Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus
Conditions
Keywords
Hybrid closed loop, Closed loop, Artificial pancreas
Brief summary
Adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes often have a difficult time achieving good glucose control, which is so important in reducing the risk for diabetes complications. Despite the use of multiple daily injections or insulin pumps and glucose sensors, there is still a need for many individuals to further improve glucose levels without causing low blood glucose levels (hypoglycemia) or adding to the daily burden of living with diabetes. Today an insulin pump can receive glucose readings from a continuous glucose monitor and adjust the insulin delivery in an attempt to keep glucose levels in a more optimal range. These systems are called hybrid closed loop (HCL). This means that much of the insulin delivery is automated, yet the patient still interacts regularly with the system, particularly to help determine the insulin dose to deliver to cover a meal. Results of early studies using HCL systems in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes are encouraging. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of the automated insulin delivery (AID) system with proportional integral-derivative (PID) algorithm (Minimed 670G 3.0 HCL) to an AID system with combined PID and Fuzzy Logic Algorithm (Minimed 670G 4.0 Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL)). The trial will test the hypothesis that the Minimed AHCL can reduce daytime hyperglycemia, currently the biggest challenge for AID systems, without increasing hypoglycemia. Up to 124 adolescents and young adults (ages 14-\<30) will be recruited to test each system for three months in a randomized crossover trial. Investigators will compare how effective each hybrid closed loop system is at preventing high blood glucose readings during the day. The investigators will also evaluate the safety of each system and how participants adjust to the daily use of the technology.
Detailed description
Purpose of the study: A randomized crossover trial involving up to four clinical sites in the United States and three sites outside the US (Germany, Israel and Slovenia) will compare the efficacy and safety of an AID system with a PID algorithm versus an AID system with a PID algorithm enhanced with a fuzzy logic algorithm. Study Objectives: 1. EFFICACY: The co-primary outcomes are difference in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-measured metrics between periods: * Superiority for percent of time \>180 mg/dL (10.0 mmol/L) from 6 AM to 11:59 PM; and * Non-inferiority of percent of time \<54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L) during the entire 24-hour period. 2. KEY SAFETY OUTCOMES: * Percentage of sensor glucose readings \<54 mg/dL (overall is a co-primary outcomes) and \<70 mg/dL (3.0 and 3.9 mmol/L, respectively) * Diabetic Ketoacidosis (DKA) events * Severe hypoglycemia events Study design: Randomized crossover trial with two 12-week crossover periods in automode, preceded by a run-in phase. Population: A maximum of 124 individuals may be enrolled and start the run-in phase. Approximately 112 are expected to enter the crossover trial, with a goal of at least 100 people completing the trial. Maximum duration of a study for a subject: Approximately 28-36 weeks. Recruitment: Subjects will be recruited through the clinical sites. Consent: Written consent/assent will be obtained for all subjects and/or guardians, in accordance with human subjects and regulatory requirements. Screening Assessments: * Informed consent will be signed and eligibility will be assessed * Medical history and physical examination * HbA1c measurement * Urine pregnancy test (if applicable) * Surveys investigating participants' quality of life, psychosocial and cognitive functioning, and response to their current treatment will be distributed. Study Training: Run-In Period: (2-8 weeks) \* Eligible participants will use the study 670G 3.0 HCL pump during the run-in. Participants who were pump users at screening may skip the Pump Run-In period (but must participate in the Pump+CGM Run-In period) per investigator discretion. 670G auto mode users may use the 670G pump in auto mode. Screening and start of run-in training visits may occur on the same day or separate days, but no more than 14 days apart. Standardized pump training will be provided to study participants and their diabetes care partners (for participants \<18 years old). The study team will assist the participant in study pump infusion site initiation and will start the participant on the study pump. For current pump users, the study pump will be programmed with the participants usual basal rates and pump parameters. The participants personal pump will be removed. Participants may continue to use their personal CGM if applicable. The pump will be used for at least two weeks during the Pump Run-In, with the option of repeating Pump Run-In for an additional two weeks per investigator discretion. Contact will be made each week with additional contacts as needed. Prior to each contact, participants will be asked to upload device data for study staff to review. After completion of Pump Run-In, participants will proceed to use the study CGM along with the study 670G HCL pump during the Pump+CGM Run-In period. \* Pump+CGM Run-In (670G 3.0 HCL + Guardian Sensor (3)) All participants must complete a two-week run-in period with the use of the study pump and CGM before being randomized into the crossover trial. During Pump+CGM Run-In, the predictive low glucose suspend feature will be turned on and auto mode will be off (i.e. manual mode). Participants who were 670G auto mode users at screening may use the pump in auto mode. Standardized device training will be provided to study participants and their diabetes care partners (for participants \<18 years old). Personal pumps and CGMs will be removed during the Pump+CGM Run-In period as applicable. Contact will be made each week with additional contacts as needed. Prior to each contact, participants will be asked to upload device data for study staff to review. Run-In Assessment Successful completion of Pump Run-In is per investigator discretion. Pump Run-In may be repeated once. Successful completion of the Pump+CGM Run-In requires CGM data to be collected on at least 80% of the possible time in the prior 14 days of use. An average of at least three blood glucose meter (BGM) tests per day also will be required. If these are not achieved, the Pump+CGM Run-In period may be repeated once. Randomization into the Crossover Trial Eligible participants who successfully complete the Pump+CGM Run-In will be randomly assigned to begin with one Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) system during Period 1 and then crossover to the other AID system during Period 2. The two study AID systems (treatments) are: * 670G 3.0 Hybrid Closed-Loop (HCL) (PID) insulin pump + Guardian Sensor (3) CGM * 670G 4.0 Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) (PID + Fuzzy Logic) insulin pump + Guardian Sensor (3) CGM Home Use of AID System during the Crossover Trial Period 1 (\ 13 weeks) Participants and their diabetes care partners (for participants \<18 years old) will be trained by qualified personnel on the use of the assigned pump and on auto mode feature use including meal announcement, meal bolusing, and exercise. Training will also be provided in performing specific tasks including the following: * Confirming pump parameters * When not to use or rely on auto mode particularly during significant illness or acetaminophen use * CGM calibration instructions * Meal bolus procedures * What to do when exercising while using the system * How to react to safety/alert notifications * How to perform fingerstick blood glucose measurements in accordance with the labeling of the study CGM device * When and how to contact study staff to ask questions during the study Study staff will discuss the visit and contact schedule with the participant and will make arrangements for follow-up appointments. Participants will be asked to upload data before each contact and at least every two weeks. After auto mode training has been completed, participants will proceed with home use of the AID system (meaning free-living use at work, home, etc.) during Period 1 with either the 670G 3.0 HCL or 670G 4.0 AHCL pump. The predictive low glucose suspend feature will be on. The system will initially be used with auto mode deactivated (except for 670G auto mode users at screening who may activate auto mode if using the 670G 3.0 HCL pump) until participants are contacted 6-10 days into Period 1 with instructions to activate auto mode. Participants will be instructed to obtain an overnight fingerstick blood glucose measurement (between 2-3AM) for 2-3 nights following auto mode initiation and if fingerstick blood glucose is \<70 mg/dL to treat with carbohydrate. Participants will then continue using the AID system for 12 weeks after auto mode is initialized. Participants will be expected to use auto mode at all times at home with some exceptions (e.g. times of illness, acetaminophen use). Participants on the 670G 4.0 AHCL will begin with an auto mode target glucose set point of 120 mg/dL (6.7 mmol/L) that may be lowered to 100 mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L) if participant meets the safety criteria per protocol and investigator discretion. HbA1c, C-peptide, and glucose levels will be collected for central lab analysis at the beginning of Study Period 1. Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude Surveys will be administered at the end of Study Period 1. Period 2 (\ 13 weeks) At the beginning of Period 2, a urine pregnancy test will be completed as applicable. Eligible participants will then use the other AID system during Period 2. The procedures in Period 1 will be repeated in Period 2. At the end of the 12-weeks of AID use in auto mode at home, the participant will complete a final study visit. That visit may be completed in-person in clinic or in an alternate location such as the participant's home. The study visit may occur remotely via phone or videoconferencing. Certain procedures, such as the measurement of height, weight, vitals, and collection of the central HbA1c sample, may be missed if the visit is not completed in-person. Participants requiring a remote final visit will be transitioned off of the study device during the remote contact and an arrangement will be made between site staff and the participant to return all required study devices either in-person or via mail.
Interventions
DEVICEMedtronicMinimed 670G 3.0 hybrid closed loop system
The components of the intervention are the insulin pump with insulin delivery algorithm (PID).
DEVICEMedtronic Minimed 670G 4.0 AHCL with Guardian Sensor (3) continuous glucose monitoring sensor.
The components of the intervention are the insulin pump with insulin delivery algorithm (PID + Fuzzy Logic) and Guardian Sensor (3).
Sponsors
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Medtronic
Jaeb Center for Health Research
Schneider Children's Medical Center, Israel
University of Ljubljana
Yale University
Joslin Diabetes Center
University of Florida
Stanford University
International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet
Kinderkrankenhaus auf der Bult
University of Minnesota
HealthPartners Institute
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Masking description
Open label
Intervention model description
Randomized crossover trial with two 12-week crossover periods in auto mode preceded by a run-in phase.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
14 Years to 30 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
1. Type 1 diabetes mellitus (as diagnosed clinically) for at least one year 2. Age 14-\<30 years at enrollment 3. For females, not currently known to be pregnant, be breast-feeding or planning to become pregnant within the study duration. 4. Using an insulin pump or multiple daily injections of insulin 1. Participant must be able to obtain U-100 rapid acting insulin analogues, Aspart or Lispro, for use during the study (since these are the only insulins approved for the study pump and the study is not supplying insulin) 2. MDI users must be on a basal/bolus regimen 3. Participants must have a minimum total daily dose (TDD) of at least eight units 5. HbA1c from an approved HbA1c point of care analyzer with a value 7.0%-11.0% 6. Willingness or ability to do carbohydrate counting 7. In the investigator's judgment, able to understand and likely to be adherent to the protocol 8. For subjects \<18 years old, living with one or more diabetes care partners (eg.g. parent/legal guardian), of whom at least one is committed to participating in study training for emergency procedures for severe hypoglycemia and able to contact the participant in case of an emergency. 9. Have adequate internet access and a computer system that meets requirements for uploading data. 10. For participants currently using CGM or insulin pump, willingness to discontinue personal CGM and pump when using the study CGM and pumps (note: including implantable CGMs).
Exclusion criteria
Individuals meeting any of the following
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Non-inferiority for Percent of Time <54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L) During the Entire 24-hour Period. | 12 weeks for each arm of the crossover | Glucose levels based on sensor glucose data |
| Percentage of Time Glucose Levels Were > 180 mg/dL (10.0 mmol/L) From 6 AM to 11:59 PM | 12 weeks for each arm of the crossover | Glucose levels based on sensor glucose data |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Efficacy: CGM Derived Indices | 12 weeks for each arm of the crossover | CGM derived indices over the first 84 days of each treatment period for 24 hours. Glucose levels based on sensor glucose data for coefficient of variation; percentage of sensor glucose readings in the range of 70 to 180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) and 70 to 140 mg/dL (3.9 to 7.8 mmol/L); percentage of sensor glucose readings \>180 mg/dL (daytime is a co-primary outcome) and \>250 mg/dL (10.0 and 13.9 mmol/L, respectively) |
| Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period | 12 weeks for each arm of the crossover | Amount of total, basal, and bolus daily insulin over the first 84 days of each treatment period (excluding time before auto mode is turned on) for 24 hours. Glucose levels based on sensor glucose data. Sum of daytime and nighttime values may not equal total daily values due to rounding. |
| Efficacy: HbA1c | Time Frame: End of crossover period 1 (Week 14 through 20, depending); and end of crossover period 2 (Week 26-32, depending) | Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was measured at a central laboratory (Advanced Research and Diagnostic Laboratory University of Minnesota, MN, USA) at randomization and at the end of each period by use of an International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine aligned method (Tosoh HPLC Glycohemoglobin Analyzer, Tosoh Medics, San Francisco, CA, USA; coefficient of variation range 1.4 1.9%). |
| Efficacy: BMI Percentile for Participants Age <18 Years | Time Frame: Screening visit, at initiation (Day 0); randomization (Week 2 through 8, depending); end of crossover period 1 (Week 14 through 20, depending); and end of crossover period 2 (Week 26-32, depending) | Height and weight based on CDC standards of measurement. Age and gender adjusted. |
| Key Safety Outcome 1) Percentage of Time Sensor Glucose Readings Were <54 mg/dL and <70 mg/dL (3.0 and 3.9 mmol/L, Respectively | 12 weeks for each arm of the crossover | Glucose levels based on sensor glucose data |
| Key Safety Outcome 2) Number of DKA Events | 12 weeks for each arm of the crossover | DKA as defined by the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and described below: * Symptoms such as polyuria, polydipsia, nausea, or vomiting; * Serum ketones \>1.5 mmol/L or large/moderate urine ketones; * Either arterial blood pH \<7.30 or venous pH \<7.24 or serum bicarbonate \<15; and * Treatment provided in a health care facility |
| Key Safety Outcome 3) Number of Severe Hypoglycemia Events | 12 weeks for each arm of the crossover | Severe hypoglycemia event as defined by the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and described below: The event required assistance of another person due to altered consciousness, and required another person to actively administer carbohydrate, glucagon, or other resuscitative actions. This means that the participant was impaired cognitively to the point that he/she was unable to treat himself/herself, was unable to verbalize his/ her needs, was incoherent, disoriented, and/or combative, or experienced seizure or loss of consciousness. |
| Efficacy: BMI for Participants Age ≥18 Years | Time Frame: Screening visit, at initiation (Day 0); randomization (Week 2 through 8, depending); end of crossover period 1 (Week 14 through 20, depending); and end of crossover period 2 (Week 26-32, depending) | Height and weight. Body mass index (BMI) is a person's weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters. BMI is interpreted using standard weight status categories. These categories are the same for men and women of all body types and ages. Below 18.5 : Underweight; 18.5 - 24.9: Normal or Healthy Weight; 25.0 - 29.9: Overweight; 30.0 and Above: Obese. |
| Efficacy: CGM Derived Indices: Mean Glucose Only | 12 weeks for each arm of the crossover | Continuous Glucose Monitoring derived indices over the first 84 days of each treatment period for 24 hours (excluding time before auto mode is turned on). Glucose levels based on sensor glucose data for Mean glucose. |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Amount of Total Insulin at Daytime, Nighttime and Post-meal | 12 weeks for each arm of the crossover | Based on sensor glucose data |
| Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | Time Frame: Screening visit, at initiation (Day 0); end of crossover period 1 (Week 14 through 20, depending); and end of crossover period 2 (Week 26-32, depending) | Surveys completed by participants. The Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey is 15 items on a 1-5 scale; Total score calculated as mean of all item scores; higher scores indicate greater satisfaction. The Diabetes Distress Scale is 17 items on a 1-6 scale; Total score calculated as mean of all item scores; higher score denotes more distress. The Hypoglycemia Confidence Survey is 8 items on a 1-4 scale; Total score calculated as mean of all item scores; higher score denotes more confidence. The Diabetes Technology Attitudes Survey is 5 items on a 0-4 scale; Total score calculated as sum of all item scores; higher score denotes more satisfaction with diabetes technology. The Adult INSPIRE Survey is 22 items on a 1-5 scale; Total score calculated as mean of all item scores; higher score denotes more satisfaction with AID. The Adolescent INSPIRE Survey is 17 items on a 1-5 scale; Total score calculated as mean of all item scores; higher score denotes more satisfaction with AID. |
Countries
Germany, Israel, Slovenia, United States
Participant flow
Pre-assignment details
13 participants were not randomized from the 126 enrolled due to ineligibility or lost to follow up.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| PID Algorithm First, Then PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm Participants received insulin delivered by the Medtronic Minimed 670G 3.0 HCL system using a PID algorithm with Guardian Sensor (3) continuous glucose monitoring sensor.
MedtronicMinimed 670G 3.0 hybrid closed loop system: The components of the intervention are the insulin pump with insulin delivery algorithm (PID) and Guardian Sensor (3). | 57 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm First, Then PID Algorithm Participants received insulin delivered by the Medtronic advanced hybrid closed loop system (Minimed 670G 4.0 AHCL) with Guardian Sensor (3) continuous glucose monitoring sensor.
Medtronic Minimed 670G 4.0 AHCL with Guardian Sensor (3) continuous glucose monitoring sensor.: The components of the intervention are the insulin pump with insulin delivery algorithm (PID + Fuzzy Logic) and Guardian Sensor (3). | 56 |
| Total | 113 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | PID Algorithm First, Then PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm First, Then PID Algorithm | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 20 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 4 | 19 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 4 | 19 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 4 |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Black/ African American | 2 Participants | 1 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Hispanic or Latino | 3 Participants | 2 Participants | 5 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized More than One Race | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized White | 52 Participants | 52 Participants | 104 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Female | 35 Participants | 35 Participants | 70 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Male | 22 Participants | 21 Participants | 43 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 112 | 0 / 112 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 5 / 112 | 5 / 112 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 2 / 112 | 1 / 112 |
Outcome results
Primary
Non-inferiority for Percent of Time <54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L) During the Entire 24-hour Period.
Glucose levels based on sensor glucose data
Time frame: 12 weeks for each arm of the crossover
Population: All 113 participants completed both arms except for two (one in each arm) who dropped out during period 1; both of whom were included in the analysis for the partial period they completed.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| PID Algorithm | Non-inferiority for Percent of Time <54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L) During the Entire 24-hour Period. | .50 percentage of time | Standard Deviation 0.35 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Non-inferiority for Percent of Time <54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L) During the Entire 24-hour Period. | .46 percentage of time | Standard Deviation 0.33 |
Primary
Percentage of Time Glucose Levels Were > 180 mg/dL (10.0 mmol/L) From 6 AM to 11:59 PM
Glucose levels based on sensor glucose data
Time frame: 12 weeks for each arm of the crossover
Population: All 113 participants completed both arms except for two (one in each arm) who dropped out during period 1; both of whom were included in the analysis for the partial period they completed.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| PID Algorithm | Percentage of Time Glucose Levels Were > 180 mg/dL (10.0 mmol/L) From 6 AM to 11:59 PM | 37 percentage of time | Standard Deviation 9 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Percentage of Time Glucose Levels Were > 180 mg/dL (10.0 mmol/L) From 6 AM to 11:59 PM | 34 percentage of time | Standard Deviation 9 |
Secondary
Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period
Amount of total, basal, and bolus daily insulin over the first 84 days of each treatment period (excluding time before auto mode is turned on) for 24 hours. Glucose levels based on sensor glucose data. Sum of daytime and nighttime values may not equal total daily values due to rounding.
Time frame: 12 weeks for each arm of the crossover
Population: All 113 participants completed both arms except for two (one in each arm) who dropped out during period 1; both of whom were included in the analysis for the partial period they completed.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PID Algorithm | Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period | Total Insulin Units for Daytime | 42 insulin units | Standard Deviation 18 |
| PID Algorithm | Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period | Total Basal Insulin Units for Nighttime | 7 insulin units | Standard Deviation 3 |
| PID Algorithm | Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period | Total Basal Insulin Units for 24 Hours | 25 insulin units | Standard Deviation 11 |
| PID Algorithm | Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period | Total Bolus Insulin Units for 24 Hours | 25 insulin units | Standard Deviation 12 |
| PID Algorithm | Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period | Total Insulin Units for Nighttime | 8 insulin units | Standard Deviation 4 |
| PID Algorithm | Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period | Total Bolus Insulin Units for Daytime | 24 insulin units | Standard Deviation 11 |
| PID Algorithm | Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period | Total Basal Insulin Units for Daytime | 19 insulin units | Standard Deviation 9 |
| PID Algorithm | Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period | Total Bolus Insulin Units for Nighttime | 1 insulin units | Standard Deviation 2 |
| PID Algorithm | Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period | Total Insulin Units for 24 Hours | 50 insulin units | Standard Deviation 21 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period | Total Bolus Insulin Units for Nighttime | 4 insulin units | Standard Deviation 3 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period | Total Insulin Units for 24 Hours | 55 insulin units | Standard Deviation 22 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period | Total Insulin Units for Daytime | 47 insulin units | Standard Deviation 18 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period | Total Insulin Units for Nighttime | 10 insulin units | Standard Deviation 4 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period | Total Basal Insulin Units for 24 Hours | 20 insulin units | Standard Deviation 8 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period | Total Basal Insulin Units for Daytime | 14 insulin units | Standard Deviation 6 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period | Total Basal Insulin Units for Nighttime | 6 insulin units | Standard Deviation 2 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period | Total Bolus Insulin Units for 24 Hours | 36 insulin units | Standard Deviation 15 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Efficacy: Amount of Total, Basal and Bolus Daily Insulin Over the First 84 Days of Each Treatment Period | Total Bolus Insulin Units for Daytime | 32 insulin units | Standard Deviation 13 |
Secondary
Efficacy: BMI for Participants Age ≥18 Years
Height and weight. Body mass index (BMI) is a person's weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters. BMI is interpreted using standard weight status categories. These categories are the same for men and women of all body types and ages. Below 18.5 : Underweight; 18.5 - 24.9: Normal or Healthy Weight; 25.0 - 29.9: Overweight; 30.0 and Above: Obese.
Time frame: Time Frame: Screening visit, at initiation (Day 0); randomization (Week 2 through 8, depending); end of crossover period 1 (Week 14 through 20, depending); and end of crossover period 2 (Week 26-32, depending)
Population: All 113 participants completed both arms except for two (one in each arm) who dropped out during period 1; both were included in the analysis for the partial period they completed. An additional two participants from the PID Algorithm group and an additional three participants from the PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm group were not included in this outcome due to missing data. Separate BMI outcomes were reported for participants age ≥18 years and age \<18 years due to differing units of measure.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PID Algorithm | Efficacy: BMI for Participants Age ≥18 Years | Body Mass Index (Age ≥18 years) End of Period 1 | 26 kg/m^2 | Standard Deviation 5 |
| PID Algorithm | Efficacy: BMI for Participants Age ≥18 Years | Body Mass Index (Age ≥18 years) End of Period 2 | 27 kg/m^2 | Standard Deviation 5 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Efficacy: BMI for Participants Age ≥18 Years | Body Mass Index (Age ≥18 years) End of Period 1 | 27 kg/m^2 | Standard Deviation 5 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Efficacy: BMI for Participants Age ≥18 Years | Body Mass Index (Age ≥18 years) End of Period 2 | 26 kg/m^2 | Standard Deviation 5 |
Secondary
Efficacy: BMI Percentile for Participants Age <18 Years
Height and weight based on CDC standards of measurement. Age and gender adjusted.
Time frame: Time Frame: Screening visit, at initiation (Day 0); randomization (Week 2 through 8, depending); end of crossover period 1 (Week 14 through 20, depending); and end of crossover period 2 (Week 26-32, depending)
Population: All 113 participants completed both arms except for two (one in each arm) who dropped out during period 1; both were included in the analysis for the partial period they completed. An additional two participants from the PID Algorithm group and an additional three participants from the PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm group were not included in this outcome due to missing data. Separate BMI outcomes were reported for participants age ≥18 years and age \<18 years due to differing units of measure.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PID Algorithm | Efficacy: BMI Percentile for Participants Age <18 Years | Body Mass Index Percentile (Age <18 years) End of Period 1 | 73 BMI percentile | Standard Deviation 19 |
| PID Algorithm | Efficacy: BMI Percentile for Participants Age <18 Years | Body Mass Index Percentile (Age <18 years) End of Period 2 | 71 BMI percentile | Standard Deviation 22 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Efficacy: BMI Percentile for Participants Age <18 Years | Body Mass Index Percentile (Age <18 years) End of Period 1 | 73 BMI percentile | Standard Deviation 21 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Efficacy: BMI Percentile for Participants Age <18 Years | Body Mass Index Percentile (Age <18 years) End of Period 2 | 74 BMI percentile | Standard Deviation 21 |
Secondary
Efficacy: CGM Derived Indices
CGM derived indices over the first 84 days of each treatment period for 24 hours. Glucose levels based on sensor glucose data for coefficient of variation; percentage of sensor glucose readings in the range of 70 to 180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) and 70 to 140 mg/dL (3.9 to 7.8 mmol/L); percentage of sensor glucose readings \>180 mg/dL (daytime is a co-primary outcome) and \>250 mg/dL (10.0 and 13.9 mmol/L, respectively)
Time frame: 12 weeks for each arm of the crossover
Population: All 113 participants completed both arms except for two (one in each arm) who dropped out during period 1; both of whom were included in the analysis for the partial period they completed.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PID Algorithm | Efficacy: CGM Derived Indices | Percentage of Sensor Glucose Readings in the Range of 70-180 mg/dL (3·9-10·0 mmol/L) | 63 percentage of sensor glucose readings | Standard Deviation 8 |
| PID Algorithm | Efficacy: CGM Derived Indices | Percentage of Sensor Glucose Readings in the Range of 70 to 140 mg/dL (3.9 to 7.8 mmol/L) | 40 percentage of sensor glucose readings | Standard Deviation 7 |
| PID Algorithm | Efficacy: CGM Derived Indices | Percentage of Sensor Glucose Readings >180 mg/dL (10.0 mmol/L) | 34 percentage of sensor glucose readings | Standard Deviation 8 |
| PID Algorithm | Efficacy: CGM Derived Indices | Percentage of Sensor Glucose Readings >250 mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L) | 10 percentage of sensor glucose readings | Standard Deviation 6 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Efficacy: CGM Derived Indices | Percentage of Sensor Glucose Readings >250 mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L) | 9 percentage of sensor glucose readings | Standard Deviation 5 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Efficacy: CGM Derived Indices | Percentage of Sensor Glucose Readings in the Range of 70-180 mg/dL (3·9-10·0 mmol/L) | 67 percentage of sensor glucose readings | Standard Deviation 8 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Efficacy: CGM Derived Indices | Percentage of Sensor Glucose Readings >180 mg/dL (10.0 mmol/L) | 31 percentage of sensor glucose readings | Standard Deviation 8 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Efficacy: CGM Derived Indices | Percentage of Sensor Glucose Readings in the Range of 70 to 140 mg/dL (3.9 to 7.8 mmol/L) | 44 percentage of sensor glucose readings | Standard Deviation 7 |
Secondary
Efficacy: CGM Derived Indices: Mean Glucose Only
Continuous Glucose Monitoring derived indices over the first 84 days of each treatment period for 24 hours (excluding time before auto mode is turned on). Glucose levels based on sensor glucose data for Mean glucose.
Time frame: 12 weeks for each arm of the crossover
Population: All 113 participants completed both arms except for two (one in each arm) who dropped out during period 1; both of whom were included in the analysis for the partial period they completed.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| PID Algorithm | Efficacy: CGM Derived Indices: Mean Glucose Only | 166 mg/dL | Standard Deviation 13 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Efficacy: CGM Derived Indices: Mean Glucose Only | 159 mg/dL | Standard Deviation 13 |
Secondary
Efficacy: HbA1c
Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was measured at a central laboratory (Advanced Research and Diagnostic Laboratory University of Minnesota, MN, USA) at randomization and at the end of each period by use of an International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine aligned method (Tosoh HPLC Glycohemoglobin Analyzer, Tosoh Medics, San Francisco, CA, USA; coefficient of variation range 1.4 1.9%).
Time frame: Time Frame: End of crossover period 1 (Week 14 through 20, depending); and end of crossover period 2 (Week 26-32, depending)
Population: All 113 participants completed both arms except for two (one in each arm) who dropped out during period 1; both of whom were included in the analysis for the partial period they completed.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| PID Algorithm | Efficacy: HbA1c | 7.6 percentage of HbA1c | Standard Deviation 0.6 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Efficacy: HbA1c | 7.4 percentage of HbA1c | Standard Deviation 0.8 |
Secondary
Key Safety Outcome 1) Percentage of Time Sensor Glucose Readings Were <54 mg/dL and <70 mg/dL (3.0 and 3.9 mmol/L, Respectively
Glucose levels based on sensor glucose data
Time frame: 12 weeks for each arm of the crossover
Population: All 113 participants completed both arms except for two (one in each arm) who dropped out during period 1; both of whom were included in the analysis for the partial period they completed.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PID Algorithm | Key Safety Outcome 1) Percentage of Time Sensor Glucose Readings Were <54 mg/dL and <70 mg/dL (3.0 and 3.9 mmol/L, Respectively | Percentage of Time <54 mg/dL | .50 percentage of time | Standard Deviation 0.35 |
| PID Algorithm | Key Safety Outcome 1) Percentage of Time Sensor Glucose Readings Were <54 mg/dL and <70 mg/dL (3.0 and 3.9 mmol/L, Respectively | Percentage of Time <70 mg/dL | 2.1 percentage of time | Standard Deviation 1.4 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Key Safety Outcome 1) Percentage of Time Sensor Glucose Readings Were <54 mg/dL and <70 mg/dL (3.0 and 3.9 mmol/L, Respectively | Percentage of Time <54 mg/dL | .46 percentage of time | Standard Deviation 0.33 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Key Safety Outcome 1) Percentage of Time Sensor Glucose Readings Were <54 mg/dL and <70 mg/dL (3.0 and 3.9 mmol/L, Respectively | Percentage of Time <70 mg/dL | 2.1 percentage of time | Standard Deviation 1.2 |
Secondary
Key Safety Outcome 2) Number of DKA Events
DKA as defined by the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and described below: * Symptoms such as polyuria, polydipsia, nausea, or vomiting; * Serum ketones \>1.5 mmol/L or large/moderate urine ketones; * Either arterial blood pH \<7.30 or venous pH \<7.24 or serum bicarbonate \<15; and * Treatment provided in a health care facility
Time frame: 12 weeks for each arm of the crossover
Population: All 113 participants completed both arms except for two (one in each arm) who dropped out during period 1; both of whom were included in the analysis for the partial period they completed.
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| PID Algorithm | Key Safety Outcome 2) Number of DKA Events | 0 Events |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Key Safety Outcome 2) Number of DKA Events | 0 Events |
Secondary
Key Safety Outcome 3) Number of Severe Hypoglycemia Events
Severe hypoglycemia event as defined by the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and described below: The event required assistance of another person due to altered consciousness, and required another person to actively administer carbohydrate, glucagon, or other resuscitative actions. This means that the participant was impaired cognitively to the point that he/she was unable to treat himself/herself, was unable to verbalize his/ her needs, was incoherent, disoriented, and/or combative, or experienced seizure or loss of consciousness.
Time frame: 12 weeks for each arm of the crossover
Population: All 113 participants completed both arms except for two (one in each arm) who dropped out during period 1; both of whom were included in the analysis for the partial period they completed.
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| PID Algorithm | Key Safety Outcome 3) Number of Severe Hypoglycemia Events | 0 Events |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Key Safety Outcome 3) Number of Severe Hypoglycemia Events | 1 Events |
Other Pre-specified
Amount of Total Insulin at Daytime, Nighttime and Post-meal
Based on sensor glucose data
Time frame: 12 weeks for each arm of the crossover
Population: All 113 participants completed both arms except for two (one in each arm) who dropped out during period 1; both of whom were included in the analysis for the partial period they completed.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PID Algorithm | Amount of Total Insulin at Daytime, Nighttime and Post-meal | Post-Meal Total Insulin Delivery | 29 insulin units | Standard Deviation 12 |
| PID Algorithm | Amount of Total Insulin at Daytime, Nighttime and Post-meal | Daytime Total Insulin Delivery | 42 insulin units | Standard Deviation 18 |
| PID Algorithm | Amount of Total Insulin at Daytime, Nighttime and Post-meal | Nighttime Total Insulin Delivery | 8 insulin units | Standard Deviation 4 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Amount of Total Insulin at Daytime, Nighttime and Post-meal | Post-Meal Total Insulin Delivery | 29 insulin units | Standard Deviation 12 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Amount of Total Insulin at Daytime, Nighttime and Post-meal | Daytime Total Insulin Delivery | 47 insulin units | Standard Deviation 18 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Amount of Total Insulin at Daytime, Nighttime and Post-meal | Nighttime Total Insulin Delivery | 10 insulin units | Standard Deviation 4 |
Other Pre-specified
Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires
Surveys completed by participants. The Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey is 15 items on a 1-5 scale; Total score calculated as mean of all item scores; higher scores indicate greater satisfaction. The Diabetes Distress Scale is 17 items on a 1-6 scale; Total score calculated as mean of all item scores; higher score denotes more distress. The Hypoglycemia Confidence Survey is 8 items on a 1-4 scale; Total score calculated as mean of all item scores; higher score denotes more confidence. The Diabetes Technology Attitudes Survey is 5 items on a 0-4 scale; Total score calculated as sum of all item scores; higher score denotes more satisfaction with diabetes technology. The Adult INSPIRE Survey is 22 items on a 1-5 scale; Total score calculated as mean of all item scores; higher score denotes more satisfaction with AID. The Adolescent INSPIRE Survey is 17 items on a 1-5 scale; Total score calculated as mean of all item scores; higher score denotes more satisfaction with AID.
Time frame: Time Frame: Screening visit, at initiation (Day 0); end of crossover period 1 (Week 14 through 20, depending); and end of crossover period 2 (Week 26-32, depending)
Population: One participant in the PID Algorithm group and two participants in the PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm group did not complete the questionnaires. Questionnaire scores were calculated based on the ends of crossover periods 1 and 2.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PID Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | INSPIRE Survey Adult Version Total Score - End of Period 1 | 3.81 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.19 |
| PID Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | Hypoglycemia Confidence Survey Mean Score - End of Period 2 | 3.53 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.39 |
| PID Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | Diabetes Distress Scale Total Score - End of Period 1 | 1.62 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.71 |
| PID Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | Diabetes Technology Attitudes Survey - End of Period 1 | 22.33 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3 |
| PID Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | Diabetes Technology Attitudes Survey - End of Period 2 | 22.11 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.68 |
| PID Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | INSPIRE Survey Adolescent Version Total Score - End of Period 1 | 4.03 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.94 |
| PID Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | Diabetes Distress Scale Total Score - End of Period 2 | 1.55 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.56 |
| PID Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | INSPIRE Survey Adolescent Version Total Score - End of Period 2 | 4.45 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.55 |
| PID Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey Mean Score - End of Period 2 | 2.67 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.69 |
| PID Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | Hypoglycemia Confidence Survey Mean Score - End of Period 1 | 3.52 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.56 |
| PID Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | INSPIRE Survey Adult Version Total Score - End of Period 2 | 3.79 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.29 |
| PID Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey Mean Score - End of Period 1 | 2.63 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.58 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | INSPIRE Survey Adult Version Total Score - End of Period 2 | 3.98 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.27 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | Diabetes Technology Attitudes Survey - End of Period 2 | 22.71 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.77 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey Mean Score - End of Period 1 | 2.89 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.54 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey Mean Score - End of Period 2 | 2.70 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.54 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | Diabetes Distress Scale Total Score - End of Period 1 | 1.65 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.68 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | Diabetes Distress Scale Total Score - End of Period 2 | 1.63 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.82 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | Hypoglycemia Confidence Survey Mean Score - End of Period 1 | 3.51 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.39 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | Hypoglycemia Confidence Survey Mean Score - End of Period 2 | 3.57 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.45 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | Diabetes Technology Attitudes Survey - End of Period 1 | 22.40 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.1 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | INSPIRE Survey Adolescent Version Total Score - End of Period 1 | 4.38 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.6 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | INSPIRE Survey Adolescent Version Total Score - End of Period 2 | 4.27 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.6 |
| PID + Fuzzy Logic Algorithm | Human Factors and Diabetes Technology Attitude and Human Factors Questionnaires | INSPIRE Survey Adult Version Total Score - End of Period 1 | 3.79 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.21 |