CONTEXT: Initial studies of closed-loop proportional integral derivative control in individuals with type 1 diabetes showed good overnight performance, but with breakfast meal being the hardest to control and requiring supplemental carbohydrate to prevent hypoglycemia. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the ability of insulin feedback to improve the breakfast-meal profile. DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a single center study with closed-loop control over approximately 30 h at an inpatient clinical research facility. PATIENTS: Eight adult subjects with previously diagnosed type 1 diabetes participated. INTERVENTION: Subjects received closed-loop insulin delivery with supplemental carbohydrate as needed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures were plasma insulin concentration, model-predicted plasma insulin concentration, 2-h postprandial and 3- to 4-h glucose rate-of-change following breakfast after 1 d of closed-loop control, and the need for supplemental carbohydrate in response to nadir hypoglycemia. RESULTS: Plasma insulin levels during closed loop were well correlated with model predictions (R = 0.86). Fasting glucose after 1 d of closed loop was not different from nighttime target (118 ± 9 vs. 110 mg/dl; P = 0.38). Two-hour postbreakfast glucose was 132 ± 16 mg/dl with stable values 3-4 h after the meal (0.03792 ± 0.0884 mg/dl · min, not different from 0; P = 0.68) and at target (97 ± 6 mg/dl, not different from 90; P = 0.28). Three subjects required supplemental carbohydrates after breakfast on d 2 of closed loop. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Insulin feedback can be implemented using a model estimate of concentration. Proportional integral derivative control with insulin feedback can achieve a desired breakfast response but still requires supplemental carbohydrate to be delivered in some instances. Studies assessing more optimal control configurations and safeguards need to be conducted.
CONTEXT: Initial studies of closed-loop proportional integral derivative control in individuals with type 1 diabetes showed good overnight performance, but with breakfast meal being the hardest to control and requiring supplemental carbohydrate to prevent hypoglycemia. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the ability of insulin feedback to improve the breakfast-meal profile. DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a single center study with closed-loop control over approximately 30 h at an inpatient clinical research facility. PATIENTS: Eight adult subjects with previously diagnosed type 1 diabetes participated. INTERVENTION: Subjects received closed-loop insulin delivery with supplemental carbohydrate as needed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures were plasma insulin concentration, model-predicted plasma insulin concentration, 2-h postprandial and 3- to 4-h glucose rate-of-change following breakfast after 1 d of closed-loop control, and the need for supplemental carbohydrate in response to nadirhypoglycemia. RESULTS: Plasma insulin levels during closed loop were well correlated with model predictions (R = 0.86). Fasting glucose after 1 d of closed loop was not different from nighttime target (118 ± 9 vs. 110 mg/dl; P = 0.38). Two-hour postbreakfast glucose was 132 ± 16 mg/dl with stable values 3-4 h after the meal (0.03792 ± 0.0884 mg/dl · min, not different from 0; P = 0.68) and at target (97 ± 6 mg/dl, not different from 90; P = 0.28). Three subjects required supplemental carbohydrates after breakfast on d 2 of closed loop. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION:Insulin feedback can be implemented using a model estimate of concentration. Proportional integral derivative control with insulin feedback can achieve a desired breakfast response but still requires supplemental carbohydrate to be delivered in some instances. Studies assessing more optimal control configurations and safeguards need to be conducted.
Authors: D Barry Keenan; Benyamin Grosman; Harry W Clark; Anirban Roy; Stuart A Weinzimer; Rajiv V Shah; John J Mastrototaro Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2011-11-01
Authors: Steven J Russell; Firas H El-Khatib; Manasi Sinha; Kendra L Magyar; Katherine McKeon; Laura G Goergen; Courtney Balliro; Mallory A Hillard; David M Nathan; Edward R Damiano Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-06-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joon Bok Lee; Eyal Dassau; Ravi Gondhalekar; Dale E Seborg; Jordan E Pinsker; Francis J Doyle Journal: Ind Eng Chem Res Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 3.720