BACKGROUND: Optimizing a closed-loop insulin delivery algorithm for individuals with type 1 diabetes can be potentially facilitated by a mathematical model of the patient. However, model simulation studies that evaluate changes to the control algorithm need to produce conclusions similar to those that would be obtained from a clinical study evaluating the same modification. We evaluated the ability of a low-order identifiable virtual patient (IVP) model to achieve this goal. METHODS: Ten adult subjects (42.5 ± 11.5 years of age; 18.0 ± 13.5 years diabetes; 6.9 ± 0.8% hemoglobin A1c) previously characterized with the IVP model were studied following the procedures independently reported in a pediatric study assessing proportional-integral-derivative control with and without a 50% meal insulin bolus. Peak postprandial glucose levels with and without the meal bolus and use of supplemental carbohydrate to treat hypoglycemia were compared using two-way analysis of variance and chi-square tests, respectively. RESULTS: The meal bolus decreased the peak postprandial glucose levels in both the adult-simulation and pediatricclinical study (231 ± 38 standard deviation to 205 ± 33 mg/dl and 226 ± 51 to 194 ± 47 mg/dl, respectively; p = .0472). No differences were observed between the peak postprandial levels obtained in the two studies (clinical and simulation study not different, p = .57; interaction p = .83) or in the use of supplemental carbohydrate (3 occurrences in 17 patient days of closed-loop control in the clinical-pediatric study; 7 occurrences over 20 patient days in the adult-simulation study, p = .29). CONCLUSIONS: Closed-loop simulations using an IVP model can predict clinical study outcomes in patients studied independently from those used to develop the model.
BACKGROUND: Optimizing a closed-loop insulin delivery algorithm for individuals with type 1 diabetes can be potentially facilitated by a mathematical model of the patient. However, model simulation studies that evaluate changes to the control algorithm need to produce conclusions similar to those that would be obtained from a clinical study evaluating the same modification. We evaluated the ability of a low-order identifiable virtual patient (IVP) model to achieve this goal. METHODS: Ten adult subjects (42.5 ± 11.5 years of age; 18.0 ± 13.5 years diabetes; 6.9 ± 0.8% hemoglobin A1c) previously characterized with the IVP model were studied following the procedures independently reported in a pediatric study assessing proportional-integral-derivative control with and without a 50% meal insulin bolus. Peak postprandial glucose levels with and without the meal bolus and use of supplemental carbohydrate to treat hypoglycemia were compared using two-way analysis of variance and chi-square tests, respectively. RESULTS: The meal bolus decreased the peak postprandial glucose levels in both the adult-simulation and pediatricclinical study (231 ± 38 standard deviation to 205 ± 33 mg/dl and 226 ± 51 to 194 ± 47 mg/dl, respectively; p = .0472). No differences were observed between the peak postprandial levels obtained in the two studies (clinical and simulation study not different, p = .57; interaction p = .83) or in the use of supplemental carbohydrate (3 occurrences in 17 patient days of closed-loop control in the clinical-pediatric study; 7 occurrences over 20 patient days in the adult-simulation study, p = .29). CONCLUSIONS: Closed-loop simulations using an IVP model can predict clinical study outcomes in patients studied independently from those used to develop the model.
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: Daniela Elleri; Janet M Allen; Marianna Nodale; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Jasdip S Mangat; Anne Mette F Larsen; Carlo L Acerini; David B Dunger; Roman Hovorka Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2011-02-28 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Andrew Dauber; Liat Corcia; Jason Safer; Michael S D Agus; Sara Einis; Garry M Steil Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: J Geoffrey Chase; Thomas Desaive; Julien Bohe; Miriam Cnop; Christophe De Block; Jan Gunst; Roman Hovorka; Pierre Kalfon; James Krinsley; Eric Renard; Jean-Charles Preiser Journal: Crit Care Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 9.097