Pre-school and school-aged children benefit from the switch from a sensor-augmented pump to an AndroidAPS hybrid closed loop: A retrospective analysis
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
PubMed
33576551
DOI
10.1111/pedi.13190
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- AndroidAPS, do it yourself systems, open source hybrid closed loop, young children,
- MeSH
- časové faktory MeSH
- diabetes mellitus 1. typu krev farmakoterapie MeSH
- dítě MeSH
- glykovaný hemoglobin metabolismus MeSH
- hypoglykemika aplikace a dávkování MeSH
- inzulin aplikace a dávkování MeSH
- inzulinové infuzní systémy * MeSH
- krevní glukóza metabolismus MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladiství MeSH
- předškolní dítě MeSH
- retrospektivní studie MeSH
- selfmonitoring glykemie * MeSH
- věkové faktory MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- dítě MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladiství MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- předškolní dítě MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- Názvy látek
- glykovaný hemoglobin MeSH
- hemoglobin A1c protein, human MeSH Prohlížeč
- hypoglykemika MeSH
- inzulin MeSH
- krevní glukóza MeSH
OBJECTIVE: Data on closed loop systems in young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) are limited. We tested the efficacy and safety of an open-source, do-it-yourself automated insulin delivery system AndroidAPS in preschool and school-aged children. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed diabetes control in 18 preschool (3-7 years) and 18 school-aged children (8-14 years) with T1D who switched from a sensor-augmented pump (SAP) to AndroidAPS. We compared the CGM parameters and HbA1c levels 3 months before and 6 months after the initiation of AndroidAPS therapy and evaluated frequency of severe adverse events during AndroidAPS use, the most frequent reasons for its interruption, and the experience and psychosocial benefits of AndroidAPS use. RESULTS: General glycemic control was significantly improved after the switch from SAP to AndroidAPS. Time in range (TIR) increased in both preschool (70.8%-78.6%, p = 0.004) and school-aged children (77.2%-82.9%, p < 0.001), whereas HbA1c levels decreased (preschool children 53.8-48.5 mmol/mol, p < 0.001; school-aged children 52.6-45.1 mmol/mol, p = 0.001). Time spent in range of 3.0-3.8 mmol/L increased slightly in school children (2.6%-3.8%, p = 0.040), but not in preschool children (3.0%-3.0%, p = 0.913). Time spent at <3 mmol/L remained unchanged in both preschool (0.95%-0.67%, p = 0.432) and school-aged children (0.8%-0.8%, p = 1.000). No episodes of severe hypoglycemia or DKA and significant improvement of quality of life were reported by AndroidAPS users. CONCLUSIONS: AndroidAPS seems effective for T1D control both in preschool and school-age children but further validation by prospective studies is necessary.
3rd Department of Internal Medicine 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Sumnik Z, Szypowska A, Iotova V, et al. Persistent heterogeneity in diabetes technology reimbursement for children with type 1 diabetes: the SWEET perspective. Pediatr Diabetes. 2019;20(4):434-443.
Sherr JL, Hermann JM, Campbell F, et al. Use of insulin pump therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and its impact on metabolic control: comparison of results from three large, transatlantic paediatric registries. Diabetologia. 2016;59(1):87-91.
Foster NC, Beck RW, Miller KM, et al. State of type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D exchange in 2016-2018. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(2):66-72.
American Diabetes Association. Glycemic targets: standards of medical care in diabetes-2019. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(1):61-70.
DiMeglio LA, Acerini CL, Codner E, et al. ISPAD clinical practice consensus guidelines 2018: glycemic control targets and glucose monitoring for children, adolescents, and young adults with diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018;19(27):105-114.
Amiel SA, Pursey N, Higgins B, et al. Diagnosis and management of type 1 diabetes in adults: summary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ. 2015;188:351.
McKnight JA, Wild SH, Lamb MJ, et al. Glycaemic control of type 1 diabetes in clinical practice early in the 21st century: an international comparison. Diabet Med. 2015;32(8):1036-1050.
Sumnik Z, Venhacova J, Skvor J, et al. Five years of improving diabetes control in Czech children after the establishment of the population-based childhood diabetes register ČENDA. Pediatr Diabetes. 2020;21(1):77-87.
Ho MS, Weller NJ, Ives FJ, et al. Prevalence of structural central nervous system abnormalities in early-onset type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Pediatr. 2008;153(3):385-390.
Mauras N, Mazaika P, Buckingham B, et al. Longitudinal assessment of neuroanatomical and cognitive differences in young children with type 1 diabetes: association with hyperglycemia. Diabetes. 2015;64(5):1770-1779.
Carlsen S, Skrivarhaug T, Thue G, et al. Glycemic control and complications in patients with type 1 diabetes - a registry-based longitudinal study of adolescents and young adults. Pediatr Diabetes. 2017;18(3):188-195.
Lind M, Svensson AM, Kosiborod M, et al. Glycemic control and excess mortality in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(21):1972-1982.
Garg SK, Weinzimer SA, Tamborlane WV, 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. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(3):155-163.
Tauschmann M, Thabit H, Bally L, et al. Closed-loop insulin delivery in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, 12-weekrandomised trial. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1321-1329.
Sherr JL, Buckingham BA, Forlenza GP, et al. Safety and performance of the Omnipod hybrid closed-loop system in adults, adolescents, and children with type 1 diabetes over 5 days under free-living conditions. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020;22(3):174-184.
Brown SA, Kovatchev BP, Raghinaru D, et al. Six-month randomized, multicenter trial of closed-loop control in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(18):1707-1717.
Forlenza GP, Ekhlaspour L, Breton M, et al. Successful at-home use of the tandem control-IQ artificial pancreas system in young children during a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(4):159-169.
Forlenza GP, Pinhas-Hamiel O, Liljenquist DR, et al. Safety evaluation of the MiniMed 670G system in children 7-13 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(1):11-19.
Russell SJ, Hillard MA, Balliro C, et al. Day and night glycaemic control with a bionic pancreas versus conventional insulin pump therapy in preadolescent children with type 1 diabetes: a randomized crossover trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016;4(3):233-243.
Breton MD, Kanapka LG, Beck RW, et al. A randomized trial of closed-loop control in children with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(9):836-845.
Salehi P, Roberts AJ, Kim GJ. Efficacy and safety of real-life usage of MiniMed 670G automode in children with type 1 diabetes less than 7 years old. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(8):448-451.
Bailey TS, Bode BW, Buckingham BA, et al. Glycemic outcomes from the MiniMed™ 670G system pivotal trials in patients 2-75 years of age. Diabetes. 2019;68(1):105.
Tauschmann M, Allen JM, Nagl K, et al. Home use of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in very young children: a multicenter, 3-week, randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(4):594-600.
Ekhlaspour L, Forlenza GP, Schoelwer M, et al. Safety and performance of the tandem T:slim X2 with control-IQ automated insulin delivery system in preschoolers, age 2-6 years old. Diabetes. 2020;69(1):195.
Buckingham B, Forlenza G, Jennife S, et al. Safety and performance of the omnipod hybrid closed-loop system in young children aged 2-6 years with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2019;20:28.
Benhamou PY, Franc S, Reznik Y, et al. Closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes in real-life conditions: a 12-week multicentre, open-label randomised controlled crossover trial. Lancet Digital Health. 2019;1(1):2-3.
Braune K, O'Donnell S, Cleal B, et al. Real-world use of do-it-yourself artificial pancreas systems in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: online survey and analysis of self-reported clinical outcomes. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(7):e14087.
Lewis D, Leibrand S. OpenAPSCommunity. Real-world use of open source artificial pancreas systems. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016;10(6):1.
Toffanin C, Kozak M, Sumnik Z, Cobelli C, Petruzelkova L. In silico trials of an open-source android-based artificial pancreas: a new paradigm to test safety and efficacy of do-it-yourself systems. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020;22(2):112-112, 120.
Dovc K, Boughton C, Tauschmann M, et al. Young children have higher variability of insulin requirements: observations during hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(7):1344-1347.
Petruzelkova L, Soupal J, Plasova V, et al. Excellent glycemic control maintained by open-source hybrid closed-loop android APS during and after sustained physical activity. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(11):744-750.
Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, et al. Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(8):1593-1603.
Musolino G, Dovc K, Boughton CK, et al. Reduced burden of diabetes and improved quality of life: experiences from unrestricted day-and-night hybrid closed-loop use in very young children with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2019;20(6):794-799.
Lewis D. History and perspective on DIY closed looping. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019;13(4):790-793.
Litchman ML, Lewis D, Kelly LA, Gee PM. Twitter Analysisof #OpenAPS DIY artificial pancreas technology use suggests improved A1C and quality of life. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019;13(2):164-170.
Melmer A, Züger T, Lewis DM, Leibrand S, Stettler C, Laimer M. Glycaemic control in individuals with type 1 diabetes using an open source artificial pancreas system (OpenAPS). Diabetes Obes Metab. 2019;21(10):2333-2337.
Lum J, Bailey R, Barnes-Lomen V, Naranjo D, Hood K, Lal RA, Arbiter B, Brown A, DeSalvo DJ, Pettus J, Calhoun P, Beck RW. A real-world prospective study of the safety and effectiveness of the loop open source automated insulin delivery system. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2020.0535.
Rearson M, Sullivan-Bolyai S. Management of type 1 diabetes in children in the first 5 years of life. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev. 2017;14(2):412-421.
Koutsovasilis A, Sotiropoulos A, Antoniou A, et al. The effect of a closed-loop insulin delivery system on glycemic control in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. 2019;68(Supplement 1):1065-P.
Burnside M, Lewis D, Crocket H, et al. CREATE (community deRivEd AutomaTEd insulin delivery) trial. Randomised parallel arm open label clinical trial comparing automated insulin delivery using a mobile controller (AnyDANA-loop) with an open-source algorithm with sensor augmented pump therapy in type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2020;19(2):1615-1629.
Poncette AS, Rojas PD, Hofferbert J, ValeraSosa A, Balzer F, Braune K. Hackathons as stepping stones in health care innovation: case study with systematic recommendations. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(3):e17004.
