Advertisement

Acta Diabetologica

, Volume 55, Issue 6, pp 549–556 | Cite as

Customization of home closed-loop insulin delivery in adult patients with type 1 diabetes, assisted with structured remote monitoring: the pilot WP7 Diabeloop study

  • Pierre Yves Benhamou
  • Erik Huneker
  • Sylvia Franc
  • Maeva Doron
  • Guillaume Charpentier
  • on behalf of the Diabeloop Consortium
Original Article

Abstract

Aims

Improvement in closed-loop insulin delivery systems could result from customization of settings to individual needs and remote monitoring. This pilot home study evaluated the efficacy and relevance of this approach.

Methods

A bicentric clinical trial was conducted for 3 weeks, using an MPC-based algorithm (Diabeloop Artificial Pancreas system) featuring five settings designed to modulate the reactivity of regulation. Remote monitoring was ensured by expert nurses with a web platform generating automatic Secured Information Messages (SIMs) and with a structured procedure. Endpoints were glucose metrics and description of impact of monitoring on regulation parameters.

Results

Eight patients with type 1 diabetes (six men, age 41.8 ± 11.4 years, HbA1c 7.7 ± 1.0%) were included. Time spent in the 70–180 mg/dl range was 70.2% [67.5; 76.9]. Time in hypoglycemia < 70 mg/dl was 2.9% [2.1; 3.4]. Eleven SIMs led to phone intervention. Original default settings were modified in all patients by the intervention of the nurses.

Conclusion

This pilot trial suggests that the Diabeloop closed-loop system could be efficient regarding metabolic outcomes, whereas its telemedical monitoring feature could contribute to enhanced efficacy and safety.

This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with trial registration number NCT02987556.

Keywords

Type 1 diabetes mellitus Artificial pancreas Closed-loop insulin therapy Telemedicine Remote monitoring 

Notes

Acknowledgements

CERITD (Centre d’Études et de Recherches pour l’Intensification du Traitement du Diabète) is a nonprofit clinical translational research center located in Corbeil hospital. CERITD as the sole sponsor was fully involved in the design and coordination of the study. Part of the investigations was conducted within the Grenoble Clinical Research Centre (CIC-INSERM, Grenoble University Hospital) under the supervision of Pr Jean Luc Cracowski. The authors would like to thank Ilham Xhaard, Caroline Peschard, Dina Ingrao Lecante, Laurent Orlando, Delphine Coto, Anne Cecile Gully, Steeve Mounier, Marie Helene Petit from CERITD, Adeline Paris, Claire Cracowski, Enkelejda Hodaj, Justine Cristante, Manon Jalbert from Grenoble University Hospital, for involvement in the management of the study, and all engineers from DIABELOOP S.A. and from CEA-LETI. Statistical analysis was performed by Didier Not (www.rcts.fr). Financial support of the study was provided by a contract grant from AVIESAN and by CERITD.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare the following disclosures: Erik Huneker is CEO of Diabeloop S.A. Guillaume Charpentier is chairman of Diabeloop S.A. Erik Huneker, Guillaume Charpentier and Sylvia Franc are shareholders in Diabeloop S.A. The other authors (Pierre Y. Benhamou, Maeva Doron, and all other members of the Diabeloop consortium) declare no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to their inclusion in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Weisman A, Bai JW, Cardinez M, Kramer CK, Perkins BA (2017) Effect of artificial pancreas systems on glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outpatient randomised controlled trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 5:501–512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pettus J, Von Herrath M (2018) The shifting paradigm of a “cure” for type 1 diabetes: is technology replacing immune-based therapies? Acta Diabetol 55:117–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maahs DM, Buckingham BA, Castle JR et al (2016) Outcome measures for artificial pancreas clinical trials: a consensus report. Diabetes Care 39:1175–1179CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hovorka R, Canonico V, Chassin LJ et al (2004) Nonlinear model predictive control of glucose concentration in subjects with type 1 diabetes. Physiol Meas 25:905–920CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bally L, Thabit H, Kojzar H et al (2017) 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 5:261–270CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    El-Khatib FH, Balliro C, Hillard MA et al (2017) Home use of a bihormonal bionic pancreas versus insulin pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre randomised crossover trial. Lancet 389:369–380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haidar A, Messier V, Legault L, Ladouceur M, Rabasa-Lhoret R (2017) 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 19:713–720CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kropff J, Del Favero S, Place J et al (2015) 2 month evening and night closed-loop glucose control in patients with type 1 diabetes under free-living conditions: a randomised crossover trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 3:939–947CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nimri R, Muller I, Atlas E et al (2014) MD-Logic overnight control for 6 weeks of home use in patients with type 1 diabetes: randomized crossover trial. Diabetes Care 37:3025–3032CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thabit H, Tauschmann M, Allen JM et al (2015) Home use of an artificial beta cell in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 373:2129–2140CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Castle JR, DeVries JH, Kovatchev B (2017) Future of automated insulin delivery systems. Diabetes Technol Ther 19:S67–S72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keith-Hynes P, Guerlain S, Mize B et al (2013) DiAs user interface: a patient-centric interface for mobile artificial pancreas systems. J Diabetes Sci Technol 7:1416–1426CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Place J, Robert A, Ben Brahim N et al (2013) DiAs web monitoring: a real-time remote monitoring system designed for artificial pancreas outpatient trials. J Diabetes Sci Technol 7:1427–1435CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Anderson SM, Raghinaru D, Pinsker JE et al (2016) Multinational home use of closed-loop control is safe and effective. Diabetes Care 39:1143–1150CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Breton MD, Chernavvsky DR, Forlenza GP et al (2017) Closed loop control during intense prolonged outdoor exercise in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: the Artificial Pancreas Ski study. Diabetes Care.  https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-0883 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    DeSalvo DJ, Keith-Hynes P, Peyser T et al (2014) Remote glucose monitoring in cAMP setting reduces the risk of prolonged nocturnal hypoglycemia. Diabetes Technol Ther 16:1–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garg SK, Weinzimer SA, Tamborlane WV et al (2017) 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 19:155–163CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bally L, Thabit H, Tauschmann M et al (2017) Assessing the effectiveness of a 3-month day-and-night home closed-loop control combined with pump suspend feature compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in youths and adults with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a randomised parallel study protocol. BMJ Open 7:e016738CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gildersleeve R, Riggs SL, Cherñavvsky DR, Breton MD, DeBoer MD (2017) Improving the safety and functionality of an artificial pancreas system for use in younger children: input from parents and physicians. Diabetes Technol Ther.  https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2017.0150 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Messori M, Kropff J, Del Favero S et al (2017) Individually adaptive artificial pancreas in subjects with type 1 diabetes: a one-month proof-of-concept trial in free-living conditions. Diabetes Technol Ther.  https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2016.0463 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang Y, Zhang J, Zeng F et al (2017) “Learning” can improve the blood glucose control performance for type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Technol Ther 19:41–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dassau E, Pinsker JE, Kudva YC et al (2017) 12-Week 24/7 ambulatory artificial pancreas with weekly adaptation of insulin delivery settings: effect on hemoglobin A1c and hypoglycemia. Diabetes Care.  https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-1188 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Charpentier G, Benhamou PY, Dardari D et al (2011) The DIABEO software enabling individualized insulin dose adjustments combined with telemedicine support improves HbA1c in poorly controlled type 1 diabetic patients: a 6-month, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter trial (TeleDiab 1 study). Diabetes Care 34:533–539CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Journal Officiel de la République Française. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/arrete/2017/4/25/AFSH1711560A/jo/texte. Accessed 1 Mar 2018
  25. 25.
    Farrington C (2017) Hacking diabetes: dIY artificial pancreas systems. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 5:332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    O’Keeffe DT, Maraka S, Basu A, Keith-Hynes P, Kudva YC (2015) Cybersecurity in artificial pancreas experiments. Diabetes Technol Ther 17:664–666CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Endocrinology, Pôle DigiDune, Grenoble University HospitalGrenoble Alpes UniversityGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.DIABELOOP S.AParisFrance
  3. 3.CERITD (Centre d’Études et de Recherches pour l’Intensification du Traitement du Diabète), Bioparc-Génopole Évry-CorbeilÉvryFrance
  4. 4.Department of DiabetesSud-Francilien HospitalCorbeil-EssonnesFrance
  5. 5.Univ. Grenoble AlpesGrenobleFrance
  6. 6.CEA LETI MlNATEC CampusGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations