BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a proportional derivative algorithm closed-loop system to control postprandial glucose concentrations in subjects with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Six subjects treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion received a standardized meal on three days. The first day served as control, the second day as learning experiment for the algorithm, and the third day to compare the closed loop to the control day. Venous blood glucose was measured as reference until 300 min postprandially. The artificial pancreas platform consisted of a subcutaneous continuous glucose monitor (CGM), the GlucoDay S (Menarini Diagnostics), two D-Tron+ pumps (Disetronic Medical Systems) for subcutaneous insulin, and glucagon administration connected to a personal computer. RESULTS: One subject was excluded due to technical failure of the CGM. Two of five subjects were male, mean age was 50.8 years (range 38-60), and mean hemoglobin A1c was 8.7% (range 7.0-12.2). The mean postprandial venous blood glucose concentration of day 1 was 205 mg/dl (range 94-265 mg/dl) compared with 128 mg/dl (range 128-158 mg/dl) on day 3 (p = .14). Percentage of time spent in euglycemia postprandially on day 1 was 31% versus 60% on day 3 (p = .08). Time spent below 3.9 mmol/liter (70 mg/dl) was 19% on day 1 compared with 11% on day 3 (p = 1.0). Time above 10 mmol/liter (180 mg/dl) on day 1 was 60% versus 29% on day 3 (p = .22). CONCLUSION: The artificial pancreas provided comparable postprandial glycemic control to usual care. 2010 Diabetes Technology Society.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a proportional derivative algorithm closed-loop system to control postprandial glucose concentrations in subjects with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Six subjects treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion received a standardized meal on three days. The first day served as control, the second day as learning experiment for the algorithm, and the third day to compare the closed loop to the control day. Venous blood glucose was measured as reference until 300 min postprandially. The artificial pancreas platform consisted of a subcutaneous continuous glucose monitor (CGM), the GlucoDay S (Menarini Diagnostics), two D-Tron+ pumps (Disetronic Medical Systems) for subcutaneous insulin, and glucagon administration connected to a personal computer. RESULTS: One subject was excluded due to technical failure of the CGM. Two of five subjects were male, mean age was 50.8 years (range 38-60), and mean hemoglobin A1c was 8.7% (range 7.0-12.2). The mean postprandial venous blood glucose concentration of day 1 was 205 mg/dl (range 94-265 mg/dl) compared with 128 mg/dl (range 128-158 mg/dl) on day 3 (p = .14). Percentage of time spent in euglycemia postprandially on day 1 was 31% versus 60% on day 3 (p = .08). Time spent below 3.9 mmol/liter (70 mg/dl) was 19% on day 1 compared with 11% on day 3 (p = 1.0). Time above 10 mmol/liter (180 mg/dl) on day 1 was 60% versus 29% on day 3 (p = .22). CONCLUSION: The artificial pancreas provided comparable postprandial glycemic control to usual care. 2010 Diabetes Technology Society.
Authors: Daniela Bruttomesso; Anne Farret; Silvana Costa; Maria Cristina Marescotti; Monica Vettore; Angelo Avogaro; Antonio Tiengo; Chiara Dalla Man; Jerome Place; Andrea Facchinetti; Stefania Guerra; Lalo Magni; Giuseppe De Nicolao; Claudio Cobelli; Eric Renard; Alberto Maran Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2009-09-01
Authors: Firas H El-Khatib; Steven J Russell; David M Nathan; Robert G Sutherlin; Edward R Damiano Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2010-04-14 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: William L Clarke; Stacey Anderson; Marc Breton; Stephen Patek; Laurissa Kashmer; Boris Kovatchev Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2009-09-01
Authors: H C Schaller; L Schaupp; M Bodenlenz; M E Wilinska; L J Chassin; P Wach; T Vering; R Hovorka; T R Pieber Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Johannes Plank; Jan Blaha; Jeremy Cordingley; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Ludovic J Chassin; Cliff Morgan; Stephen Squire; Martin Haluzik; Jaromir Kremen; Stepan Svacina; Wolfgang Toller; Andreas Plasnik; Martin Ellmerer; Roman Hovorka; Thomas R Pieber Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Roman Hovorka; Janet M Allen; Daniela Elleri; Ludovic J Chassin; Julie Harris; Dongyuan Xing; Craig Kollman; Tomas Hovorka; Anne Mette F Larsen; Marianna Nodale; Alessandra De Palma; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Carlo L Acerini; David B Dunger Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-02-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stuart A Weinzimer; Garry M Steil; Karena L Swan; Jim Dziura; Natalie Kurtz; William V Tamborlane Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-02-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Firas H El-Khatib; Steven J Russell; Kendra L Magyar; Manasi Sinha; Katherine McKeon; David M Nathan; Edward R Damiano Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Arianne C Van Bon; Lisanne D Jonker; Rob Koebrugge; Robin Koops; Joost B L Hoekstra; J Hans DeVries Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2012-09-01
Authors: Arianne C van Bon; Yoeri M Luijf; Rob Koebrugge; Robin Koops; Joost B L Hoekstra; J Hans DeVries Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 6.118