Day and Night Closed-Loop Control Using the Integrated Medtronic Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Type 1 Diabetes at Diabetes Camp

• Published in: Diabetes care Vol. 38; no. 7; pp. 1205 - 1211
• Main Authors: Ly, Trang T., Roy, Anirban, Grosman, Benyamin, Shin, John, Campbell, Alex, Monirabbasi, Salman, Liang, Bradley, von Eyben, Rie, Shanmugham, Satya, Clinton, Paula, Buckingham, Bruce A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States American Diabetes Association 01.07.2015
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Algorithms; Automation; Biosensing Techniques - instrumentation; Blood Glucose - analysis; Camping; Closed loop systems; Diabetes; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 - blood; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 - drug therapy; Feasibility; Female; Glucose - therapeutic use; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents - therapeutic use; Insulin; Insulin - therapeutic use; Insulin Infusion Systems; Male; Middle Aged; Plasma; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0149-5992; 1935-5548; 1935-5548
• DOI: 10.2337/dc14-3073

To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of a fully integrated hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system (Medtronic MiniMed Inc., Northridge, CA), in day and night closed-loop control in subjects with type 1 diabetes, both in an inpatient setting and during 6 days at diabetes camp. The Medtronic MiniMed HCL system consists of a fourth generation (4S) glucose sensor, a sensor transmitter, and an insulin pump using a modified proportional-integral-derivative (PID) insulin feedback algorithm with safety constraints. Eight subjects were studied over 48 h in an inpatient setting. This was followed by a study of 21 subjects for 6 days at diabetes camp, randomized to either the closed-loop control group using the HCL system or to the group using the Medtronic MiniMed 530G with threshold suspend (control group). The overall mean sensor glucose percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL was similar between the groups (73.1% vs. 69.9%, control vs. HCL, respectively) (P = 0.580). Meter glucose values between 70 and 180 mg/dL were also similar between the groups (73.6% vs. 63.2%, control vs. HCL, respectively) (P = 0.086). The mean absolute relative difference of the 4S sensor was 10.8 ± 10.2%, when compared with plasma glucose values in the inpatient setting, and 12.6 ± 11.0% compared with capillary Bayer CONTOUR NEXT LINK glucose meter values during 6 days at camp. In the first clinical study of this fully integrated system using an investigational PID algorithm, the system did not demonstrate improved glucose control compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy alone. The system demonstrated good connectivity and improved sensor performance.