Conference Coverage

Closed-loop insulin delivery worked at home

View on the News

Who will pay for this?

This is obviously very exciting. Clearly, there are things to be worked out in terms of glucagon, and in general about pump sites (whether it’s insulin or glucagon). We have seen that patients who have been on pumps for 20-25 years get into real problems with their infusion site. The sites get scarred and fibrosed, and absorption becomes poor. I’m concerned about that. We need to do a better job in learning why that is and how we can address the challenges we have with pump sites. That’s a concern that hopefully will be fixable.

There’s a bigger concern here. We’re beginning to add more technology that is certainly going to help people with type 1 diabetes, but who is going to pay for it? Where I live, I am having a very difficult time getting payers to pay for the sensor, let alone what’s going to be required with all of the extra paraphernalia that’s going to come with the sensor and controller. And with the cost of insulin, because we have moved into this accountable care organization culture and mentality, I’m having a hard time even getting insulin for some of these patients. This includes the type 1 diabetes patients.

There’s such a disconnect between what we’re seeing at this meeting and my day-to-day and hour-to-hour struggles with the payers. I get very concerned about how we’re going to connect those dots. My big concern is not the science, not the fact that the technology is improving, but how we are going to pay for it, given how our environment has been changing.

Irl Hirsch, M.D., is professor of medicine and chair of diabetes treatment and teaching at the University of Washington, Seattle. He gave these comments in an interview. Dr. Hirsch reported financial associations with Sanofi, Halozyme, Abbott Laboratories, and Roche.


 

AT THE ADA ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS

SAN FRANCISCO – Unsupervised home use of a closed-loop insulin delivery system by patients with type 1 diabetes proved to be feasible and acceptable to patients and seemed to improve glucose control in two small prospective, randomized crossover studies.

The results move development of a potential artificial pancreas one step forward, though much work remains before one ever becomes commercially available.

Courtesy Dr. Lalantha Leelarathna

A young subject in a previous trial wears the FlorenceD2 system.

Both of the multicenter European studies of insulin-dependent adults with type 1 diabetes – one with 24 participants and the other with 17 participants – compared the same experimental closed-loop insulin delivery system (the FlorenceD2 system) with a control treatment that used sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy.

Courtesy Dr. Lalantha Leelarathna

Components of the FlorenceD2 closed-loop insulin delivery system include an Android with device with the control algorithm, a Dana R insulin pump, and a Freestyle Navigator II continuous glucose monitor.

In one study of overnight use, patients using the closed-loop system spent a mean of 53% of nights (midnight to 7 a.m.) with their glucose levels in the target range of 3.9-8.0 mmol/L (70-144 mg/dL), compared with 39% of nights while on the control therapy, a significant difference. In the other study of both day and night use, glucose levels were in the target ranges (3.9-10 mmol/L during the day or 3.9-8 mmol/L at night) for 73% of days and 48% of nights on the closed-loop system, significantly longer than with the control treatment (65% and 35%, respectively).

Investigators reported the findings in separate presentations at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The 24-patient night-use study randomized patients to the intervention or control therapy for 4 weeks, then had them switch to the other therapy for 4 weeks. Before taking the closed-loop system home, patients spent one night at a clinical research center for training and to assess their competency to use the automated system.

The proportion of nighttime with hyperglycemia (glucose levels above the 144 mg/dL upper limit of the target range) was significantly lower while on the closed-loop system (44%) than on the control therapy (57%), reported Dr. Hood Thabit of the University of Cambridge (England) and his associates. The proportion of nighttime with hypoglycemia did not differ significantly between groups.

Mean overnight glucose levels were significantly lower while on the closed-loop system (148 mg/dL) than on the control therapy (162 mg/dL), as were mean 24-hour glucose levels (157 mg/dL vs. 167 mg/dL, respectively), the intention-to-treat analysis showed.

Pages

Next Article: