BACKGROUND:Closed-loop (CL) insulin delivery systems utilizing proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers have demonstrated susceptibility to late postprandial hypoglycemia because of delays between insulin delivery and blood glucose (BG) response. An insulin feedback (IFB) modification to the PID algorithm has been introduced to mitigate this risk. We examined the effect of IFB on CL BG control. METHODS: Using the Medtronic ePID CL system, four subjects were studied for 24 h on PID control and 24 h during a separate admission with the IFB modification (PID + IFB). Target glucose was 120 mg/dl; meals were served at 8:00 AM, 1:00 PM, and 6:00 PM and were identical for both admissions. No premeal manual boluses were given. Reference BG excursions, defined as incremental glucose rise from premeal to peak, and postprandial BG area under the curve (AUC; 0-5 h) were compared. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation. RESULTS: The PID + IFB control resulted in higher mean BG levels compared with PID alone (153 ± 54 versus 133 ± 56 mg/dl; p < .0001). Postmeal BG excursions (114 ± 28 versus 114 ± 47 mg/dl) and AUCs (285 ± 102 versus 255 ± 129 mg/dl/h) were similar under both conditions. Total insulin delivery averaged 57 ± 20 U with PID versus 45 ± 13 U with PID + IFB (p = .18). Notably, eight hypoglycemic events (BG < 60 mg/dl) occurred during PID control versus none during PID + IFB. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of IFB to the PID controller markedly reduced the occurrence of hypoglycemia without increasing meal-related glucose excursions. Higher average BG levels may be attributable to differences in the determination of system gain (Kp) in this study. The prevention of postprandial hypoglycemia suggests that the PID + IFB algorithm may allow for lower target glucose selection and improved overall glycemic control.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Closed-loop (CL) insulin delivery systems utilizing proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers have demonstrated susceptibility to late postprandial hypoglycemia because of delays between insulin delivery and blood glucose (BG) response. An insulin feedback (IFB) modification to the PID algorithm has been introduced to mitigate this risk. We examined the effect of IFB on CL BG control. METHODS: Using the Medtronic ePID CL system, four subjects were studied for 24 h on PID control and 24 h during a separate admission with the IFB modification (PID + IFB). Target glucose was 120 mg/dl; meals were served at 8:00 AM, 1:00 PM, and 6:00 PM and were identical for both admissions. No premeal manual boluses were given. Reference BG excursions, defined as incremental glucose rise from premeal to peak, and postprandial BG area under the curve (AUC; 0-5 h) were compared. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation. RESULTS: The PID + IFB control resulted in higher mean BG levels compared with PID alone (153 ± 54 versus 133 ± 56 mg/dl; p < .0001). Postmeal BG excursions (114 ± 28 versus 114 ± 47 mg/dl) and AUCs (285 ± 102 versus 255 ± 129 mg/dl/h) were similar under both conditions. Total insulin delivery averaged 57 ± 20 U with PID versus 45 ± 13 U with PID + IFB (p = .18). Notably, eight hypoglycemic events (BG < 60 mg/dl) occurred during PID control versus none during PID + IFB. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of IFB to the PID controller markedly reduced the occurrence of hypoglycemia without increasing meal-related glucose excursions. Higher average BG levels may be attributable to differences in the determination of system gain (Kp) in this study. The prevention of postprandial hypoglycemia suggests that the PID + IFB algorithm may allow for lower target glucose selection and improved overall glycemic control.
Authors: Boris Kovatchev; Claudio Cobelli; Eric Renard; Stacey Anderson; Marc Breton; Stephen Patek; William Clarke; Daniela Bruttomesso; Alberto Maran; Silvana Costa; Angelo Avogaro; Chiara Dalla Man; Andrea Facchinetti; Lalo Magni; Giuseppe De Nicolao; Jerome Place; Anne Farret Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2010-11-01
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: 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: Stuart A Weinzimer; Jennifer L Sherr; Eda Cengiz; Grace Kim; Jessica L Ruiz; Lori Carria; Gayane Voskanyan; Anirban Roy; William V Tamborlane Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-07-18 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Roman Hovorka; Kavita Kumareswaran; Julie Harris; Janet M Allen; Daniela Elleri; Dongyuan Xing; Craig Kollman; Marianna Nodale; Helen R Murphy; David B Dunger; Stephanie A Amiel; Simon R Heller; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Mark L Evans Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-04-13
Authors: Ankush Chakrabarty; Justin M Gregory; L Merkle Moore; Philip E Williams; Ben Farmer; Alan D Cherrington; Peter Lord; Brian Shelton; Don Cohen; Howard C Zisser; Francis J Doyle; Eyal Dassau Journal: J Process Control Date: 2019-02-23 Impact factor: 3.666
Authors: Gregory P Forlenza; Sunil Deshpande; Trang T Ly; Daniel P Howsmon; Faye Cameron; Nihat Baysal; Eric Mauritzen; Tatiana Marcal; Lindsey Towers; B Wayne Bequette; Lauren M Huyett; Jordan E Pinsker; Ravi Gondhalekar; Francis J Doyle; David M Maahs; Bruce A Buckingham; Eyal Dassau Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-06-05 Impact factor: 19.112
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