Format

Send to

Choose Destination
N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 9;379(6):547-556. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805233. Epub 2018 Jun 25.

Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery for Glycemic Control in Noncritical Care.

Author information

1
From the Departments of Diabetes, Endocrinology, Clinical Nutrition, and Metabolism (L.B., E.A., C.S.) and General Internal Medicine (L.B., M.M.W.), Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; and the Wellcome Trust-MRC Institute of Metabolic Science (L.B., H.T., Y.R., M.E.W., M.L.E., A.P.C., R.H.) and the Department of Pediatrics (M.E.W., R.H.), University of Cambridge, and the Wolfson Diabetes and Endocrine Clinic, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (S.H., M.L.E., A.P.C.), Cambridge, and the Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (H.T.), and the Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Gastroenterology, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester (H.T.), Manchester - all in the United Kingdom.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

In patients with diabetes, hospitalization can complicate the achievement of recommended glycemic targets. There is increasing evidence that a closed-loop delivery system (artificial pancreas) can improve glucose control in patients with type 1 diabetes. We wanted to investigate whether a closed-loop system could also improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes who were receiving noncritical care.

METHODS:

In this randomized, open-label trial conducted on general wards in two tertiary hospitals located in the United Kingdom and Switzerland, we assigned 136 adults with type 2 diabetes who required subcutaneous insulin therapy to receive either closed-loop insulin delivery (70 patients) or conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy, according to local clinical practice (66 patients). The primary end point was the percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was within the target range of 100 to 180 mg per deciliter (5.6 to 10.0 mmol per liter) for up to 15 days or until hospital discharge.

RESULTS:

The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was in the target range was 65.8±16.8% in the closed-loop group and 41.5±16.9% in the control group, a difference of 24.3±2.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.6 to 30.0; P<0.001); values above the target range were found in 23.6±16.6% and 49.5±22.8% of the patients, respectively, a difference of 25.9±3.4 percentage points (95% CI, 19.2 to 32.7; P<0.001). The mean glucose level was 154 mg per deciliter (8.5 mmol per liter) in the closed-loop group and 188 mg per deciliter (10.4 mmol per liter) in the control group (P<0.001). There was no significant between-group difference in the duration of hypoglycemia (as defined by a sensor glucose measurement of <54 mg per deciliter; P=0.80) or in the amount of insulin that was delivered (median dose, 44.4 U and 40.2 U, respectively; P=0.50). No episode of severe hypoglycemia or clinically significant hyperglycemia with ketonemia occurred in either trial group.

CONCLUSIONS:

Among inpatients with type 2 diabetes receiving noncritical care, the use of an automated, closed-loop insulin-delivery system resulted in significantly better glycemic control than conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy, without a higher risk of hypoglycemia. (Funded by Diabetes UK and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01774565 .).

PMID:
29940126
DOI:
10.1056/NEJMoa1805233
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Atypon
Loading ...
Support Center