Premium
Efficacy of the Diabeloop closed‐loop system to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes exposed to gastronomic dinners or to sustained physical exercise
Author(s) -
Hanaire Hélène,
Franc Sylvia,
Borot Sophie,
Penfornis Alfred,
Benhamou PierreYves,
Schaepelynck Pauline,
Renard Eric,
Guerci Bruno,
Jeandidier Nathalie,
Simon Chantal,
Hannaert Patrick,
Xhaard Ilham,
Doron Maeva,
Huneker Erik,
Charpentier Guillaume,
Reznik Yves
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
diabetes, obesity and metabolism
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.445
H-Index - 128
eISSN - 1463-1326
pISSN - 1462-8902
DOI - 10.1111/dom.13898
Subject(s) - crossover study , medicine , diabetes mellitus , physical activity , randomized controlled trial , type 2 diabetes , type 1 diabetes , zoology , endocrinology , physical therapy , biology , placebo , alternative medicine , pathology
Aims To compare closed‐loop (CL) and open‐loop (OL) systems for glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) exposed to real‐life challenging situations (gastronomic dinners or sustained physical exercise). Methods Thirty‐eight adult patients with T1D were included in a three‐armed randomized pilot trial (Diabeloop WP6.2 trial) comparing glucose control using a CL system with use of an OL device during two crossover 72‐hour periods in one of the three following situations: large (gastronomic) dinners; sustained and repeated bouts of physical exercise (with uncontrolled food intake); or control (rest conditions). Outcomes included time in spent in the glucose ranges of 4.4‐7.8 mmol/L and 3.9‐10.0 mmol/L, and time in hypo‐ and hyperglycaemia. Results Time spent overnight in the tight range of 4.4 to 7.8 mmol/L was longer with CL (mean values: 63.2% vs 40.9% with OL; P ≤ .0001). Time spent during the day in the range of 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L was also longer with CL (79.4% vs 64.1% with OL; P ≤ .0001). Participants using the CL system spent less time during the day with hyperglycaemic excursions (glucose >10.0 mmol/L) compared to those using an OL system (17.9% vs 31.9%; P ≤ .0001), and the proportions of time spent during the day with hyperglycaemic excursions of those using the CL system in the gastronomic dinner and physical exercise subgroups were of similar magnitude to those in the control subgroup (18.1 ± 6.3%, 17.2 ± 8.1% and 18.4 ± 12.5%, respectively). Finally, times spent in hypoglycaemia were short and not significantly different among the groups. Conclusions The Diabeloop CL system is superior to OL devices in reducing hyperglycaemic excursions in patients with T1D exposed to gastronomic dinners, or exposed to physical exercise followed by uncontrolled food and carbohydrate intake.