Efficacy and safety of suspend-before-low insulin pump technology in hypoglycaemia-prone adults with type 1 diabetes (SMILE): an open-label randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hypoglycaemia unawareness and severe hypoglycaemia can increase fear of hypoglycaemia and the risk of subsequent hypoglycaemic events. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of insulin pump therapy with integrated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and a suspend-before-low feature (Medtronic MiniMed 640G with SmartGuard) in hypoglycaemia-prone adults with type 1 diabetes. Methods: SMILE was an open-label randomised controlled trial done in people aged 24–75 years with type 1 diabetes for 10 years or longer, HbA1c values of 5·8–10·0% (40–86 mmol/mol), and at high risk of hypoglycaemia (recent severe hypoglycaemia or hypoglycaemia unawareness defined by a Clarke or Gold score ≥4). Participants were enrolled from 16 centres (eg, clinics, hospitals, or university medical centres) in Canada, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and the UK. After baseline run-in phase (2 weeks), participants were randomly assigned to the MiniMed 640G pump (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion) with self-monitoring of blood glucose (control group) or to the MiniMed 640G system with the suspend-before-low feature enabled (intervention group), for 6 months. The study statistician analysing the data was masked to group assignment until final database lock; because of the nature of the intervention, participants and treating clinicians could not be masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was the mean number of sensor hypoglycaemic events, defined as 55 mg/dL (3·1 mmol/L) or lower, and was analysed on an intention-to-treat basis in all randomly assigned participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02733991, and is completed. Findings: Between Dec 7, 2016, and March 27, 2018, 153 participants with a mean age 48·2 [12·4] years were randomly assigned: 77 to the control group (mean age 47·4 [12·5] years) and 76 to the intervention group (mean age 49·0 [12·2] years). After 6 months, the intervention group had significantly fewer hypoglycaemic events per participant per week (1·1 [SD 1·2] vs 4·1 [3·4] mean events, model-based treatment effect −2·9 [95% CI −3·5 to −2·3]; p<0·0001) and fewer severe hypoglycaemic events (instances requiring third-party assistance with carbohydrate or glucagon administration, or other resuscitative actions) overall (three vs 18; p=0·0036). The most common adverse events were hypoglycaemia (observed in ten [13%] of 77 participants in the control group vs four [5%] of 76 in the intervention group) and hyperglycaemia (observed in seven [9%] of 77 vs seven [9%] of 76). No serious adverse device effects or episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis were reported. Interpretation: Insulin pump therapy with integrated CGM and a suspend-before-low feature reduced the frequency of sensor hypoglycaemic and severe hypoglycaemic events in hypoglycaemia-prone adults compared with use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion without real-time CGM. These results suggest that this technology could be beneficial in this high-risk population. Funding: Medtronic International Trading Sàrl and Medtronic Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".