Bihormonal iLet Bionic Pancreas (insulin + glucagon) feasibility study
What this study tests
Small home-use feasibility study comparing insulin-only and insulin/dasiglucagon iLet configurations. Ten participants in the published report completed two seven-day periods, with descriptive improvements in glucose metrics and engineering targets met. The registry lists 12 enrolled; the short study cannot establish long-term comparative safety or efficacy.
Editorial review: .
Registry checked: 2026-09-17. Registry’s own update: 2019-12-16.
Most recent recorded citation date: 2021-04-27. Only explicit date metadata is included; an undated citation may be newer. This does not mean every claim was reviewed on that date.
Trial status, labels and access can change between reviews. How we review the evidence · How to read the evidence
Evidence at a glance
- Who can enter the study?
- Adults (18+) with type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year who already used an insulin pump and had continuous glucose monitor (CGM) experience; able to stay near the study site for the home-use periods. Severe complications, pregnancy, and certain other conditions excluded. Registered eligibility ↗Enrollment criteria describe who may enter. They do not establish who was analyzed or the denominator for a reported result.
- Reported benefit and results
- All 10 participants completed both arms. Both configurations met every prespecified engineering target. The bihormonal iLet cut median time below 54 mg/dL to 0.2% (vs 0.6% insulin-only) and median time below 70 mg/dL to 2.0% (vs 4.0%), while raising time-in-range (70-180 mg/dL) to 79% (vs 72%) and lowering mean glucose to 139 mg/dL (vs 149). A single prefilled dasiglucagon cartridge lasted the full 7 days (mean 0.35 mg/day). No severe hypoglycemia, no diabetic ketoacidosis, and no serious adverse events; one episode of vomiting in the bihormonal arm. Insulin leakage at the cartridge connector occurred in five instances and prompted a hardware redesign for the next-generation device.Read the result sources and their limitations →
- Important harms
- Read the reported results, safety discussion and original sources. A separate harms summary is not available; this does not establish safety.
- Research access and approval
- Study regions: United States. A trial listing does not establish product approval or current recruitment at a particular site. Check the study’s current entry requirements.
- What remains uncertain?
- Read the full discussion and original sources for study limitations. Planned endpoints and completion dates are not results.
Research status alone does not establish approval, clinical benefit or local availability.
Primary endpoints
- iLet operational performance: CGM glucose reading capture rate (target at least 80%)
- Drug-delivery channel availability for insulin and for glucagon (target at least 95%)
- Ratio of cumulative delivered-to-attempted drug volume (target 95-105%)
The full picture
What was tested and why it matters
Most automated insulin systems can only do one thing about a falling glucose: cut back insulin. They can't actively raise glucose. The bihormonal iLet adds a second hormone — automated micro-doses of glucagon, the body's own "raise glucose" signal — so the system can push back against lows instead of just easing off insulin.1 This study was the first time the dual-hormone iLet was tested in people, and the first multi-day human use of dasiglucagon, a chemically stable glucagon analog that (unlike older glucagon) stays usable in a pump for days.2
The iLet itself is a purpose-built device: it reads a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and runs a self-learning dosing algorithm that is set up using only the person's body weight, with no carb counting or manual dose settings.1
Who it's for
Adults with type 1 diabetes who already use a pump and CGM. The 10 participants ranged from 21 to 74 years old, with starting HbA1c levels from 5.7% to 10.6% — a deliberately wide range.1
Design
This was an open-label, random-order crossover home-use trial sponsored by Massachusetts General Hospital, with Beta Bionics (the iLet) and Zealand Pharma (dasiglucagon) as collaborators.3 Each person used the insulin-only iLet for 7 days and the bihormonal iLet (insulin lispro or aspart plus dasiglucagon at 4 mg/mL) for 7 days, in random order, at the same glucose target (110 mg/dL), with no restrictions on food or exercise.1 The registry lists it as a Phase 2/Phase 3 feasibility study.3 All ten participants in the published report completed both arms; the registry separately lists twelve enrolled.1
Key results
Both configurations hit every prespecified engineering target (CGM capture ~89-91%, drug channels available >99% of the time).1 Descriptive glucose results favored the bihormonal configuration: median time below 54 mg/dL fell from 0.6% to 0.2%, and time below 70 mg/dL from 4.0% to 2.0%.1 Time-in-range (70-180 mg/dL) rose from 72% to 79%, and mean glucose dropped from 149 to 139 mg/dL.1 A single prefilled dasiglucagon cartridge lasted the whole week (mean 0.35 mg/day), with no infusion-site reactions or occlusions.1 Safety was reassuring — no severe lows, no ketoacidosis, no serious adverse events; one bihormonal-arm vomiting episode.1
What it means / what's next
The short feasibility study reported lower glucose exposure during home use with the dual-hormone configuration, while a practical liquid glucagon survives a week in the pump.1 Five insulin-leak events at the cartridge connector were traced to off-center septum piercing and prompted a hardware redesign for the next generation; the authors concluded the system was ready for much larger, longer pivotal trials.1
Sources
- [1]Performance of the Insulin-Only iLet Bionic Pancreas and the Bihormonal iLet Using Dasiglucagon in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes in a Home-Use Setting. · Peer-reviewed study · 2021-04-27
Castellanos LE, Balliro CA, Sherwood JS, et al. Performance of the Insulin-Only iLet Bionic Pancreas and the Bihormonal iLet Using Dasiglucagon in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes in a Home-Use Setting. Diabetes Care (2021);44(6):e118-e120.
Castellanos LE, Balliro CA, Sherwood JS, et al. Diabetes Care (2021);44(6):e118-e120 (results and Table 1).
- [2]Castellanos LE, Balliro CA, Sherwood JS, et al. *Diabetes Care* (2021);44(6):e118-e120 (full text, PubMed Central PMC8247518) · Peer-reviewed study
Castellanos LE, Balliro CA, Sherwood JS, et al. Diabetes Care (2021);44(6):e118-e120 (full text, PubMed Central PMC8247518).
- [3]