Trial reportJournal of diabetes science and technology2025
A Pilot Outpatient Assessment of a Fully Closed-Loop Insulin and Pramlintide System.
Trial report in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundType 1 diabetes is treated with exogenous insulin using multiple daily injections or insulin pumps. However, both strategies require carbohydrate counting for prandial insulin dosing, which is both burdensome and error prone.
methodsWe conducted a pilot, randomized, controlled study to eliminate carbohydrate counting in adults (n = 12, 7 females, age 39.5 [15.1], HbA1c 7.4% [0.6]) using an automated insulin and pramlintide fully closed-loop system. The interventions included five arms during which participants underwent 14 hours of outpatient, free-living, supervised experiments of (1) faster aspart with carbohydrate counting (control), faster aspart and pramlintide without carbohydrate counting at (2) 8 µg/U and (3) 10 µg/U ratios, and aspart and pramlintide without carbohydrate counting at (4) 8 µg/U and (5) 10 µg/U ratios.
resultsThe median time in target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) with the control arm was 78.6 [65.3-92.9], compared with 76.2 [64.6-86.9] and 78.8 [68.8-86.0] with the fully closed-loop faster aspart and pramlintide systems at 8 and 10 µg/U ratios, respectively, and compared with 65.9 [59.9-83.6] and 77.4 [72.1-82.7] with the fully closed-loop aspart and pramlintide systems at 8 and 10 µg/U ratios, respectively. Times spent below 3.9 and 3.0 mmol/L were numerically higher with the fully closed-loop aspart and pramlintide systems than the control arm. None of the differences were statistically significant.
conclusionsThis study suggests that automated insulin and pramlintide systems have the potential to alleviate carbohydrate counting without degrading time in range. A longer and larger study is underway.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.