Why the study?
The study was conducted to assess the efficacy of inControl AP, a mobile closed-loop control system, compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy.
Does a mobile closed-loop control system improve glycemic control compared to sensor-augmented pump therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes?
Does a mobile closed-loop control system improve glycemic control compared to sensor-augmented pump therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes?
Mobile closed-loop control is superior to sensor-augmented pump therapy in reducing hypoglycemia and noninferior in preventing hyperglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Mobile CLC improves time in range and reduces hypoglycemia vs SAP in T1D; extends randomized evidence for automated insulin delivery in pump users.
OBJECTIVE Assess the efficacy of inControl AP, a mobile closed-loop control (CLC) system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This protocol, NCT02985866, is a 3-month parallel-group, multicenter, randomized unblinded trial designed to compare mobile CLC with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. Eligibility criteria were type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year, use of insulin pumps for at least 6 months, age ≥14 years, and baseline HbA1c <10.5% (91 mmol/mol). The study was designed to assess two coprimary outcomes: superiority of CLC over SAP in continuous glucose monitor (CGM)–measured time below 3.9 mmol/L and noninferiority in CGM-measured time above 10 mmol/L. RESULTS Between November 2017 and May 2018, 127 participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to CLC (n = 65) versus SAP (n = 62); 125 participants completed the study. CGM time below 3.9 mmol/L was 5.0% at baseline and 2.4% during follow-up in the CLC group vs. 4.7% and 4.0%, respectively, in the SAP group (mean difference −1.7% [95% CI −2.4, −1.0]; P < 0.0001 for superiority). CGM time above 10 mmol/L was 40% at baseline and 34% during follow-up in the CLC group vs. 43% and 39%, respectively, in the SAP group (mean difference −3.0% [95% CI −6.1, 0.1]; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority). One severe hypoglycemic event occurred in the CLC group, which was unrelated to the study device. CONCLUSIONS In meeting its coprimary end points, superiority of CLC over SAP in CGM-measured time below 3.9 mmol/L and noninferiority in CGM-measured time above 10 mmol/L, the study has demonstrated that mobile CLC is feasible and could offer certain usability advantages over embedded systems, provided the connectivity between system components is stable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kovatchev et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: