Open-source systems improved time-in-range, no safety issues
For the CREATE study, 100 participants were enrolled, including 50 children aged 7-15 years and 50 adults aged 16-70 years. All participants had been using insulin pumps for at least 6 months. Most of the children and about two-thirds of the adults were also using CGMs, but just 6% of the children and 18% of the adults had prior experience with AID systems.
Baseline A1c in children was 7.5% and in adults was 7.7%.
After a 4-week run-in, all patients were randomized to the open-source AID or insulin pump plus CGM for 6 months.
The final group analyzed consisted of 42 patients in the open-source AID group and 53 patients in the comparator group.
The primary outcome, the adjusted mean difference in percent time-in-range (glucose of 70-180 mg/dL) during the final 2 weeks of the 6-month trial, showed a significant difference of 14% (P < .001) with open-source AID compared with pump plus CGM only.
Time-in-range in the open-source AID group rose from 61.2% to 71.2%, while it actually dropped slightly in the comparator group, from 57.7% to 54.5%.
The proportion of patients achieving time-in-range greater than 70% with open-source AID was 60% versus just 15% with pump plus CGM.
Glycemic improvements with open-source AID were significant for adults and children and were greater for those with higher baseline A1c levels. The effect was immediate and sustained throughout the study period, “which is super-pleasing, because there was a worry that the technical burden of open source might be [leading to] dropout, but we didn’t see that. It was sustained right through to the end of the trial,” Dr. de Bock commented.
Hypoglycemic rates didn’t differ between groups, and there were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis.
No more waiting: What is the future of open-source AID?
When the open-source APS was first developed, users coined the motto: “We are not waiting.” But now that the “wait” is over and several commercial AIDs have been approved by regulatory bodies, with others still in the pipeline, will people still use open-source systems?
There are no current data on people moving from DIY to commercial systems. However, Dr. de Bock said, “For most who undertook an open-source option, the precision of the settings that they can use and enjoy would mean that most would likely stick to their open source.”
Dr. Isaacs agrees: “I actually don’t think it’s going to go away in the near future, because the FDA has very specific criteria for where these [formally approved] devices can be in terms of their target ranges and requirements versus with open source you can really customize. So I still think there’s going to be a subset of people who want that customization, who want the lower targets.”
Dana Lewis, the originator of the DIY system and a CREATE coauthor, told this news organization: “I don’t believe there has been a fall-off, and in fact, I think open-source AID has continued to have ongoing uptake as awareness increases about options and as more pumps and CGMs become interoperable with various open-source AID choices.”
“I think uptake increasing is also influenced by the fact that in places like Europe, Asia, and Australia there are in-warranty on-the-market pumps that are compatible and interoperable with open-source AID. I think awareness of AID overall increases uptake of commercial and open source alike,” she said.
“Clinicians, as emphasized in recent position statements, must maintain support of the person with diabetes, irrespective of the mode of treatment they are on. ... Health care providers should be encouraged to learn from the experiences of the people who have stuck with open-source AID or switched, so that they can inform themselves of the relative strengths and benefits of each system,” Dr. de Bock advised.
Ms. Lewis noted: “We are seeing increasing awareness and comfort in endocrinologists from the community perspective, and we do hope that this study helps increase conversation and awareness of the safety and efficacy of open-source AID systems as an option for people with diabetes.”
In fact, the team published an article specifically about clinicians’ experience in CREATE. “The learning curve is similar across AID technology,” she observed.
Findings of a 6-month continuation phase of CREATE, in which all participants used the open-source AID, are scheduled to be presented in September at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes annual meeting.
The study was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand, with hardware support from SOOIL Developments, South Korea; Dexcom; and Vodafone New Zealand. Dr. de Bock has reported receiving honoraria and/or research funding from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Pfizer, Medtronic, Lilly, Ypsomed, and Dexcom. Dr. Isaacs has reported serving as a consultant for LifeScan, Lilly, and Insulet, and as a speaker for Dexcom, Medtronic, Abbott, and Novo Nordisk. Ms. Lewis has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.