AIM: To compare open-source AndroidAPS (AAPS) and commercially available Control-IQ (CIQ) automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in a prospective, open-label, single-arm clinical trial. METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes who had been using AAPS by their own decision entered the first 3-month AAPS phase then were switched to CIQ for 3 months. The results of this treatment were compared with those after the 3-month AAPS phase. The primary endpoint was the change in time in range (% TIR; 70-80 mg/dL). RESULTS: Twenty-five people with diabetes (mean age 34.32 ± 11.07 years; HbA1c 6.4% ± 3%) participated in this study. CIQ was comparable with AAPS in achieving TIR (85.72% ± 7.64% vs. 84.24% ± 8.46%; P = .12). Similarly, there were no differences in percentage time above range (> 180 and > 250 mg/dL), mean sensor glucose (130.3 ± 13.9 vs. 128.3 ± 16.9 mg/dL; P = .21) or HbA1c (6.3% ± 2.1% vs. 6.4% ± 3.1%; P = .59). Percentage time below range (< 70 and < 54 mg/dL) was significantly lower using CIQ than AAPS. Even although participants were mostly satisfied with CIQ (63.6% mostly agreed, 9.1% strongly agreed), they did not plan to switch to CIQ. CONCLUSIONS: The CODIAC study is the first prospective study investigating the switch between open-source and commercially available AID systems. CIQ and AAPS were comparable in achieving TIR. However, hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with CIQ.

1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic

3rd Department of Internal Medicine 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic

CGParkin Communications Inc Henderson Nevada USA

Department of Internal Medicine Masaryk Hospital Ústí nad Labem Czech Republic

Grunberger Diabetes Institute Bloomfield Hills Michigan USA

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Holt RIG, Hans DeVries J, Hess-Fischl A, et al. The Management of Type 1 diabetes in adults. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2021;44(11):2589-2625.

Asarani NAM, Reynolds AN, Elbalshy M, et al. Efficacy, safety, and user experience of DIY or open-source artificial pancreas systems: a systematic review. Acta Diabetol. 2020;58(5):539-547.

OpenAPS Outcomes. OpenAPS.org. Accessed 21 May 2023. Avaible from https://openaps.org/outcomes/.

Lum JW, Bailey RJ, Barnes-Lomen V, et al. A real-world prospective study of the safety and effectiveness of the loop open source automated insulin delivery system. Diab Technol Therap. 2021;23(5):367-375.

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.

Burnside MJ, Lewis DM, Crocket HR, et al. Open-source automated insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(10):869-881.

Burnside MJ, Lewis DM, Crocket HR, et al. Extended use of an open-source automated insulin delivery system in children and adults with type 1 diabetes: the 24-week continuation phase following the create randomized controlled trial. Diab Technol Therap. 2023;2023:250-259.

Nanayakkara N, Sharifi A, Burren D, Elghattis Y, Jayarathna DK, Cohen N. Hybrid closed loop using a do-it-yourself artificial pancreas system in adults with type 1 diabetes. J Diab Sci Technol. 2023;14:193229682311538.

Wu Z, Luo S, Zheng X, et al. The use of a do-it-yourself artificial pancreas system is associated with better glucose management and higher quality of life among adults with type 1 diabetes. Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab. 2020;11:204201882095014.

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.

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.

Tauschmann M, Thabit H, Bally L, et al. Closed-loop insulin delivery in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, 12-week randomized trial. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1321-1329h.

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. Rand Trial Diab Care. 2019;42(4):594-600.

Lewis D, Leibrand S, West B. Frequently Asked Questions - OpenAPS.org. Accessed 1 May 2023. Available from https://openaps.org/frequently-asked-questions/.

Kozak M. OpenAPS features - AndroidAPS 3.0 documentation. Accessed 1 May 2023. Available from https://wiki.aaps.app/en/latest/Usage/Open-APS-features.html?highlight=SMB

Kozak M. Objectives - AndroidAPS 3.1 documentation. Accessed 1 May 2023. Available from https://wiki.aaps.app/en/latest/Usage/Objectives.html

Braune K, Lal RA, Petruželková L, et al. Open-source automated insulin delivery: international consensus statement and practical guidance for health-care professionals. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2022;10(1):58-74.

Control-IQ. Tandem diabetes. Accessed 1 May 2023. Available from https://www.tandemdiabetes.com/providers/products/control-iq

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.

LewisD LS. Real-world use of open source artificial pancreas systems. J Diab Sci Technol. 2016;10(6):1411.

Lee JM, Newman MW, Gebremariam A, et al. Real-world use and self-reported health outcomes of a patient-designed do-it-yourself mobile technology system for diabetes: lessons for mobile health. Diab Technol Therap. 2017;19(4):209-219.

Street TJ. Review of self-reported Data from UK do-it-yourself artificial pancreas system (DIY APS) users to determine whether demographic of population affects use or outcomes. Diabetes Therapy. 2021;12(7):1839-1848.

Litchman ML, Lewis D, Kelly LA, Gee PM. Twitter analysis of #OpenAPS DIY artificial pancreas technology use suggests improved A1C and quality of life. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018;13(2):164-170.

Jeyaventhan R, Gallen G, Choudhary P, Hussain S. A real-world study of user characteristics, safety, and efficacy of open-source closed-loop systems and Medtronic 670G. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2021;23(8):1989-1994.

Saunders A, Messer LH, Forlenza GP. MiniMed 670G hybrid closed loop artificial pancreas system for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus: an overview of its safety and efficacy. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2019;16(10):845-853.

Messer LH, Forlenza GP, Sherr JL, et al. Optimizing hybrid closed-loop therapy in adolescents and emerging adults using the minimed 670G system. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(4):789-796.

Weisman A, Bai J-W, Cardinez M, Kramer C, Perkins B. Effect of artificial pancreas systems on glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outpatient randomised controlled trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017; 5, 2213-8587.

Moshe Phillip and others. Consensus recommendations for the use of automated insulin delivery technologies in clinical practice. Endocr Rev. 2023;44(2):254-280.

Petruzelkova L, Neuman V, Plachy L, et al. First use of open-source automated insulin delivery androidaps in full closed-loop scenario; PANCREAS4ALL randomized pilot study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2023;25:315-323.