MD-Logic Artificial Pancreas System

Atlas, Eran; Nimri, Revital; Miller, Shahar; Grunberg, Eli A.; Phillip, Moshe

doi:10.2337/dc09-1830

Cited by 249 publications

(165 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

159

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Between 2008 and 2011, promising results from inpatient closed-loop control studies were reported by several groups. [40][41][42][43][44][45] The results from these investigations were summarized in a 2011 review of the artificial pancreas field, 46 pointing out the superiority of closed-loop control over insulin pump therapy in terms of (1) increased time within target glucose range, (2) reduced incidence of hypoglycemia, and (3) better overnight control. Subsequent studies confirmed these findings in outpatient setting, 47 at diabetes camps for children, 48 and at patients' homes.…”

Section: Utility Of Cgm Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Sensor Accuracy for Non-Adjunct Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Kovatchev

Patek

Ortiz

et al. 2015

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

184

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The level of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) accuracy needed for insulin dosing using sensor values (i.e., the level of accuracy permitting non-adjunct CGM use) is a topic of ongoing debate. Assessment of this level in clinical experiments is virtually impossible because the magnitude of CGM errors cannot be manipulated and related prospectively to clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: A combination of archival data (parallel CGM, insulin pump, self-monitoring of blood glucose [SMBG] records, and meals for 56 pump users with type 1 diabetes) and in silico experiments was used to ''replay'' real-life treatment scenarios and relate sensor error to glycemic outcomes. Nominal blood glucose (BG) traces were extracted using a mathematical model, yielding 2,082 BG segments each initiated by insulin bolus and confirmed by SMBG. These segments were replayed at seven sensor accuracy levels (mean absolute relative differences [MARDs] of 3-22%) testing six scenarios: insulin dosing using sensor values, threshold, and predictive alarms, each without or with considering CGM trend arrows. Results: In all six scenarios, the occurrence of hypoglycemia (frequency of BG levels £ 50 mg/dL and BG levels £ 39 mg/dL) increased with sensor error, displaying an abrupt slope change at MARD = 10%. Similarly, hyperglycemia (frequency of BG levels ‡ 250 mg/dL and BG levels ‡ 400 mg/dL) increased and displayed an abrupt slope change at MARD = 10%. When added to insulin dosing decisions, information from CGM trend arrows, threshold, and predictive alarms resulted in improvement in average glycemia by 1.86, 8.17, and 8.88 mg/dL, respectively. Conclusions: Using CGM for insulin dosing decisions is feasible below a certain level of sensor error, estimated in silico at MARD = 10%. In our experiments, further accuracy improvement did not contribute substantively to better glycemic outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Utility Of Cgm Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Sensor Accuracy for Non-Adjunct Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Kovatchev

Patek

Ortiz

et al. 2015

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

184

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During the closed-loop insulin delivery, the use of the pump was uninterrupted; the device was applied from 15:00 h on the day of the exercise to 13:00 h on the next day, and exercise was not announced to the closed-loop algorithm. The closed-loop algorithm (Glucositter; DreaMed Diabetes, Petah Tikva, Israel) used a modified vendor-supplied communication module application programming interface (API) to retrieve glucose/insulin data from the MiniMed Paradigm Veo pump and set insulin treatment according to a fuzzy-logicbased algorithm [21]. The software version 01.05.02 operated on a commercial laptop/tablet computer (ThinkPad T450s; Lenovo, Beijing, China), which had a physical connection to a communication dongle (provided by the manufacturer of the insulin pump).…”

Section: Study Design and Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Closed-loop glucose control in young people with type 1 diabetes during and after unannounced physical activity: a randomised controlled crossover trial

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims/hypothesis Hypoglycaemia during and after exercise remains a challenge. The present study evaluated the safety and efficacy of closed-loop insulin delivery during unannounced (to the closed-loop algorithm) afternoon physical activity and during the following night in young people with type 1 diabetes. Methods A randomised, two-arm, open-label, in-hospital, crossover clinical trial was performed at a single site in Slovenia. The order was randomly determined using an automated web-based programme with randomly permuted blocks of four. Allocation assignment was not masked. Children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes who were experienced insulin pump users were eligible for the trial. During four separate in-hospital visits, the participants performed two unannounced exercise protocols: moderate intensity (55% of V Á O 2max ) and moderate intensity with integrated highintensity sprints (55/80% of V Á O 2max ), using the same study device either for closed-loop or open-loop insulin delivery. We investigated glycaemic control during the exercise period and the following night. The closed-loop insulin delivery was applied from 15:00 h on the day of the exercise to 13:00 h on the following day.Results Between 20 January and 16 June 2016, 20 eligible participants (9 female, mean age 14.2 ± 2.0 years, HbA 1c 7.7 ± 0.6% [60.0 ± 6.6 mmol/mol]) were included in the trial and performed all trial-mandated activities. The median proportion of time spent in hypoglycaemia below 3.3 mmol/l was 0.00% for both treatment modalities (p = 0.7910). Use of the closed-loop insulin delivery system increased the proportion of time spent within the target glucose range of 3.9-10 mmol/l when compared with open-loop delivery: 84.1% (interquartile range 70.0-85.5) vs 68.7% (59.0-77.7), respectively (p = 0.0057), over the entire study period. This was achieved with significantly less insulin delivered via the closed-loop (p = 0.0123). Conclusions/interpretation Closed-loop insulin delivery was safe both during and after unannounced exercise protocols in the in-hospital environment, maintaining glucose values mostly within the target range without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02657083 Funding

show abstract

“…Between 2008 and 2012, promising results from inpatient CLC studies were reported by several groups. [3][4][5][6][7][8] A summary can be found in a 2011 review of the artificial pancreas field, pointing out the superiority of CLC over insulin pump therapy in terms of (1) increased time within target glucose range, (2) reduced incidence of hypoglycemia, and (3) better overnight control. 9 The transition of CLC to a wearable outpatient system began in 2012 with the introduction of the Diabetes Assistant (DiAs)-the first wearable CLC system using a smartphone as a computational platform for its control algorithm.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Multinight “Bedside” Closed-Loop Control for Patients with Type 1 Diabetes

BrownSue

KovatchevBoris²,

BretonMarc³

et al. 2015

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Studies of closed-loop control (CLC) systems have improved glucose levels in patients with type 1 diabetes. In this study we test a new CLC concept aiming to ''reset'' the patient overnight to nearnormoglycemia each morning, for several consecutive nights. Subjects and Methods: Ten insulin pump users with type 1 diabetes (mean age, 46.4 -8.5 years) were enrolled in a two-center (in the United States and Italy) randomized crossover trial comparing 5 consecutive nights of CLC (23:00-07:00 h) in an outpatient setting versus sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy of the same duration at home. Primary end points included time spent in 80-140 mg/dL as measured by continuous glucose monitoring overnight and fasting blood glucose distribution at 7:00 h. Results: Compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy, CLC improved significantly time spent between 80 and 140 mg/dL (54.5% vs. 32.2%; P < 0.001) and between 70 and 180 mg/dL (85.4% vs. 59.1%; P < 0.001); CLC reduced the mean glucose level at 07:00 h (119.3 vs. 152.9 mg/dL; P < 0.001) and overnight mean glucose level (139.0 vs. 170.3 mg/dL; P < 0.001) using a marginally lower amount of insulin (6.1 vs. 6.8 units; P = 0.1). Tighter overnight control led to improved daytime control on the next day: the overnight/next-day control correlation was r = 0.52, P < 0.01. Conclusions: Multinight CLC of insulin delivery (artificial pancreas) results in significant improvement in morning and overnight glucose levels and time in target range, with the potential to improve daytime control when glucose levels were ''reset'' to near-normoglycemia each morning.

show abstract

MD-Logic Artificial Pancreas System

Cited by 249 publications

References 14 publications

Assessing Sensor Accuracy for Non-Adjunct Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Assessing Sensor Accuracy for Non-Adjunct Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Closed-loop glucose control in young people with type 1 diabetes during and after unannounced physical activity: a randomised controlled crossover trial

Multinight “Bedside” Closed-Loop Control for Patients with Type 1 Diabetes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About