American Diabetes Association
Lee_Fiasp_Supplementary_9June2021.pdf (696.95 kB)

Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart Versus Insulin Aspart Using a Second-Generation Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized, Open-Label, Crossover Trial

Download (696.95 kB)
posted on 2021-08-06, 19:16 authored by Melissa H. Lee, Barbora Paldus, Sara Vogrin, Dale Morrison, Dessi P. Zaharieva, Jean Lu, Hannah M. Jones, Emma Netzer, Lesley Robinson, Benyamin Grosman, Anirban Roy, Natalie Kurtz, Glenn M. Ward, Richard J. MacIsaac, Alicia J. Jenkins, David N. O’Neal


To evaluate glucose control using fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) compared with insulin aspart (IAsp) delivered by the MiniMedä Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) system in adults with type 1 diabetes.

Research Design and Methods

In this randomized, open-label, crossover study, participants were assigned to receive faster aspart or IAsp in random-order. Stages 1 and 2 comprised six-weeks in closed-loop; preceded by two-weeks in open-loop. This was followed by Stage 3, whereby participants changed directly back to the insulin formulation used in Stage 1 for one-week in CL. Participants chose their own meals except for two standardized meal tests; a missed and late meal bolus. Primary outcome was % sensor glucose time-in-range (TIR; 70-180mg/dL).


Twenty-five adults (52% male) were recruited; median (IQR) age was 48 (37, 57) years, and HbA1c 7.0% (6.6, 7.2) (53 [49, 55] mmol/mol). Faster aspart demonstrated greater overall TIR compared with IAsp (82.3% [78.5, 83.7] vs. 79.6% [77.0, 83.4], respectively; mean difference 1.9% [0.5, 3.3]; p=0.007). Four-hour PPG TIR was higher using faster aspart compared with IAsp for all-meals combined (73.6% [69.4, 80.2] vs. 72.1% [64.5, 78.5], respectively; median difference 3.5% [1.0, 7.3]; p=0.003). There was no ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia.


Faster aspart safely improved glucose control compared with IAsp in a well-controlled group of adults with type 1 diabetes using AHCL. The modest improvement mainly related to mealtime glycemia. Whilst the primary outcome demonstrated statistical significance, the clinical impact may be small given an overall difference in TIR of 1.9%.


Funds were provided for this investigator-initiated study by Medtronic and Novo Nordisk. Material support was provided from Medtronic and Novo Nordisk. MHL is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) postgraduate scholarship, co-funded by Diabetes Australia. BP is supported by a University of Melbourne scholarship and research support from JDRF. DZ is supported by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) Fellowship. The funders of the study had no role in the study design; the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; writing the report; and did not impose any restrictions regarding the publication of the report.