    Nathan DM, Genuth S, Lachin J, Cleary P, Crofford O, Davis M, et al. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(14):977–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) Study Research Group. Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular outcomes in type 1 diabetes: the DCCT/EDIC study 30-year follow-up. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(5):686–93.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. Hypoglycemia in the diabetes control and complications trial. Diabetes. 1997;46(2):271–86.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cryer PE. Hypoglycaemia: pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pickup JC, Sutton AJ. Severe hypoglycaemia and glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes: meta-analysis of multiple daily insulin injections compared with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Diabet Med. 2008;25(7):765–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jeitler K, Horvath K, Berghold A, Gratzer TW, Neeser K, Pieber TR, et al. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily insulin injections in patients with diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetologia. 2008;51(6):941–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Group RS. Relative effectiveness of insulin pump treatment over multiple daily injections and structured education during flexible intensive insulin treatment for type 1 diabetes: cluster randomised trial (REPOSE). BMJ. 2017;356:j1285.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Facchinetti A. Continuous glucose monitoring sensors: past, present and future algorithmic challenges. Sensors (Basel). 2016;16:E2093.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bailey TS. Clinical implications of accuracy measurements of continuous glucose sensors. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(S2):S51–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kovatchev BP, Patek SD, Ortiz EA, Breton MD. Assessing sensor accuracy for non-adjunct use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17(3):177–86.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Avari P, Reddy M, Oliver N. Is it possible to constantly and accurately monitor blood sugar levels, in people with type 1 diabetes, with a discrete device (non-invasive or invasive)? Diabet Med. 2019. ahead of print).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Beers CA, DeVries JH, Kleijer SJ, Smits MM, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn PH, Kramer MH, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IN CONTROL): a randomised, open-label, crossover trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016;4(11):893–902.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Trevitt S, Simpson S, Wood A. Artificial pancreas device systems for the closed-loop control of type 1 diabetes: what systems are in development? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016;10(3):714–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    US Food and Drug Administration. Summary of safety and effectiveness data (SSED) of the Medtronic MiniMed 670G system. 2016. Accessed 8 June 2019.
  16. 16.
    Cobelli C, Renard E, Kovatchev B. Artificial pancreas: past, present, future. Diabetes. 2011;60(11):2672–82.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Doyle FJ 3rd, Huyett LM, Lee JB, Zisser HC, Dassau E. Closed-loop artificial pancreas systems: engineering the algorithms. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(5):1191–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bequette BW. Algorithms for a closed-loop artificial pancreas: the case for model predictive control. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(6):1632–43.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pinsker JE, Lee JB, Dassau E, Seborg DE, Bradley PK, Gondhalekar R, et al. Randomized crossover comparison of personalized MPC and PID control algorithms for the artificial pancreas. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(7):1135–42.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Steil GM, Panteleon AE, Rebrin K. Closed-loop insulin delivery: the path to physiological glucose control. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2004;56(2):125–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nimri R, Bratina N, Kordonouri O, Avbelj Stefanija M, Fath M, Biester T, et al. MD-Logic overnight type 1 diabetes control in home settings: a multicentre, multinational, single blind randomized trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017;19(4):553–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herrero P, Georgiou P, Oliver N, Johnston DG, Toumazou C. A bio-inspired glucose controller based on pancreatic beta-cell physiology. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6(3):606–16.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reddy M, Herrero P, Sharkawy ME, Pesl P, Jugnee N, Pavitt D, et al. Metabolic control with the bio-inspired artificial pancreas in adults with type 1 diabetes: a 24-hour randomized controlled crossover study. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;10(2):405–13.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bally L, Thabit H, Hovorka R. Glucose-responsive insulin delivery for type 1 diabetes: the artificial pancreas story. Int J Pharm. 2018;544(2):309–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Toffanin C, Visentin R, Messori M, Palma FD, Magni L, Cobelli C. Toward a run-to-run adaptive artificial pancreas: in silico results. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2018;65(3):479–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bergenstal RM, Klonoff DC, Garg SK, Bode BW, Meredith M, Slover RH, et al. Threshold-based insulin-pump interruption for reduction of hypoglycemia. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(3):224–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Forlenza GP, Li Z, Buckingham BA, Pinsker JE, Cengiz E, Wadwa RP, et al. Predictive low-glucose suspend reduces hypoglycemia in adults, adolescents, and children with type 1 diabetes in an at-home randomized crossover study: results of the PROLOG trial. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(10):2155–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Calhoun PM, Buckingham BA, Maahs DM, Hramiak I, Wilson DM, Aye T, et al. Efficacy of an overnight predictive low-glucose suspend system in relation to hypoglycemia risk factors in youth and adults with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016;10(6):1216–21.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Abraham MB, Nicholas JA, Smith GJ, Fairchild JM, King BR, Ambler GR, et al. Reduction in hypoglycemia with the predictive low-glucose management system: a long-term randomized controlled trial in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(2):303–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dai X, Luo ZC, Zhai L, Zhao WP, Huang F. Artificial pancreas as an effective and safe alternative in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Ther. 2018;9(3):1269–77.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bekiari E, Kitsios K, Thabit H, Tauschmann M, Athanasiadou E, Karagiannis T, et al. Artificial pancreas treatment for outpatients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018;361:k1310.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Karageorgiou V, Papaioannou TG, Bellos I, Alexandraki K, Tentolouris N, Stefanadis C, et al. Effectiveness of artificial pancreas in the non-adult population: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Metabolism. 2019;90:20–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Forlenza GP, Pinhas-Hamiel O, Liljenquist DR, Shulman DI, Bailey TS, Bode BW, et al. Safety evaluation of the MiniMed 670G system in children 7–13 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(1):11–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stone JY, Haviland N, Bailey TS. Review of a commercially available hybrid closed-loop insulin-delivery system in the treatment of type 1 diabetes. Ther Deliv. 2018;9(2):77–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    El-Khatib FH, Balliro C, Hillard MA, Magyar KL, Ekhlaspour L, Sinha M, et al. Home use of a bihormonal bionic pancreas versus insulin pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre randomised crossover trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10067):369–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Russell SJ, Hillard MA, Balliro C, Magyar KL, Selagamsetty R, Sinha M, et al. Day and night glycaemic control with a bionic pancreas versus conventional insulin pump therapy in preadolescent children with type 1 diabetes: a randomised crossover trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016;4(3):233–43.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Haidar A, Legault L, Matteau-Pelletier L, Messier V, Dallaire M, Ladouceur M, et al. Outpatient overnight glucose control with dual-hormone artificial pancreas, single-hormone artificial pancreas, or conventional insulin pump therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015;3(8):595–604.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Castle JR, El Youssef J, Wilson LM, Reddy R, Resalat N, Branigan D, et al. Randomized outpatient trial of single- and dual-hormone closed-loop systems that adapt to exercise using wearable sensors. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(7):1471–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Renard E, Costalat G, Chevassus H, Bringer J. Closed loop insulin delivery using implanted insulin pumps and sensors in type 1 diabetic patients. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2006;74:S173–7.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Renard E, Place J, Cantwell M, Chevassus H, Palerm CC. Closed-loop insulin delivery using a subcutaneous glucose sensor and intraperitoneal insulin delivery: feasibility study testing a new model for the artificial pancreas. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(1):121–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dassau E, Renard E, Place J, Farret A, Pelletier MJ, Lee J, et al. Intraperitoneal insulin delivery provides superior glycaemic regulation to subcutaneous insulin delivery in model predictive control-based fully-automated artificial pancreas in patients with type 1 diabetes: a pilot study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017;19(12):1698–705.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Forlenza GP, Cameron FM, Ly TT, Lam D, Howsmon DP, Baysal N, et al. Fully closed-loop multiple model probabilistic predictive controller artificial pancreas performance in adolescents and adults in a supervised hotel setting. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(5):335–43.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hay DL, Chen S, Lutz TA, Parkes DG, Roth JD. Amylin: pharmacology, physiology, and clinical potential. Pharmacol Rev. 2015;67(3):564–600.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hieronymus L, Griffin S. Role of amylin in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2015;41(1 Suppl.):47s–56s.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Whitehouse F, Kruger DF, Fineman M, Shen L, Ruggles JA, Maggs DG, et al. A randomized study and open-label extension evaluating the long-term efficacy of pramlintide as an adjunct to insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(4):724–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Weinzimer SA, Sherr JL, Cengiz E, Kim G, Ruiz JL, Carria L, et al. Effect of pramlintide on prandial glycemic excursions during closed-loop control in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(10):1994–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sherr JL, Patel NS, Michaud CI, Palau-Collazo MM, Van Name MA, Tamborlane WV, et al. Mitigating meal-related glycemic excursions in an insulin-sparing manner during closed-loop insulin delivery: the beneficial effects of adjunctive pramlintide and liraglutide. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(7):1127–34.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shyangdan DS, Royle P, Clar C, Sharma P, Waugh N, Snaith A. Glucagon-like peptide analogues for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;10:CD006423.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Janzen KM, Steuber TD, Nisly SA. GLP-1 agonists in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Ann Pharmacother. 2016;50(8):656–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ilkowitz JT, Katikaneni R, Cantwell M, Ramchandani N, Heptulla RA. Adjuvant liraglutide and insulin versus insulin monotherapy in the closed-loop system in type 1 diabetes: a randomized open-labeled crossover design trial. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016;10(5):1108–14.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Casson IF, Clarke CA, Howard CV, McKendrick O, Pennycook S, Pharoah PO, et al. Outcomes of pregnancy in insulin dependent diabetic women: results of a five year population cohort study. BMJ. 1997;315(7103):275–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Garcia-Patterson A, Gich I, Amini SB, Catalano PM, de Leiva A, Corcoy R. Insulin requirements throughout pregnancy in women with type 1 diabetes mellitus: three changes of direction. Diabetologia. 2010;53(3):446–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ringholm L, Pedersen-Bjergaard U, Thorsteinsson B, Damm P, Mathiesen ER. Hypoglycaemia during pregnancy in women with Type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2012;29(5):558–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Stewart ZA, Wilinska ME, Hartnell S, Temple RC, Rayman G, Stanley KP, et al. Closed-loop insulin delivery during pregnancy in women with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(7):644–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Stewart ZA, Wilinska ME, Hartnell S, O’Neil LK, Rayman G, Scott EM, et al. Day-and-night closed-loop insulin delivery in a broad population of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled crossover trial. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(7):1391–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    van den Berghe G, Wouters P, Weekers F, Verwaest C, Bruyninckx F, Schetz M, et al. Intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(19):1359–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wiener RS, Wiener DC, Larson RJ. Benefits and risks of tight glucose control in critically ill adults: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(8):933–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yatabe T, Yamazaki R, Kitagawa H, Okabayashi T, Yamashita K, Hanazaki K, et al. The evaluation of the ability of closed-loop glycemic control device to maintain the blood glucose concentration in intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(3):575–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Salinas PD, Mendez CE. Glucose management technologies for the critically ill. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019. Scholar
  60. 60.
    Leelarathna L, English SW, Thabit H, Caldwell K, Allen JM, Kumareswaran K, et al. Feasibility of fully automated closed-loop glucose control using continuous subcutaneous glucose measurements in critical illness: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care. 2013;17(4):R159.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Thabit H, Hartnell S, Allen JM, Lake A, Wilinska ME, Ruan Y, et al. Closed-loop insulin delivery in inpatients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised, parallel-group trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(2):117–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kumareswaran K, Thabit H, Leelarathna L, Caldwell K, Elleri D, Allen JM, et al. Feasibility of closed-loop insulin delivery in type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled study. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(5):1198–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bally L, Thabit H, Hartnell S, Andereggen E, Ruan Y, Wilinska ME, et al. Closed-loop insulin delivery for glycemic control in noncritical care. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(6):547–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Young-Hyman D, de Groot M, Hill-Briggs F, Gonzalez JS, Hood K, Peyrot M. Psychosocial care for people with diabetes: a position statement of the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(12):2126–40.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Franklin V. Influences on technology use and efficacy in type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016;10(3):647–55.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Farrington C. Psychosocial impacts of hybrid closed-loop systems in the management of diabetes: a review. Diabet Med. 2018;35(4):436–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Patton SR, Clements MA. Psychological reactions associated with continuous glucose monitoring in youth. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016;10(3):656–61.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    van Bon AC, Kohinor MJ, Hoekstra JB, von Basum G, deVries JH. Patients’ perception and future acceptance of an artificial pancreas. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4(3):596–602.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Barnard KD, Wysocki T, Allen JM, Elleri D, Thabit H, Leelarathna L, et al. Closing the loop overnight at home setting: psychosocial impact for adolescents with type 1 diabetes and their parents. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2014;2(1):e000025.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Barnard KD, Wysocki T, Thabit H, Evans ML, Amiel S, Heller S, et al. Psychosocial aspects of closed- and open-loop insulin delivery: closing the loop in adults with type 1 diabetes in the home setting. Diabet Med. 2015;32(5):601–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Christiansen SC, Fougner AL, Stavdahl O, Kolle K, Ellingsen R, Carlsen SM. A review of the current challenges associated with the development of an artificial pancreas by a double subcutaneous approach. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8(3):489–506.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Basu A, Dube S, Veettil S, Slama M, Kudva YC, Peyser T, et al. Time lag of glucose from intravascular to interstitial compartment in type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;9(1):63–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Home PD. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rapid-acting insulin analogues and their clinical consequences. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2012;14(9):780–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Akturk HK, Rewers A, Joseph H, Schneider N, Garg SK. Possible ways to improve postprandial glucose control in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(S2):S224–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Heise T, Pieber TR, Danne T, Erichsen L, Haahr H. A pooled analysis of clinical pharmacology trials investigating the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of fast-acting insulin aspart in adults with type 1 diabetes. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2017;56(5):551–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Quintal A, Messier V, Rabasa-Lhoret R, Racine E. A critical review and analysis of ethical issues associated with the artificial pancreas. Diabetes Metab. 2019;45(1):1–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    de Bock M, Dart J, Hancock M, Smith G, Davis EA, Jones TW. Performance of Medtronic hybrid closed-loop iterations: results from a randomized trial in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(10):693–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Tauschmann M, Allen JM, Nagl K, Fritsch M, Yong J, Metcalfe E, et al. Home use of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in very young children: a multicenter, 3-week, randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(4):594–600.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Deshpande S, Pinsker JE, Zavitsanou S, Shi D, Tompot R, Church MM, et al. Design and clinical evaluation of the Interoperable Artificial Pancreas System (iAPS) Smartphone App: interoperable components with modular design for progressive artificial pancreas research and development. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(1):35–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Tauschmann M, Thabit H, Bally L, Allen JM, Hartnell S, Wilinska ME, et al. Closed-loop insulin delivery in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, 12-week randomised trial. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1321–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Benhamou PY, Huneker E, Franc S, Doron M, Charpentier G. Customization of home closed-loop insulin delivery in adult patients with type 1 diabetes, assisted with structured remote monitoring: the pilot WP7 Diabeloop study. Acta Diabetol. 2018;55(6):549–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Biester T, Nir J, Remus K, Farfel A, Muller I, Biester S, et al. DREAM5: an open-label, randomized, cross-over study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of day and night closed-loop control by comparing the MD-Logic automated insulin delivery system to sensor augmented pump therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes at home. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018. ahead of print).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Bally L, Thabit H, Kojzar H, Mader JK, Qerimi-Hyseni J, Hartnell S, et al. Day-and-night glycaemic control with closed-loop insulin delivery versus conventional insulin pump therapy in free-living adults with well controlled type 1 diabetes: an open-label, randomised, crossover study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(4):261–70.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Forlenza GP, Deshpande S, Ly TT, Howsmon DP, Cameron F, Baysal N, et al. Application of zone model predictive control artificial pancreas during extended use of infusion set and sensor: a randomized crossover-controlled home-use trial. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(8):1096–102.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    DeBoer MD, Breton MD, Wakeman C, Schertz EM, Emory EG, Robic JL, et al. Performance of an artificial pancreas system for young children with type 1 diabetes. DiabetesTechnol Ther. 2017;19(5):293–8.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Garg SK, Weinzimer SA, Tamborlane WV, Buckingham BA, Bode BW, Bailey TS, et al. Glucose outcomes with the in-home use of a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(3):155–63.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Haidar A, Messier V, Legault L, Ladouceur M, Rabasa-Lhoret R. Outpatient 60-hour day-and-night glucose control with dual-hormone artificial pancreas, single-hormone artificial pancreas, or sensor-augmented pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes: an open-label, randomised, crossover, controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017;19(5):713–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Tauschmann M, Allen JM, Wilinska ME, Thabit H, Stewart Z, Cheng P, et al. Day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a free-living, randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(7):1168–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Tauschmann M, Allen JM, Wilinska ME, Thabit H, Acerini CL, Dunger DB, et al. Home use of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in suboptimally controlled adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a 3-week, free-living, randomized crossover trial. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(11):2019–25.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Renard E, Farret A, Kropff J, Bruttomesso D, Messori M, Place J, et al. Day-and-night closed-loop glucose control in patients with type 1 diabetes under free-living conditions: results of a single-arm 1-month experience compared with a previously reported feasibility study of evening and night at home. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(7):1151–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Faculty of MedicineImperial CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations