CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 168Diabetes Management and ResearchGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes Management and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Day-and-Night Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in a Broad Population of Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial

Open access
Stewart, Zoe A., Wilinska, Malgorzata E., Hartnell, Sara, O’Neil, Leanne K., Rayman, Gerry, Scott, Eleanor M., Barnard, Katharine, Farrington, Conor, Hovorka, Roman, Murphy, Helen R.·2018·Diabetes Care
DOI 10.2337/dc17-2534
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Despite advances in technology, optimal glucose control remains elusive and neonatal complications remain ubiquitous in type 1 diabetes (T1D) pregnancy. Our aim was to examine the safety, efficacy, and longer-term feasibility of day-and-night closed-loop insulin delivery. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We recruited 16 pregnant women (mean [SD]: age 32.8 [5.0] years, T1D duration 19.4 [10.2] years, HbA1c 8.0% [1.1], and BMI 26.6 [4.4] kg/m2) to an open-label, randomized, crossover trial. Participants completed 28 days of closed-loop and sensor-augmented pump (SAP) insulin delivery separated by a washout period. Afterward, participants could continue to use the closed-loop system up to 6 weeks postpartum. The primary end point was the proportion of time with glucose levels within the target range (63–140 mg/dL). RESULTS The proportion of time with glucose levels within target was comparable during closed-loop and SAP insulin delivery (62.3 vs. 60.1% [95% CI −4.1 to 8.3]; P = 0.47). Mean glucose and time spent hyperglycemic >140 mg/dL also did not differ (131.4 vs. 131.4 mg/dL [P = 0.85] and 36.6 vs. 36.1% [P = 0.86], respectively). During closed-loop, fewer hypoglycemic episodes occurred (median 8 [range 1–17] vs. 12.5 [1–53] over 28 days; P = 0.04) and less time at <63 mg/dL (1.6 vs. 2.7%; P = 0.02). Hypoglycemia <50 mg/dL (0.24 vs. 0.47%; P = 0.03) and low blood glucose index (1.0 vs. 1.4; P = 0.01) were lower. Less nocturnal hypoglycemia (2300–0700 h) during closed-loop therapy (1.1 vs. 2.7%; P = 0.008) and a trend toward higher overnight time in target (67.7 vs. 60.6%; P = 0.06) were found. CONCLUSIONS Closed-loop insulin delivery was associated with comparable glucose control and significantly less hypoglycemia than SAP therapy. Larger, longer-duration multicenter trials are now indicated to determine clinical efficacy of closed-loop insulin delivery in T1D pregnancy and the impact on neonatal outcomes.

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 · 10.2337/dc17-2534

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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

Cites

Show all 26 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Stewart, Z. A., Wilinska, M. E., Hartnell, S., O’Neil, L. K., Rayman, G., Scott, E. M., Barnard, K., Farrington, C., Hovorka, R., & Murphy, H. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Elsie-Bertram Diabetes Centre, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, U.K.
  • Ipswich Hospital (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • Bournemouth University (GB)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
Corresponding author
Murphy, Helen R.
ORCID
Venue
Diabetes Care
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
Published
2018-03-13
Volume
41
Issue
7
Pages
1391-1399
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
DOI
10.2337/dc17-2534
OpenAlex
W2794206338
Cited by
168
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 8
FWCI
13.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license (vor, 101 d)
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo
Funders
  • Gates Cambridge Trust (PhD fellowship)
  • National Institute for Health Research (CDF-2013-06-035)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
type 1 diabetes in pregnancy, artificial pancreas, continuous glucose monitoring, sensor-augmented pump, glycemic control, hypoglycemia, nocturnal hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, neonatal outcomes, insulin pump therapy, crossover trial, low blood glucose index, HbA1c, neonatal hypoglycemia, neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, neonatal hypocalcemia, neonatal hypotension
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Blood Glucose, Circadian Rhythm, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Humans, Hyperinsulinism, Hypoglycemia, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Insulin Infusion Systems, Middle Aged, Pregnancy, Pregnancy in Diabetics, Pregnancy Outcome, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Cross-Over Studies, Delivery, Obstetric, Postpartum Period, Young Adult

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