BACKGROUND: Commercialization of a closed-loop artificial pancreas system that employs continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and interstitial fluid glucose sensing has been encumbered by state-of-the-art technology. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices with improved accuracy could significantly advance development efforts. However, the current accuracy of CGM devices might be adequate for closed-loop control. METHODS: The influence that known CGM limitations have on closed-loop control was investigated by integrating sources of sensor inaccuracy with the University of Virginia Padova Diabetes simulator. Non-glucose interference, physiological time lag and sensor error measurements, selected from 83 Enlite™ glucose sensor recordings with the Guardian® REAL-Time system, were used to modulate simulated plasma glucose signals. The effect of sensor accuracy on closed-loop controller performance was evaluated in silico, and contrasted with closed-loop clinical studies during the nocturnal control period. RESULTS: Based on n = 2472 reference points, a mean sensor error of 14% with physiological time lags of 3.28 ± 4.62 min (max 13.2 min) was calculated for simulation. Sensor bias reduced time in target for both simulation and clinical experiments. In simulation, additive error increased time <70 mg/dl and >180 mg/dl by 0.2% and 5.6%, respectively. In-clinic, the greatest low blood glucose index values (max = 5.9) corresponded to sensor performance. CONCLUSION: Sensors have sufficient accuracy for closed-loop control, however, algorithms are necessary to effectively calibrate and detect erroneous calibrations and failing sensors. Clinical closed-loop data suggest that control with a higher target of 140 mg/dl during the nocturnal period could significantly reduce the risk for hypoglycemia.
BACKGROUND: Commercialization of a closed-loop artificial pancreas system that employs continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and interstitial fluid glucose sensing has been encumbered by state-of-the-art technology. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices with improved accuracy could significantly advance development efforts. However, the current accuracy of CGM devices might be adequate for closed-loop control. METHODS: The influence that known CGM limitations have on closed-loop control was investigated by integrating sources of sensor inaccuracy with the University of Virginia Padova Diabetes simulator. Non-glucose interference, physiological time lag and sensor error measurements, selected from 83 Enlite™ glucose sensor recordings with the Guardian® REAL-Time system, were used to modulate simulated plasma glucose signals. The effect of sensor accuracy on closed-loop controller performance was evaluated in silico, and contrasted with closed-loop clinical studies during the nocturnal control period. RESULTS: Based on n = 2472 reference points, a mean sensor error of 14% with physiological time lags of 3.28 ± 4.62 min (max 13.2 min) was calculated for simulation. Sensor bias reduced time in target for both simulation and clinical experiments. In simulation, additive error increased time <70 mg/dl and >180 mg/dl by 0.2% and 5.6%, respectively. In-clinic, the greatest low blood glucose index values (max = 5.9) corresponded to sensor performance. CONCLUSION: Sensors have sufficient accuracy for closed-loop control, however, algorithms are necessary to effectively calibrate and detect erroneous calibrations and failing sensors. Clinical closed-loop data suggest that control with a higher target of 140 mg/dl during the nocturnal period could significantly reduce the risk for hypoglycemia.
Authors: Desmond Barry Keenan; John Joseph Mastrototaro; Howard Zisser; Kenneth A Cooper; Gautham Raghavendhar; Scott W Lee; Jonathan Yusi; Timothy S Bailey; Ronald Leonard Brazg; Rajiv V Shah Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Richard L Weinstein; Sherwyn L Schwartz; Ronald L Brazg; Jolyon R Bugler; Thomas A Peyser; Geoffrey V McGarraugh Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-03-02 Impact factor: 19.112
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: 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: Ruth S Weinstock; Suzan Bristol; Andrew Armenia; A Chris Gesswein; B Wayne Bequette; John P Willis Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2012-11-01
Authors: Alfons K G Felice; Christoph Sygmund; Wolfgang Harreither; Roman Kittl; Lo Gorton; Roland Ludwig Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2013-05-01