More Than 1 Year of Hybrid Closed Loop in Pediatrics. Gregory P. Forlenza, MD Assistant Professor Barbara Davis Center

Similar documents
CAROLINAS CHAPTER/AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS Annual Meeting HILTON HEAD ISLAND FRIDAY PRESENTATION

What is a CGM? (Continuous Glucose Monitor) The Bionic Pancreas Is Coming

Advances in Technology in the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus 2017 How far have we come-how far are we going? Is there a final frontier?

Diabetes Management: Current High Tech Innovations

Reduction in Hypoglycemia and No Increase in A1C with Threshold-Based Sensor-Augmented Pump (SAP) Insulin Suspension: ASPIRE In-Home

Future Direction of Artificial Pancreas. Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD. JAEB Center for Health Research Tampa, Florida

The Realities of Technology in Type 1 Diabetes

CGM and Closing The Loop

Diabetes Technology Update. Sarah Konigsberg, MD Diabetes & Endocrine Assoc. April 7, 2018

1. Continuous Glucose Monitoring

The In-Clinic Close Loop Experience in the US

The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters

PREVENTION OF NOCTURNAL HYPOGLYCEMIA USING PREDICTIVE LOW GLUCOSE SUSPEND (PLGS)

Hybrid Closed Loop Status & Practical Challenges in Implementation

Insulin Pumps and Continuous Glucose Sensors- Embracing Technology. Susan Cavalier, BS, RN, CDE Manager, Diabetes Educator Sanford Diabetes Education

JDRF Perspective on Closed Loop

Telemedicine for the Care of Youth with Type 1 Diabetes

Artificial Pancreas Device Systems. Populations Interventions Comparators Outcomes. pump. pump

Emerging Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

Artificial Pancreas Device Systems. Populations Interventions Comparators Outcomes Individuals: With type 1 diabetes

Glucose Outcomes with the In-Home Use of a Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery System in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Technology in Diabetes Management Irl B. Hirsch, MD University of Washington

DIABETES TECHNOLOGY: WHERE ARE WE NOW AND WHERE ARE WE GOING? Presented by: Tom Brobson

THE MINIMED 670G SYSTEM SCHOOL NURSE GUIDE

Artificial Pancreas Technologies: New Tools to Improve Diabetes Care Today and Tomorrow

Diabetes through my eyes. Rick Mauseth, M.D. W.A.D.E. April 2013

Advances in Managing Diabetes in Youth. March 1, 2012

Preventing Hypoglycemia Using Predictive Alarm Algorithms and Insulin Pump Suspension

When Will CGM Replace SMBG? Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD. JAEB Center for Health Research Tampa, Florida

NEWS BRIEFING Advances in Technology. moderated by: Irl Hirsch, MD University of Washington Medical Center

PROTOCOL FOR HYBRID CLOSED LOOP TECHNOLOGY

Diabetes Management with Continuous Glucose Monitoring & Multiple Daily Injections. Aaron Michels MD

Pump and Sensor Data Interpretation. Irl B. Hirsch, MD University of Washington School of Medicine

OBJECTIVES THE PAST INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY & DIABETES DIABETES MIS MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS IN DIABETES MANAGEMENT

Inpatient Studies of a Kalman-Filter-Based Predictive Pump Shutoff Algorithm

JDRF RESEARCH UPDATE. Daniel Finan, Ph.D. Research Director

7/18/2017. Everything discussed in this presentation is off-label. (And that s ok.) Dana Lewis Founder, #OpenAPS WARNING: Disclosure to Participants

DIABETES & ENDOCRINE DIABETES TECHNOLOGY: HOW TO STAY CURRENT WITH ONGOING TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT

Artificial Pancreas Device Systems

Monitoring of Blood Glucose Level

Report Reference Guide

Insulin Pump Therapy in children. Prof. Abdulmoein Al-Agha, FRCPCH(UK)

Why (and how) I built an artificial

Abbott FreeStyle Libre Pro System

Technology in Diabetes Care: Emerging Level

Islet Cell Allo-Transplantation. Disclosure. Objectives

Diabetes and Technology. Saturday, September 9, 2017 Aimee G sell, APRN, ANP-C, CDE

NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR MANAGING DIABETES ANGELA THOMPSON DNP, FNP-C, BC-ADM, CDE, FAANP

Institutional Investor & Analyst Day. September 25, 2018

Advances Towards the Bionic Pancreas.

Paradigm/Guardian CGM Screens. CareLink Online Reports. Make Your Own Jackson Pollack. CGM by Jackson Pollack. How To Read CGM Screens/Reports

Pumps & Sensors made easy. OPADA ALZOHAILI MD FACE Endocrinology Assistant Professor Wayne State University

How I use the latest technology to investigate and treat a person with Type 1 Diabetes. Dr Pratik Choudhary

Report Reference Guide. THERAPY MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE FOR DIABETES CareLink Report Reference Guide 1

Interpretation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Data

With new technology available to

INSPIRED BY GIVE HIM MORE. The MiniMed 670G system is the world s first insulin delivery system that automatically adapts to your child s needs.

Comparing the use of SMBG vs. CGM data to Optimize Glucose Control in T2DM

DIABETES TECHNOLOGY: ENDLESS CHOICES FOR HEALTHY MANAGEMENT

INSPIRED BY GIVE HER MORE. The MiniMed 670G system is the world s first insulin delivery system that automatically adapts to your child s needs.

Alternative Devices for Taking Insulin

Presented by Dr. Bruce Perkins, MD MPH Dr. Michael Riddell, PhD

UNDERSTANDING THE BASIC FEATURES AND MANAGEMENT IN THE SCHOOL SETTING CHRISTINE HERTLER RN BSN CDE & MARY MCCARTHY RN CDE

The next five years in diabetes technology: closed-loop systems

CGM: Continuous Glucose Monitoring Making Sense of It All AW: ANCO/GEND/1016/0117

Artificial Pancreas Device System (APDS)

Using the Bolus Wizard Calculator

Medical Policy. MP Artificial Pancreas Device Systems

The Growing Future of Diabetes: Insulin Pump Therapy in Type 1 and 2 Diabetes

Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM)

Ambulatory Artificial Pancreas Platform (AAPP) User Manual

Diabetes Technology: Pumps and CGM

Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Changing Diabetes Behavior in Real Time and Retrospectively

RELEASED. first steps. Icon Icon name What it means

Updates in Diabetes Technology

Diabetes Technology in Irl B. Hirsch, MD University of Washington School of Medicine Seattle, WA

C o n n e c t e d I n s u l i n D e l i v e r y S y s t e m

Clinical Policy Title: Artificial pancreas device system

Medical Policy An independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association

Advances in Diabetes Care Technologies

Clinical Value and Evidence of Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Corporate Medical Policy

INSULIN INITIATION AND INTENSIFICATION WITH A FOCUS ON HYPOGLYCEMIA REDUCTION

IJESRT INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES & RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY PID CONTROLLER FOR BLOOD GLUCOSE CONTROL Ajmal M M *, C R Srinivasan *

Advances in Diabetes Care Technologies

Control of Glycemic Variability for Reducing Hypoglycemia Jae Hyeon Kim

USING THE MINIMED 670G SYSTEM. Instructions for the Experienced MiniMed 630G System User

Subject Index. Breastfeeding, self-monitoring of blood glucose 56

USING THE MINIMED 670G SYSTEM

Making the Most of Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Lessons From The Type 1 Diabetes Exchange

10:20 AM March 5, B 100% 235 u. 124 mg/dl 3 HRS INSULIN ON BOARD:

Abbott FreeStyle Libre Pro System

The artificial pancreas: the next step in connectivity and digital treatment of type 1 diabetes

BASICS OF INSULIN PUMPS. Jennifer Okemah MS RD BCADM CDE CSSD

CONTINUOUS OR INTERMITTENT GLUCOSE MONITORING IN INTERSTITIAL FLUID

Today s Goals 10/6/2017. New Frontiers in Diabetes Technology. Disclosures

Welcome to CareLink Pro

Transcription:

More Than 1 Year of Hybrid Closed Loop in Pediatrics Gregory P. Forlenza, MD Assistant Professor Barbara Davis Center

Disclosure Dr. Forlenza has served as a consultant for Abbott Diabetes Care and conducts research sponsored by Tandem Diabetes Care, Medtronic MiniMed, Dexcom, Insulet, TypeZero Technologies, Bigfoot Biomedical, and Animas. This presentation contains unpublished data being prepared for publication. Please do not take photos.

Objectives Identify the new features of the Medtronic 670G artificial pancreas and review how to modify various parameters. Analyze completed study results of the 670G system in pediatric populations and compare results in children against results in adults. Discussion, review, and clarification of presented information

Overview of 670G HCL Artificial Pancreas

Artificial Pancreas What is an artificial pancreas? 4. Insulin Dosing Algorithm(s) 3. CGM 1. Insulin Pump 5. ± Communication Device 2. Rapid Acting Insulin ± Glucagon

Medtronic 670G Artificial Pancreas The 670G is a Hybrid Closed Loop (HCL) system running a modified PID algorithm. Patients must bolus insulin for meals but the algorithm controls the basal rates in the background Commercially approved by the FDA on September 28 th, 2016 for use in patients 14+ years old with T1D. Studies down to 2 years old ongoing.

Medtronic 670G Artificial Pancreas Can set the following parameters In Open Loop Mode Basal Rates I:C ratio Correction Sensitivity Correction Target Active Insulin Time In Closed Loop Mode I:C ratio Active Insulin Time System Sets the following In Closed Loop Mode Basal rates modulate every 5 minutes based on epid Sensitivity is calculated as 1800/TDD Target is set as 120 and can be changed to 150 in exercise mode

Medtronic 670G Alerts and Safe Basal Safe Basal Pump administers a fixed basal rate (high rate or low rate depending on why it exited auto mode) Minimum delivery for 2.5 hours Time for these can be reset by Maximum delivery for 4 hours entering a BG value Sensor is reading lower than actual glucose Sensor error of 35% Senor is changed (2 hour warm up) Lost sensor signal for > 5 min Exiting Auto Mode The pump will exit Auto Mode of it has been in Safe Basal for 90 min High Alert: CGM > 300 mg/dl x 1 hour or > 250 mg/dl x 3 hours The high alerts exit auto mode automatically, pump never goes into safe basal Low Alert: CGM < 50 mg/dl

Results of Pivotal Trial

670G Pivotal Trial Results Three month home-use trial of 670G in patients 14-75 years old at 10 sites. Though not a controlled trial, authors compared data from the 2 week run-in period to data from the 3 month study period to show efficacy. Richard Bergenstal, Satish Garg, Stuart Weinzimer, Bruce Buckingham, Bruce Bode, William Tamborlane, Francine Kaufman

1 year follow Up Data Remember: Participants enrolled in a 3 month intensive study period, after which they entered a long-term continuation phase. At BDC in peds we had 10 of 12 subjects enter the continuation phase Time Period HbA1c Change from Baseline Baseline 8.0 ± 0.8 n/a 1 month 7.9 ± 0.8 0.049 3 month 7.0 ± 0.5 <0.001 6 month 7.3 ± 0.6 <0.001 9 month 7.5 ± 0.9 0.008 12 month 8.1 ± 1.4 0.89

HbA1c Changes Over Time

Optimizing 670G in Clinical Practice

Optimizing HCL in Peds Together with our partners at Stanford and Yale, Laurel Messer and I are working on analyzing how 670G tuning parameters were modified during the pivotal trial and how this impacted CL control in pediatric patients. Table 1. Demographics Characteristic Value Subjects (n) 31 Age at Enrollment (yr) 17.8 ± 3.9 T1D Duration (yr) 9.3 ± 5.5 Enrollment HbA1c (%) 7.8 ± 0.9 3 Month HbA1c (%) 7.1 ± 0.6 Gender (%) M 52 F 48 BMI (kg/m 2 ) 23.4 ± 3.6 Continuation Phase Participants (%) 87

Insulin Delivery and Time in Range, CL versus OL Mean TDD Mean basal/autobasal insulin Mean bolus insulin %basal/bolus split Mean 24-hour basal program Period Mean SD p-value change from baseline Baseline 58.6 ± 19.1 n/a Days 1-7 58.2 ± 20.1 0.830 Days 22-28 60.6 ± 21.5 0.407 Days 50-56 58.9 ± 22.3 0.908 Days 78-84 60.3 ± 21.5 0.493 Baseline 25.8 ± 8.3 n/a Days 1-7 27.1 ± 10.6 0.218 Days 22-28 27.0 ± 9.6 0.313 Days 50-56 26.0 ± 9.1 0.865 Days 78-84 26.7 ± 9.3 0.372 Baseline 32.6 ± 13.7 n/a Days 1-7 31.1 ± 12.9 0.271 Days 22-28 33.8 ± 14.4 0.442 Days 50-56 32.9 ± 15.8 0.856 Days 78-84 33.5 ± 15.1 0.585 Baseline 45.1 ± 9.2 n/a Days 1-7 46.9 ± 10.3 0.251 Days 22-28 44.9 ± 9.0 0.868 Days 50-56 45.1 ± 10.8 0.986 Days 78-84 44.8 ± 10.3 0.822 Baseline 26.7 ± 8.8 n/a Days 1-7 26.8 ± 8.7 0.102 Days 22-28 26.6 ± 8.7 0.741 Days 50-56 26.9 ± 8.9 0.214 Days 78-84 27.0 ± 9.1 0.183

Insulin Delivery and Time in Range, CL versus OL Period Mean SD p-value change from baseline Baseline 7.9 ± 2.7 n/a Days 1-7 7.4 ± 2.5 0.017 8 am C:I ratio Days 22-28 7.0 ± 2.7 0.001 Days 50-56 6.9 ± 2.7 < 0.001 Days 78-84 6.8 ± 2.8 < 0.001 Baseline 8.9 ± 3.3 n/a Days 1-7 8.4 ± 3.1 0.009 12 pm C:I ratio Days 22-28 7.8 ± 2.9 < 0.001 Days 50-56 7.6 ± 3.0 < 0.001 Days 78-84 7.6 ± 3.1 < 0.001 Baseline 8.7 ± 3.4 n/a Days 1-7 8.1 ± 3.1 < 0.001 6 pm C:I ratio Days 22-28 7.4 ± 2.7 < 0.001 Days 50-56 7.3 ± 2.7 < 0.001 Days 78-84 7.2 ± 2.6 < 0.001 Baseline 174.2 ± 51.6 n/a Days 1-7 171.6 ± 49.2 0.16 Insulin Action Time (min) Days 22-28 168.4 ± 46.9 0.083 Days 50-56 169.2 ± 47.3 0.15

Insulin Delivery and Time in Range, CL versus OL % time in range 70-180 mg/dl overall % time in range 70-180 mg/dl auto mode % time in range 70-180 mg/dl open loop Period Mean SD p-value change from baseline Baseline 55.3 ± 14.9 n/a Days 1-7 68.4 ± 11.5 < 0.001 Days 22-28 67.4 ± 10.1 < 0.001 Days 50-56 70.2 ± 8.9 < 0.001 Days 78-84 69.0 ± 12.0 < 0.001 Baseline n/a n/a Days 1-7 69.7 ± 10.6 n/a Days 22-28 69.5 ± 8.5 n/a Days 50-56 71.9 ± 8.1 n/a Days 78-84 71.5 ± 10.3 n/a Baseline 55.3 ± 14.9 n/a Days 1-7 56.6 ± 28.1 0.802 Days 22-28 56.8 ± 25.9 0.753 Days 50-56 60.3 ± 19.7 0.165 Days 78-84 57.4 ± 28.8 0.667

Auto-mode/Manual Mode Times and Events during Study Mean SD Days 1-7 87.0 ± 10.8 % time in auto mode Days 22-28 80.2 ± 15.5 Days 50-56 76.0 ± 14.2 Days 78-84 71.8 ± 23.3 Days 1-8 5.3 ± 2.7 Mean number of events removing pt from auto Days 22-29 5.4 ± 2.5 mode per week (user-initiated and system) Days 50-57 5.8 ± 1.9 Days 78-85 5.8 ± 2.6 Mean number of events removing pt from auto mode per week (system) Mean number of events removing pt from auto mode per week (user initiated) % of events removing pt from auto mode related to safe basal time outs % of events removing pt from auto mode related to other alerts % of events removing pt from auto mode related to pt removing self Days 1-8 5.0 ± 2.9 Days 22-29 5.2 ± 2.6 Days 50-57 5.5 ± 2.1 Days 78-85 5.6 ± 2.8 Days 1-9 0.3 ± 0.7 Days 22-30 0.2 ± 0.6 Days 50-58 0.3 ± 0.6 Days 78-86 0.2 ± 0.5 Days 1-9 64.0 ± 23.5 Days 22-30 76.9 ± 21.3 Days 50-58 69.8 ± 25.7 Days 78-86 65.8 ± 28.5 Days 1-10 28.3 ± 23.4 Days 22-31 19.1 ± 18.5 Days 50-59 23.3 ± 20.1 Days 78-87 27.2 ± 25.0 Days 1-10 7.7 ± 17.8 Days 22-31 4.0 ± 13.1 Days 50-59 6.9 ± 15.2 Days 78-87 7.0 ± 20.3

Correlation of Time in Range with Time in Auto Mode

670G at an ADA Diabetes Camp in 2017

670G at Diabetes Camp The 670G uses a 6 day look back period to calculate TDD which is used to determine the behavior of the auto-basal and correction function when in Auto Mode. We generally cut insulin doses by 10-25% when patients arrive at camp due to increased physical activity. Additionally, Camp Colorado is at 9000 ft, and altitude generally decreases insulin requirements. We were concerned that the retrospective nature of the 607G would produce hypoglycemia and failure of AP at camp.

670G at Camp What did we do? Decreased I:C ratio by 35% (e.g. 1:8 to 1:10) at arrival. Increased IOB time by 1 hour (e.g. 2.5 to 3.4 hours) to help prevent over correction. Set temp target for first 24 hours and periodically reassessed based on activity for the day (changes target from 120 to 150 mg/dl). Changed conventional pump settings for backup as usual Decreased basal rates by 25% Decreased sensitivity by 25% Increased targets to 150 day and 200 mg/dl at night

670G at Camp It worked!!!! Hard to see but every pump has a blue shield! Will show data for 4 patients who have uploaded since camp

670G at Camp Data by Period 6 days Prior Camp 6 Days CGM Mean (mg/dl) 158.1 ± 21.7 156.0 ± 23.0 CGM StDev (mg/dl) 53.8 ± 15.3 53.0 ± 17.2 CGM Cal/day 3.6 ± 1.2 3.8 ± 1.5 CGM Use Per Day (%) 89.1 ± 20.0 91.5 ± 12.0 Closed Loop Per Day (%) 81.8 ± 25.3 87.9 ± 15.2 Hyperglycemia > 180 mg/dl (%) 30.1 ± 16.3 26.8 ± 15.0 Target Range 70-180 mg/dl (%) 67.9 ± 16.0 71.1 ± 14.5 Hypoglycemia < 70 mg/dl (%) 2.0 ± 3.3 2.1 ± 3.2 TDD (U/day) 50.6 ± 21.3 37.4 ± 8.5 Basal/Auto-Basal (%) 45.8 ± 7.2 44.0 ± 13.2 Bolus (%) 54.2 ± 7.2 56.0 ± 13.2 Carbs per day (g) 212.4 ± 88.8 223.7 ± 85.1

Conclusions Data from the pivotal trial of 670G in pediatrics show significant benefits to time in range, hypoglycemia, and HbA1c. Changes to pump settings are necessary when starting to use the 670G. Improvements may wain overtime. Further work is needed to investigate these effects and how they may be mitigated.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank all of the participants who helped us conduct this trial. I would like to thank our excellent AP team at BDC: Robert Slover, R. Paul Wadwa, G. Todd Alonso, Laurel Messer, Cari Berget, Emily Jost, Samantha Lange, Lindsey Towers, Katie Thivener, Maninder Sethi, and Emily Westfall I would also like to thank our partners at Stanford and Yale. I would like to thank Medtronic.