Cited by 120Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Fully automated closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 2 diabetes: an open-label, single-center, randomized crossover trial

Open access

Abstract

In adults with type 2 diabetes, the benefits of fully closed-loop insulin delivery, which does not require meal bolusing, are unclear. In an open-label, single-center, randomized crossover study, 26 adults with type 2 diabetes (7 women and 19 men; (mean ± s.d.) age, 59 ± 11 years; baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), 75 ± 15 mmol mol−1 (9.0% ± 1.4%)) underwent two 8-week periods to compare the CamAPS HX fully closed-loop app with standard insulin therapy and a masked glucose sensor (control) in random order, with a 2-week to 4-week washout between periods. The primary endpoint was proportion of time in target glucose range (3.9–10.0 mmol l−1). Analysis was by intention to treat. Thirty participants were recruited between 16 December 2020 and 24 November 2021, of whom 28 were randomized to two groups (14 to closed-loop therapy first and 14 to control therapy first). Proportion of time in target glucose range (mean ± s.d.) was 66.3% ± 14.9% with closed-loop therapy versus 32.3% ± 24.7% with control therapy (mean difference, 35.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval (CI), 28.0–42.6 percentage points; P < 0.001). Time > 10.0 mmol l−1 was 33.2% ± 14.8% with closed-loop therapy versus 67.0% ± 25.2% with control therapy (mean difference, −35.2 percentage points; 95% CI, −42.8 to −27.5 percentage points; P < 0.001). Mean glucose was lower during the closed-loop therapy period than during the control therapy period (9.2 ± 1.2 mmol l−1 versus 12.6 ± 3.0 mmol l−1, respectively; mean difference, −3.6 mmol l−1; 95% CI, −4.6 to −2.5 mmol l−1; P < 0.001). HbA1c was lower following closed-loop therapy (57 ± 9 mmol mol−1 (7.3% ± 0.8%)) than following control therapy (72 ± 13 mmol mol−1 (8.7% ± 1.2%); mean difference, −15 mmol mol−1; 95% CI, −11 to −20 mmol l−1 (mean difference, −1.4%; 95% CI, −1.0 to −1.8%); P < 0.001). Time < 3.9 mmol l−1 was similar between treatments (a median of 0.44% (interquartile range, 0.19–0.81%) during the closed-loop therapy period versus a median of 0.08% (interquartile range, 0.00–1.05%) during the control therapy period; P = 0.43). No severe hypoglycemia events occurred in either period. One treatment-related serious adverse event occurred during the closed-loop therapy period. Fully closed-loop insulin delivery improved glucose control without increasing hypoglycemia compared with standard insulin therapy and may represent a safe and efficacious method to improve outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04701424).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41591-022-02144-z

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 21 · Cited by 120

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. International Diabetes Federation. International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9th edn (2019). https://diabetesatlas.org/atlas/ninth-edition/ (accessed August 2021).

Metadata

Authors
Daly, A. B., Boughton, C. K., Nwokolo, M., Hartnell, S., Wilinska, M. E., Cezar, A., Evans, M. L., & Hovorka, R.
Affiliations
  • Wellcome/MRC Institute of Metabolic Science (GB)
  • Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Boughton, Charlotte K.
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2023-01
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
203-208
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W4315646059
Cited by
120
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 22
FWCI
24.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
  • Apollo
Funders
  • Dexcom
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (CL-2020-14-801)
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • University of Cambridge
  • Cambridge University Hospitals (146281)
  • NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
artificial pancreas, type 2 diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring, time in target glucose range, glycemic control, HbA1c, hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, mobile application, glycemic variability, hypoglycemia risk reduction, hypoglycemia risk prediction
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemia, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Insulin Infusion Systems, Male, Middle Aged, Treatment Outcome, Cross-Over Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review