Skip to main content
. 2019 Jul 5;40(6):1521–1546. doi: 10.1210/er.2018-00174

Table 4.

Insulin-Only Closed-Loop Transitional Studies Conducted in Camp, Hotel, or Airbnb Settings

System n Study Outcomes: Closed Loop vs Open Loop
Average Glucose ±SD [mg/dL (mmol/L)] or Median (IQR1, IQR3) % CGM Time 70–180 mg/dL (3.9–10.0 mmol/L) % CGM Time <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L)
Transitional studies <48 h
 MD-Logic 2013 (80)a 54 126.4 (115.7–139.1) [7 (6.4–9.3)] vs 140.4 (105.7–167.4) [7.9 (5.9–9.3)] 70–140 mg/dL (3.9–7.8 mmol/L) Time reported, rather than percent 7.6 min vs 16.4 min
Time reported, rather than percent 4.4 h vs 2.8 h
 DiAs 2014 (89) 6 Not reported 94.8% vs 68.2% 1.25% vs 11.9%
 DiAs 2014 (90)a 20 147 ± 34 (8.2 ± 1.9) vs 146 ± 42 (8.1 ± 2.3) 70–150 mg/dL (3.9–8.3 mmol/L) Not reported
62% vs 55%
 DiAs 2014 (91) 18 161.3 ± 2.49 (9.0 ± 0.1) vs 152.1 ± 2.44 (8.4 ± 0.1) 66.1% vs 70.7% 0.7% vs 1.25%
Transitional studies >48 h
 MD-Logic 2014 (92)a 15 133.5 (123.9–145.8) [7.4 (6.9–8.1)] vs 130 (113.1–152.4) [7.2 (6.3–8.5)] Time reported, rather than percent 4.4 h vs 3.1 h Time reported, rather than percent 3.8 min vs 48.7 min
 DiAs 2015 (93)a 10 139.0 (123–158) [7.7 (6.8–8.8)] vs 170.3 (133–200) [9.5 (7.4–11.1)] 85.4% vs 59.1% 0.55% vs 1.56%
 DiAs 2016 (94) 33 143 ± 3 (7.9 ± 0.2) vs 156 ± 5 (8.7 ± 0.3) 78.6% vs 65.4% 1.8% vs 4.2%
 DiAs 2016 (95) 30 169 ± 23 (9.4 ± 1.3) vs 147 ± 23 (8.2 ± 1.3) 56.8% vs 63.1% 2% vs 6.7%
 Medtronic 2015 (87) 21 Reported on daily basis 69.9% vs 73.1% Not reported
 Medtronic 2016 (88)a 21 132 (119–144) [7.3 (6.6–8.0)] vs 128 (115–141) [7.1 (6.4–7.8)] 79.9% vs 60% 5.4% vs 19.5%
 Medtronic 2016  Android-based hybrid closed loop (96) 9 No control 80% 0.79%
145 ± 43 (8.0 ± 2.4)

We use italics when our standards for time in range and hypoglycemia thresholds were not used.

Abbreviation: IQR, interquartile range.

a

Overnight glycemic outcomes.