Advertisement

Current Pediatrics Reports

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 170–176 | Cite as

Technology and Type 1 Diabetes: Closed-Loop Therapies

  • Trang T. Ly
  • Bruce A. Buckingham
Endocrine (M Craig, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Endocrine

Abstract

The concept of a closed-loop, automated insulin delivery system, with continuous glucose sensing and insulin delivery informed by a control algorithm without patient intervention, offers the potential to decrease the burden of diabetes management and modify the significant glycemic excursions associated with conventional therapy. Closed-loop technology represents a change in the treatment paradigm for diabetes as the transition is made from primarily self-management behaviors to automated insulin therapy, potentially relieving the burden and guilt of suboptimal glucose control. The advances in this field have been rapid, and clinical trials are currently underway worldwide testing several systems in various stages of development. We have moved rapidly from inpatient research centers to supervised outpatient settings such as diabetes camps, hotels, and now to the home environment with and without remote monitoring. Recent studies and the potential impact on the care of children with type 1 diabetes are presented in this report.

Keywords

Closed-loop Continuous glucose monitoring Artificial pancreas Type 1 diabetes DIAS Bionic pancreas 

Notes

Disclosure

Trang T. Ly has received speaker honorarium from Medtronic Diabetes. Bruce A. Buckingham has a patent pending and has received payment for board membership from Animas, BD, and Convatec.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Wood JR, Miller KM, Maahs DM, et al. Most youth with type 1 diabetes in the T1D exchange Clinic Registry do not meet American Diabetes Association or International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes Clinical Guidelines. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:2035–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cengiz E, Xing D, Wong JC, et al. Severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis among youth with type 1 diabetes in the T1D Exchange clinic registry. Pediatr Diabetes. 2013;14:447–54.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Campbell MS, Schatz DA, Chen V, et al. A contrast between children and adolescents with excellent and poor control: the T1D exchange clinic registry experience. Pediatr Diabetes. 2014;15:110–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rachmiel M, Landau Z, Boaz M, et al. The use of continuous glucose monitoring systems in a pediatric population with type 1 diabetes mellitus in real-life settings: the AWeSoMe Study Group experience. Acta Diabetol. 2014;52:323–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group, Tamborlane WV, Beck RW, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1464–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pickup JC, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ. Glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes during real time continuous glucose monitoring compared with self monitoring of blood glucose: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials using individual patient data. BMJ. 2011;343:d3805.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. Prolonged nocturnal hypoglycemia is common during 12 months of continuous glucose monitoring in children and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:1004–8.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buckingham B, Block J, Burdick J, et al. Response to nocturnal alarms using a real-time glucose sensor. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005;7:440–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ly TT, Jones TW, Griffiths A, et al. Hypoglycemia does not change the threshold for arousal from sleep in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;14:101–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matuleviciene V, Joseph JI, Andelin M, et al. A clinical trial of the accuracy and treatment experience of the Dexcom G4 Sensor (Dexcom G4 System) and Enlite Sensor (Guardian REAL-Time System) tested simultaneously in ambulatory patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2014;16:759–67.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ly TT, Nicholas JA, Retterath A, Davis EA, Jones TW. Analysis of glucose responses to automated insulin suspension with sensor-augmented pump therapy. Diabetes Care. 2012;35:1462–5.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    •• Ly TT, Nicholas JA, Retterath A, Lim EM, Davis EA, Jones TW. Effect of sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy and automated insulin suspension vs standard insulin pump therapy on hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310:1240–7. This report showed a reduction in severe hypoglycemia in patients with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia who used sensor-augmented pump with automated insulin suspension. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buckingham B, Chase HP, Dassau E, et al. Prevention of nocturnal hypoglycemia using predictive alarm algorithms and insulin pump suspension. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:1013–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maahs DM, Calhoun P, Buckingham BA, et al. A randomized trial of a home system to reduce nocturnal hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2014;37:1885–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hovorka R, Allen JM, Elleri D, et al. Manual closed-loop insulin delivery in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a phase 2 randomised crossover trial. Lancet. 2010;375:743–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weinzimer SA, Steil GM, Swan KL, Dziura J, Kurtz N, Tamborlane WV. Fully automated closed-loop insulin delivery versus semiautomated hybrid control in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes using an artificial pancreas. Diabetes Care. 2008;31:934–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kovatchev B, Cobelli C, Renard E, et al. Multinational study of subcutaneous model-predictive closed-loop control in type 1 diabetes mellitus: summary of the results. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4:1374–81.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hovorka R, Kumareswaran K, Harris J, et al. Overnight closed loop insulin delivery (artificial pancreas) in adults with type 1 diabetes: crossover randomised controlled studies. BMJ. 2011;342:d1855.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Grady MJ, Retterath AR, Keenan DB, et al. The use of an automated, portable glucose control system for overnight glucose control in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2012;35:2182–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kovatchev BP, Renard E, Cobelli C, et al. Feasibility of outpatient fully integrated closed-loop control: first studies of wearable artificial pancreas. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:1851–8.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Breton M, Farret A, Bruttomesso D, et al. Fully integrated artificial pancreas in type 1 diabetes: modular closed-loop glucose control maintains near normoglycemia. Diabetes. 2012;61:2230–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grosman B, Dassau E, Zisser HC, Jovanovic L, Doyle FJ 3rd. Zone model predictive control: a strategy to minimize hyper- and hypoglycemic events. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4:961–75.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davis EA, Keating B, Byrne GC, Russell M, Jones TW. Hypoglycemia: incidence and clinical predictors in a large population-based sample of children and adolescents with IDDM. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:22–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ly TT, Breton MD, Keith-Hynes P, et al. Overnight glucose control with an automated, unified safety system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes at diabetes camp. Diabetes Care. 2014;37:2310–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Swan KL, Weinzimer SA, Dziura JD, et al. Effect of puberty on the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of insulin pump therapy in youth with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2008;31:44–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    • Ly TT, Breton MD, Keith-Hynes P, et al. Overnight glucose control with an automated, unified safety system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes at diabetes camp. Diabetes Care. 2014;37:2310–6. This report describes overnight closed-loop control using the DIAS system with the Unified Safety System in adolescents with type 1 diabetes in a diabetes camp setting. Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Place J, Robert A, Ben Brahim N, et al. DiAs web monitoring: a real-time remote monitoring system designed for artificial pancreas outpatient trials. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7:9.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Elleri D, Allen JM, Kumareswaran K, et al. Closed-loop basal insulin delivery over 36 hours in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:838–44.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Murphy HR, Kumareswaran K, Elleri D, et al. Safety and efficacy of 24-h closed-loop insulin delivery in well-controlled pregnant women with type 1 diabetes: a randomized crossover case series. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:2527–9.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    •• Thabit H, Lubina-Solomon A, Stadler M, et al. Home use of closed-loop insulin delivery for overnight glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a 4-week, multicentre, randomised crossover study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014;2:701–9. This paper describes overnight closed-loop control with the Florence automated system with model predictive control algorithm in 24 adults for 4 weeks at home. Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    •• Hovorka R, Elleri D, Thabit H, et al. Overnight closed-loop insulin delivery in young people with type 1 diabetes: a free-living, randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care. 2014;37:1204–11. This paper describes overnight closed-loop control with the Florence automated system with model predictive control algorithm in 16 adolescents for 3 weeks at home. Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    • Nimri R, Muller I, Atlas E, et al. MD-Logic Overnight control for 6 weeks of home use in patients with type 1 diabetes: randomized crossover trial. Diabetes Care. 2014;37:3025–32. Describes use of the MD‐Logic system in overnight closed‐loop control in 24 patients for 6 weeks at home. Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Elleri D, Allen JM, Kumareswaran K, et al. Closed-loop basal insulin delivery over 36 hours in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care. 2012;36:838–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    • Kovatchev BP, Renard E, Cobelli C, et al. Safety of outpatient closed-loop control: first randomized crossover trials of a wearable artificial pancreas. Diabetes Care. 2014;37:1789–96. Describes the use of the DIAS system for day and night closed‐loop control in 18 adults for 40 hours in outpatient setting. Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    •• Leelarathna L, Dellweg S, Mader JK, et al. Day and night home closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes: three-center randomized crossover study. Diabetes Care 2014;37:1931–7. Report from the AP@home consortium of day and night closed‐loop control with the Cambridge algorithm for 7 days at home in 17 adults. Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    • Russell SJ, El-Khatib FH, Sinha M, et al. Outpatient glycemic control with a bionic pancreas in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:313–25. Closed-loop control using a bihormonal approach infusing both insulin and glucagon in both adults (n = 20) and adolescents (n = 32) with type 1 diabetes over 5 days. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, Department of PediatricsStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  2. 2.School of Paediatrics and Child HealthThe University of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations