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

Anders L Carlson, Jennifer L Sherr, Dorothy I Shulman, Satish K Garg, Rodica Pop-Busui, Bruce W Bode, David R Lilenquist, Ron L Brazg, Kevin B Kaiserman, Mark S Kipnes, James R Thrasher, John H Chip Reed, Robert H Slover, Athena Philis-Tsimikas, Mark Christiansen, Benyamin Grosman, Anirban Roy, Melissa Vella, Richard A M Jonkers, Xiaoxiao Chen, John Shin, Toni L Cordero, Scott W Lee, Andrew S Rhinehart, Robert A Vigersky, Anders L Carlson, Jennifer L Sherr, Dorothy I Shulman, Satish K Garg, Rodica Pop-Busui, Bruce W Bode, David R Lilenquist, Ron L Brazg, Kevin B Kaiserman, Mark S Kipnes, James R Thrasher, John H Chip Reed, Robert H Slover, Athena Philis-Tsimikas, Mark Christiansen, Benyamin Grosman, Anirban Roy, Melissa Vella, Richard A M Jonkers, Xiaoxiao Chen, John Shin, Toni L Cordero, Scott W Lee, Andrew S Rhinehart, Robert A Vigersky

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.

Keywords: A1C; Adolescents; Adults; Advanced hybrid closed loop; Time-in-range; Type 1 diabetes.

Figures

FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.
Study flow. The study schedule included a run-in period (Visits 1–4) with SAP with or without predictive low glucose management or automated basal (Auto Basal) use for ∼14 days, and a study phase (Visits 5–18) with Auto Basal and automated bolus correction (Auto Correction) enabled for ∼90 days. A glucose target of 100 or 120 mg/dL was set during the first 45 ± 5 days of the study phase, which was followed by a switch to the other glucose target for the remaining 45 ± 5 days. AHCL, advanced hybrid closed loop; PLGM, predictive low glucose management; SAP, sensor-augmented/integrated pump.
FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.
Participant disposition.
FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.
Cumulative distributions of participants achieving A1C 70%. The proportion of overall, adolescent, and adult participants with A1C of 70% (bottom panel) are shown for the baseline/run-in period (red), the overall study phase when both the 100 and 120 mg/dL targets were set and factored (blue) and when only the 100 mg/dL glucose target was set (green). System use during the run-in period included SAP, PLGM, or Auto Basal therapy, whereas that for the study phase included Auto Basal and Auto Correction. During baseline run-in, Auto Correction bolus was inadvertently delivered on six systems.
FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.
SG and insulin delivered profiles, during the run-in period and study phase. The median and IQRs of SG levels (top panel) and the units of insulin delivered during the run-in period (middle panel) and study phase (bottom panel), across the 24-h day for the overall, adolescent (14–21 years), and adult (>21–75 years) groups are shown. For SG, medians (solid), and IQR intervals (dotted) of the run-in period (gray) and study phase (pink) appeared to vary most during the nighttime period (12 AM–6 AM). For insulin delivered, the units of total basal (blue), user-initiated bolus (orange), and automated correction bolus (gray) are shown. The study phase Auto Correction bolus averaged 20% of total bolus for all groups. System use during the run-in period included SAP, PLGM, or Auto Basal therapy, whereas that for the study phase included Auto Basal and Auto Correction. During baseline run-in period, Auto Correction bolus was inadvertently delivered on six systems. IQRs, interquartile ranges; SG, sensor glucose.

References

    1. Tauschmann M, Allen JM, Wilinska ME, 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;39:1168–1174.
    1. Kovatchev B, Cheng P, Anderson SM, et al. : Feasibility of long-term closed-loop control: a multicenter 6-month trial of 24/7 automated insulin delivery. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017;19:18–24.
    1. Ly TT, Keenan DB, Roy A, et al. : Automated overnight closed-loop control using a proportional-integral-derivative algorithm with insulin feedback in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes at diabetes camp. Diabetes Technol Ther 2016;18:377–384.
    1. Forlenza GP, Ekhlaspour L, Breton M, et al. : Successful at-home use of the Tandem Control-IQ artificial pancreas system in young children during a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Technol Ther 2019;21:159–169.
    1. Nimri R, Muller I, Atlas E, et al. : Night glucose control with MD-Logic artificial pancreas in home setting: a single blind, randomized crossover trial-interim analysis. Pediatr Diabetes 2014;15:91–99.
    1. Bergenstal RM, Garg S, Weinzimer SA, et al. : Safety of a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system in patients with type 1 diabetes. JAMA 2016;316:1407–1408.
    1. Sherr JL, Buckingham BA, Forlenza GP, et al. : Safety and performance of the Omnipod hybrid closed-loop system in adults, adolescents, and children with type 1 diabetes over 5 days under free-living conditions. Diabetes Technol Ther 2020;22:174–184.
    1. Brown SA, Kovatchev BP, Raghinaru D, et al. : Six-month randomized, multicenter trial of closed-loop control in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1707–1717.
    1. Beato-Vibora PI, Gallego-Gamero F, Lazaro-Martin L, et al. : Prospective analysis of the impact of commercialized hybrid closed-loop system on glycemic control, glycemic variability, and patient-related outcomes in children and adults: a focus on superiority over predictive low-glucose suspend technology. Diabetes Technol Ther 2020;22:912–919.
    1. Musolino G, Dovc K, Boughton CK, et al. : Reduced burden of diabetes and improved quality of life: experiences from unrestricted day-and-night hybrid closed-loop use in very young children with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes 2019;20:794–799.
    1. Sharifi A, De Bock MI, Jayawardene D, et al. : Glycemia, treatment satisfaction, cognition, and sleep quality in adults and adolescents with type 1 diabetes when using a closed-loop system overnight versus sensor-augmented pump with low-glucose suspend function: a Randomized crossover study. Diabetes Technol Ther 2016;18:772–783.
    1. Foster NC, Beck RW, Miller KM, et al. : State of type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D Exchange in 2016–2018. Diabetes Technol Ther 2019;21:66–72.
    1. Miller KM, Foster NC, Beck RW, et al. : Current state of type 1 diabetes treatment in the US: updated data from the T1D Exchange clinic registry. Diabetes Care 2015;38:971–978.
    1. Danne T, Nimri R, Battelino T, et al. : International consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care 2017;40:1631–1640.
    1. Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, et al. : Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the International Consensus on Time in Range. Diabetes Care 2019;42:1593–1603.
    1. Forlenza GP, Pinhas-Hamiel O, Liljenquist DR, et al. : Safety evaluation of the MiniMed 670G system in children 7–13 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2019;21:11–19.
    1. Garg SK, Weinzimer SA, Tamborlane WV, 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;19:155–163.
    1. Stone MP, Agrawal P, Chen X, et al. : Retrospective analysis of 3-month real-world glucose data after the MiniMed 670G system commercial launch. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018;20:689–692.
    1. Da Silva J, Bosi E, Jendle J, et al. : Real-world performance of the MiniMed™ 670G system in Europe. Diabetes Obes Metab 2021;23:1942–1949.
    1. Faulds ER, Zappe J, Dungan KM: Real-world implications of hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin delivery system. Endocr Pract 2019;25:477–484.
    1. Duffus SH, Ta'ani ZA, Slaughter JC, et al. : Increased proportion of time in hybrid closed-loop “Auto Mode” is associated with improved glycaemic control for adolescent and young patients with adult type 1 diabetes using the MiniMed 670G insulin pump. Diabetes Obes Metab 2020;22:688–693.
    1. Akturk HK, Giordano D, Champakanath A, et al. : Long-term real-life glycaemic outcomes with a hybrid closed-loop system compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2020;22:583–589.
    1. Berget C, Messer LH, Vigers T, et al. : Six months of hybrid closed loop in the real-world: an evaluation of children and young adults using the 670G system. Pediatr Diabetes 2020;21:310–318.
    1. Messer LH, Berget C, Vigers T, et al. : Real world hybrid closed-loop discontinuation: predictors and perceptions of youth discontinuing the 670G system in the first 6 months. Pediatr Diabetes 2020;21:319–327.
    1. Lal RA, Basina M, Maahs DM, et al. : One year clinical experience of the first commercial hybrid closed-loop system. Diabetes Care 2019;42:2190–2196.
    1. de Bock M, Dart J, Hancock M, et al. : Performance of Medtronic hybrid closed-loop iterations: results from a randomized trial in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018;20:693–697.
    1. Nimri R, Grosman B, Roy A, et al. : Feasibility study of a hybrid closed-loop system with automated insulin correction boluses. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021;23:268–276.
    1. Paldus B, Lee MH, Jones HM, et al. : Glucose control using a standard versus an enhanced hybrid closed loop system: a randomized crossover study. Diabetes Technol Ther 2019;21:56–58.
    1. Pinsker JE, Muller L, Constantin A, et al. : Real-world patient reported outcomes and glycemic results with initiation of control-IQ technology. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021;23:120–127.
    1. Bergenstal RM, Nimri R, Beck RW, et al. : A comparison of two hybrid closed-loop systems in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes (FLAIR): a multicentre, randomised, crossover trial. Lancet 2021;397:208–219.
    1. Collyns OJ, Meier RA, Betts ZL, et al. : Improved glycemic outcomes with Medtronic MiniMed advanced hybrid closed-loop delivery: results from a randomized crossover trial comparing automated insulin delivery with predictive low glucose suspend in people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2021;44:969–975.
    1. Beato-Vibora PI, Gallego-Gamero F, Ambrojo-Lopez A, et al. : Rapid improvement in time in range after the implementation of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021;23:609–615.
    1. Gold AE, MacLeod KM, Frier BM: Frequency of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type I diabetes with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia. Diabetes Care 1994;17:697–703.
    1. Lee MH, Vogrin S, Paldus B, et al. : Glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes using a Medtronic prototype enhanced-hybrid closed-loop system: a feasibility study. Diabetes Technol Ther 2019;21:499–506.
    1. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group, Nathan DM, Genuth S, 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;329:977–986.
    1. Grunberger G, Sherr J, Allende M, et al. : American Association of Clinical Endocrinology clinical practice guideline: the use of advanced technology in the management of persons with diabetes mellitus. Endocr Pract 2021;27:505–537.
    1. Monnier L, Colette C, Wojtusciszyn A, et al. : Toward defining the threshold between low and high glucose variability in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2017;40:832–838.
    1. Brown SA, Forlenza GP, Bode BW, et al. : Multicenter trial of a tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery system with customizable glycemic targets in pediatric and adult participants with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2021;44:1630–1640.
    1. Vigersky RA, McMahon C: The relationship of hemoglobin A1C to time-in-range in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2019;21:81–85.
    1. Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, Cheng P, et al. : The relationships between time in range, hyperglycemia metrics, and HbA1c. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2019;13:614–626.
    1. Lu J, Ma X, Shen Y, et al. : Time in range is associated with carotid intima-media thickness in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2020;22:72–78.
    1. Lu J, Ma X, Zhou J, et al. : Association of time in range, as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring, with diabetic retinopathy in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2018;41:2370–2376.
    1. Rodrigues R, Rossi ICB, Rossi BF, et al. : New glycemic metrics and traditional clinical and laboratory profiles of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus in an outpatient follow-up. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2021;173:108680.

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi