OGon behalf of The International Artificial Pancreas (iAP) Study Group
on behalf of The International Artificial Pancreas (iAP) Study Group
+15
Integrated closed-loop control (CLC), combining continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with insulin pump (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]), known as artificial pancreas, can help optimize glycemic control in diabetes. We present a fundamental modular concept for CLC design, illustrated by clinical studies involving 11 adolescents and 27 adults at the Universities of Virginia, Padova, and Montpellier. We tested two modular CLC constructs: standard control to range (sCTR), designed to augment pump plus CGM by preventing extreme glucose excursions; and enhanced control to range (eCTR), designed to truly optimize control within near normoglycemia of 3.9–10 mmol/L. The CLC system was fully integrated using automated data transfer CGM→algorithm→CSII. All studies used randomized crossover design comparing CSII versus CLC during identical 22-h hospitalizations including meals, overnight rest, and 30-min exercise. sCTR increased significantly the time in near normoglycemia from 61 to 74%, simultaneously reducing hypoglycemia 2.7-fold. eCTR improved mean blood glucose from 7.73 to 6.68 mmol/L without increasing hypoglycemia, achieved 97% in near normoglycemia and 77% in tight glycemic control, and reduced variability overnight. In conclusion, sCTR and eCTR represent sequential steps toward automated CLC, preventing extremes (sCTR) and further optimizing control (eCTR). This approach inspires compelling new concepts: modular assembly, sequential deployment, testing, and clinical acceptance of custom-built CLC systems tailored to individual patient needs.
1 December 2015 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology
OBJECTIVE We estimate the effect size of hypoglycemia risk reduction on closed-loop control (CLC) versus open-loop (OL) sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy in supervised outpatient setting. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Twenty patients with type 1 diabetes initiated the study at the Universities of Virginia, Padova, and Montpellier and Sansum Diabetes Research Institute; 18 completed the entire protocol. Each patient participated in two 40-h outpatient sessions, CLC versus OL, in randomized order. Sensor (Dexcom G4) and insulin pump (Tandem t:slim) were connected to Diabetes Assistant (DiAs)—a smartphone artificial pancreas platform. The patient operated the system through the DiAs user interface during both CLC and OL; study personnel supervised on site and monitored DiAs remotely. There were no dietary restrictions; 45-min walks in town and restaurant dinners were included in both CLC and OL; alcohol was permitted. RESULTS The primary outcome—reduction in risk for hypoglycemia as measured by the low blood glucose (BG) index (LGBI)—resulted in an effect size of 0.64, P = 0.003, with a twofold reduction of hypoglycemia requiring carbohydrate treatment: 1.2 vs. 2.4 episodes/session on CLC versus OL (P = 0.02). This was accompanied by a slight decrease in percentage of time in the target range of 3.9–10 mmol/L (66.1 vs. 70.7%) and increase in mean BG (8.9 vs. 8.4 mmol/L; P = 0.04) on CLC versus OL. CONCLUSIONS CLC running on a smartphone (DiAs) in outpatient conditions reduced hypoglycemia and hypoglycemia treatments when compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy. This was accompanied by marginal increase in average glycemia resulting from a possible overemphasis on hypoglycemia safety.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of a wearable artificial pancreas system, the Diabetes Assistant (DiAs), which uses a smart phone as a closed-loop control platform. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twenty patients with type 1 diabetes were enrolled at the Universities of Padova, Montpellier, and Virginia and at Sansum Diabetes Research Institute. Each trial continued for 42 h. The United States studies were conducted entirely in outpatient setting (e.g., hotel or guest house); studies in Italy and France were hybrid hospital–hotel admissions. A continuous glucose monitoring/pump system (Dexcom Seven Plus/Omnipod) was placed on the subject and was connected to DiAs. The patient operated the system via the DiAs user interface in open-loop mode (first 14 h of study), switching to closed-loop for the remaining 28 h. Study personnel monitored remotely via 3G or WiFi connection to DiAs and were available on site for assistance. RESULTS: The total duration of proper system communication functioning was 807.5 h (274 h in open-loop and 533.5 h in closed-loop), which represented 97.7% of the total possible time from admission to discharge. This exceeded the predetermined primary end point of 80% system functionality. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that a contemporary smart phone is capable of running outpatient closed-loop control and introduced a prototype system (DiAs) for further investigation. Following this proof of concept, future steps should include equipping insulin pumps and sensors with wireless capabilities, as well as studies focusing on control efficacy and patient-oriented clinical outcomes.
1 March 2014 in IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensors are portable devices, employed in the treatment of diabetes, able to measure glucose concentration in the interstitium almost continuously for several days. However, CGM sensors are not as accurate as standard blood glucose (BG) meters. Studies comparing CGM versus BG demonstrated that CGM is affected by distortion due to diffusion processes and by time-varying systematic under/overestimations due to calibrations and sensor drifts. In addition, measurement noise is also present in CGM data. A reliable model of the different components of CGM inaccuracy with respect to BG (briefly, “sensor error”) is important in several applications, e.g., design of optimal digital filters for denoising of CGM data, real-time glucose prediction, insulin dosing, and artificial pancreas control algorithms. The aim of this paper is to propose an approach to describe CGM sensor error by exploiting n multiple simultaneous CGM recordings. The model of sensor error description includes a model of blood-to-interstitial glucose diffusion process, a linear time-varying model to account for calibration and sensor drift-in-time, and an autoregressive model to describe the additive measurement noise. Model orders and parameters are identified from the n simultaneous CGM sensor recordings and BG references. While the model is applicable to any CGM sensor, here, it is used on a database of 36 datasets of type 1 diabetic adults in which n = 4 Dexcom SEVEN Plus CGM time series and frequent BG references were available simultaneously. Results demonstrates that multiple simultaneous sensor data and proper modeling allow dissecting the sensor error into its different components, distinguishing those related to physiology from those related to technology.