OBJECTIVE: Officially licensed hybrid closed-loop systems are not currently available worldwide; therefore, open-source systems have become increasingly popular. Our aim was to assess the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of an open-source hybrid closed-loop system (AndroidAPS) versus SmartGuard® technology for day-and-night glucose control in children under extreme sports conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twenty-two children (16 girls, 6-15 years of age, median HbA1c 56 ± 9 mmol/mol) were enrolled in this pivotal winter sports camp study. The participants were divided into two groups using either the AndroidAPS or SmartGuard technology. Physical exertion was represented by all-day alpine skiing. The primary endpoints were mean glucose level, time below the threshold of 3.9 mmol/L, and time within the target range of 3.9 to 10 mmol/L. RESULTS: The children using the AndroidAPS had significantly lower mean glycemia levels (7.2 ± 2.7 vs. 7.7 ± 2.8 mmol/L; 129.6 ± 49 vs. 138.6 ± 50 mg/dL, P < 0.042) than the children using the SmartGuard. The proportion of time below the target (median 5.0% ± 2.5% vs. 3.0% ± 2.3%, P = 0.6) and in the target zone (63% ± 9.5% vs. 63% ± 18%, P = 0.5) did not significantly differ. The AndroidAPS group experienced more frequent malfunctions of the cannula set (median 0.8 ± 0.4 vs. 0.2 ± 0.4, P = 0.02), which could have affected the results. No significant difference was found in the amount of carbohydrates consumed for the prevention and treatment of hypoglycemia [median 40 ± 23 vs. 25 ± 29 g/(patient ·3 days)]. No episodes of severe hypoglycemia or other serious adverse events were noted. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study showed that the AndroidAPS system was a safe and feasible alternative to the SmartGuard Technology.

• MeSH
• Exercise physiology   MeSH
• Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 blood   drug therapy   physiopathology   MeSH
• Child MeSH
• Glycated Hemoglobin metabolism   MeSH
• Hypoglycemia etiology   prevention & control   MeSH
• Hypoglycemic Agents administration & dosage   MeSH
• Insulin administration & dosage   MeSH
• Insulin Infusion Systems * MeSH
• Blood Glucose metabolism   MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Skiing physiology   MeSH
• Adolescent MeSH
• Pilot Projects MeSH
• Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring instrumentation   methods   MeSH
• Feasibility Studies MeSH
• Check Tag
• Child MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Adolescent MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Evaluation Study MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't 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.

• MeSH
• Time Factors MeSH
• Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 blood   drug therapy   MeSH
• Child MeSH
• Glycated Hemoglobin metabolism   MeSH
• Hypoglycemic Agents administration & dosage   MeSH
• Insulin administration & dosage   MeSH
• Insulin Infusion Systems * MeSH
• Blood Glucose metabolism   MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Adolescent MeSH
• Child, Preschool MeSH
• Retrospective Studies MeSH
• Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring * MeSH
• Age Factors MeSH
• Treatment Outcome MeSH
• Check Tag
• Child MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Adolescent MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Child, Preschool MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

Objective: We evaluated the safety and feasibility of open-source automated insulin delivery AndroidAPS in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and compared its efficacy in three different scenarios: hybrid closed loop (HCL) with meal boluses, meal announcement only (MA), and full closed loop (FCL). Research Design and Methods: In an open-label, prospective, randomized crossover trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT04835350), 16 adolescents with T1D (10 females) with mean age of 17 years (range 15-20), glycated hemoglobin 56 mmol/mol (range 43-75), and mean duration of diabetes 5.9 years (9-15) underwent three distinct 3-day periods of camp living, comparing the above-mentioned scenarios of AndroidAPS. We used modified and locked version of AndroidAPS 3.1.03, which was called Pancreas4ALL for study purposes. The order of MA and FCL periods was assigned randomly. The primary endpoints were feasibility and safety of the system represented by percentage of time of glucose control by the system and time in hypoglycemia below 3 mmol/L. Results: The glycemia was controlled by the system 95% time of the study and the proportion of time below 3 mmol/L did not exceed 1% over the whole study period (0.72%). The HCL scenario reached significantly higher percentage of time below 3 mmol/L (HCL 1.05% vs. MA 0.0% vs. FCL 0.0%; P = 0.05) compared to other scenarios. No difference was observed among the scenarios in the percentage of time between 3.9 and 10 mmol/L (HCL 83.3% vs. MA 79.85% vs. FCL 81.03%, P = 0.58) corresponding to mean glycemia (HCL 6.65 mmol/L vs. MA 7.34 mmol/L vs. FCL 7.05 mmol/L, P = 0.28). No difference was observed in the mean daily dose of insulin or in the daily carbohydrate intake. No serious adverse event occurred during the study period. Conclusions: Our pilot study showed that FCL might be a realistic mode of treatment for people with T1D.

• MeSH
• Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 * drug therapy   MeSH
• Adult MeSH
• Hypoglycemic Agents MeSH
• Insulin, Regular, Human therapeutic use   MeSH
• Insulin * therapeutic use   MeSH
• Insulin Infusion Systems MeSH
• Cross-Over Studies MeSH
• Blood Glucose MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Adolescent MeSH
• Young Adult MeSH
• Pilot Projects MeSH
• Prospective Studies MeSH
• Check Tag
• Adult MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Adolescent MeSH
• Young Adult MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
• Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH

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.

• MeSH
• Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 * drug therapy   MeSH
• Adult MeSH
• Glycated Hemoglobin MeSH
• Hypoglycemic Agents therapeutic use   MeSH
• Insulin therapeutic use   MeSH
• Insulin Infusion Systems MeSH
• Insulins * MeSH
• Blood Glucose MeSH
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Young Adult MeSH
• Prospective Studies MeSH
• Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring methods   MeSH
• Check Tag
• Adult MeSH
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Young Adult MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

• Publication type
• Meeting Abstract MeSH

• Publication type
• Meeting Abstract MeSH

• Publication type
• Meeting Abstract MeSH

• Publication type
• Meeting Abstract MeSH

• Publication type
• Meeting Abstract MeSH

• Publication type
• Meeting Abstract MeSH