Improved Glycemia with Hybrid Closed-Loop (HCL) Versus Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) Therapy: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate safety and effectiveness of MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed loop in comparison with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy for six months, in persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS Adults (aged 18-80 years), adolescents, and children (aged 2-17 years) with T1D who were using CSII therapy were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to six months of HCL intervention (N=151, mean age of 39.9±19.8 years) or CSII control (N=151, 35.7±18.4 years) without continuous glucose monitoring. Primary effectiveness endpoints included change in A1C for Group 1 (baseline A1C >8.0%), from baseline to the end of study, and difference in the end of study percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL (%TBR<70 mg/dL) for Group 2 (baseline A1C ≤8.0%), to show superiority of HCL intervention versus control. Secondary effectiveness endpoints were change in A1C and %TBR<70 mg/dL for Group 2 and Group 1, respectively, to show non-inferiority of HCL intervention versus control. Primary safety endpoints were rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). RESULTS Change in A1C and difference in %TBR<70 mg/dL for the overall group were significantly improved, in favor of HCL intervention. In addition, a significant mean (95% CI) change in A1C was observed for both Group 1 (-0.8% [-1.1%,-0.4%], p<0.0001) and Group 2 (-0.3% [-0.5%,-0.1%], p<0.0001), in favor of HCL intervention. The same was observed for difference in %TBR<70 mg/dL for Group 1 (-2.2% [-3.6%,-0.9%]) and Group 2 (-4.9% [-6.3%,-3.6%]) (p<0.0001 for both). There was one DKA event during run-in and six severe hypoglycemic events: two during run-in and four during study (HCL: N=0 and CSII: N=4 [6.08 per 100 patient-years]). CONCLUSIONS This RCT demonstrate that the MiniMed 670G system safely and significantly improved A1C and %TBR<70 mg/dL with HCL intervention compared with CSII control in persons with T1D, irrespective of baseline A1C level.

[1]  D. Bruttomesso,et al.  Switching from predictive low glucose suspend to advanced hybrid closed loop control: effects on glucose control and patient reported outcomes. , 2022, Diabetes research and clinical practice.

[2]  B. Buckingham,et al.  Glycemic outcomes of children 2–6 years of age with type 1 diabetes during the pediatric MiniMed™ 670G system trial , 2022, Pediatric diabetes.

[3]  Z. Fang,et al.  Efficacy and safety of closed-loop insulin delivery versus sensor-augmented pump in the treatment of adults with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials , 2021, Journal of Endocrinological Investigation.

[4]  R. Beck,et al.  Real-world, Patient-Reported and Clinic Data from Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes using the MiniMed 670G Hybrid Closed Loop System. , 2021, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[5]  John J. Shin,et al.  Real‐world performance of the MiniMed™ 670G system in Europe , 2021, Diabetes, obesity and metabolism.

[6]  Pearl L. Yu,et al.  The Impact of a Recently Approved Automated Insulin Delivery System on Glycemic, Sleep, and Psychosocial Outcomes in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Pilot Study , 2021, Journal of diabetes science and technology.

[7]  Lauren M. Huyett,et al.  First Outpatient Evaluation of a Tubeless Automated Insulin Delivery System with Customizable Glucose Targets in Children and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes , 2020, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[8]  Sybil A. McAuley,et al.  Six Months of Hybrid Closed-Loop Versus Manual Insulin Delivery With Fingerprick Blood Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized, Controlled Trial , 2020, Diabetes Care.

[9]  Erin C. Cobry,et al.  Impact of the Hybrid Closed-Loop System on Sleep and Quality of Life in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes and their Parents. , 2020, Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics.

[10]  P. Beato-Víbora,et al.  Prospective analysis of the impact of commercialised hybrid closed-loop system on glycaemic control, glycaemic variability and patient-related outcomes in children and adults: a focus on superiority over predictive low glucose suspend technology. , 2019, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[11]  R. Bergenstal,et al.  Advanced Technology in the Management of Diabetes: Which Comes First—Continuous Glucose Monitor or Insulin Pump? , 2019, Current Diabetes Reports.

[12]  J. Snell-Bergeon,et al.  Glycemic Outcomes with Early Initiation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in Recently Diagnosed Patients with Type 1 Diabetes. , 2019, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[13]  B. Buckingham,et al.  Safety Evaluation of the MiniMed 670G System in Children 7–13 Years of Age with Type 1 Diabetes , 2019, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[14]  B. Buckingham,et al.  Psychosocial and Human Factors During a Trial of a Hybrid Closed Loop System for Type 1 Diabetes Management. , 2018, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[15]  John J. Shin,et al.  Retrospective Analysis of 3-Month Real-World Glucose Data After the MiniMed 670G System Commercial Launch. , 2018, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[16]  Wei Bao,et al.  Prevalence of diagnosed type 1 and type 2 diabetes among US adults in 2016 and 2017: population based study , 2018, British Medical Journal.

[17]  Gregory P. Forlenza,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 , 2018, Diabetes Care.

[18]  D. Maahs,et al.  Continuous glucose monitoring and glycemic control among youth with type 1 diabetes: International comparison from the T1D Exchange and DPV Initiative , 2018, Pediatric diabetes.

[19]  Bruce R King,et al.  Reduction in Hypoglycemia With the Predictive Low-Glucose Management System: A Long-term Randomized Controlled Trial in Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes , 2017, Diabetes Care.

[20]  W. Tamborlane,et al.  Risk of Severe Hypoglycemia in Type 1 Diabetes Over 30 Years of Follow-up in the DCCT/EDIC Study , 2017, Diabetes Care.

[21]  R. Hovorka,et al.  Closing the Loop in Adults, Children and Adolescents With Suboptimally Controlled Type 1 Diabetes Under Free Living Conditions: A Psychosocial Substudy , 2017, Journal of diabetes science and technology.

[22]  Benyamin Grosman,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 , 2017, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[23]  John B. Welsh,et al.  Effectiveness of Automated Insulin Management Features of the MiniMed® 640G Sensor-Augmented Insulin Pump , 2016, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[24]  J. Lachin,et al.  Mortality in Type 1 Diabetes in the DCCT/EDIC Versus the General Population , 2016, Diabetes Care.

[25]  S. Garg,et al.  Hypoglycemia Reduction and Changes in Hemoglobin A1c in the ASPIRE In-Home Study , 2015, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[26]  B. Zinman,et al.  Association between 7 years of intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes and long-term mortality. , 2015, JAMA.

[27]  P A Cleary,et al.  Beneficial effects of intensive therapy of diabetes during adolescence: outcomes after the conclusion of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT). , 2001, The Journal of pediatrics.

[28]  W. Tamborlane,et al.  Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC). Design, implementation, and preliminary results of a long-term follow-up of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial cohort. , 1999, Diabetes care.