BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to design and evaluate a safety system for the artificial pancreas device system (APDS). Safe operation of the APDS is a critical task, where the safety system is engaged only as needed to ensure reliable operation without positive feedback to the controller. METHODS: The Health Monitoring System (HMS) was designed as a modular system to ensure the safety of the APDS and the user. It was designed using a large set of ambulatory data and evaluated in silico by inducing hypoglycemia with a missed meal [bolus for a 65 g carbohydrate (CHO) meal] and administering rescue CHOs per HMS alerting. The HMS was validated in-clinic with a real-life challenge of a subject who overdosed insulin prior to admission. RESULTS: The HMS was evaluated for clinical use with a 15 min prediction horizon. Retrospectively, 93.5% of episodes were detected with 2.9 false alarms per day. During in silico evaluation, the HMS reduced the time spent <70 mg/dl from 15% to 3%. When the HMS was first tested in-clinic, the subject overdosed ~3 U of insulin prior to her arrival to a closed-loop session (against protocol). The controller reduced insulin delivery, and the HMS gave four alerts that were successfully received via clinical software and text and multimedia messages. Even with insulin reduction and CHO supplements, hypoglycemia was unavoidable but manageable due to the HMS, confirming that a safety system to detect adverse events is an essential part of the APDS. CONCLUSIONS: The ability of the HMS to be an effective alert system that provides a safety layer to the APDS controller has been demonstrated in a clinical setting.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to design and evaluate a safety system for the artificial pancreas device system (APDS). Safe operation of the APDS is a critical task, where the safety system is engaged only as needed to ensure reliable operation without positive feedback to the controller. METHODS: The Health Monitoring System (HMS) was designed as a modular system to ensure the safety of the APDS and the user. It was designed using a large set of ambulatory data and evaluated in silico by inducing hypoglycemia with a missed meal [bolus for a 65 g carbohydrate (CHO) meal] and administering rescue CHOs per HMS alerting. The HMS was validated in-clinic with a real-life challenge of a subject who overdosed insulin prior to admission. RESULTS: The HMS was evaluated for clinical use with a 15 min prediction horizon. Retrospectively, 93.5% of episodes were detected with 2.9 false alarms per day. During in silico evaluation, the HMS reduced the time spent <70 mg/dl from 15% to 3%. When the HMS was first tested in-clinic, the subject overdosed ~3 U of insulin prior to her arrival to a closed-loop session (against protocol). The controller reduced insulin delivery, and the HMS gave four alerts that were successfully received via clinical software and text and multimedia messages. Even with insulin reduction and CHO supplements, hypoglycemia was unavoidable but manageable due to the HMS, confirming that a safety system to detect adverse events is an essential part of the APDS. CONCLUSIONS: The ability of the HMS to be an effective alert system that provides a safety layer to the APDS controller has been demonstrated in a clinical setting.
Authors: Boris Kovatchev; Stephen Patek; Eyal Dassau; Francis J Doyle; Lalo Magni; Giuseppe De Nicolao; Claudio Cobelli Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2009-09-01
Authors: David C Klonoff; Charles L Zimliki; Lcdr Alan Stevens; Patricia Beaston; Arleen Pinkos; Sally Y Choe; Guillermo Arreaza-Rubín; William Heetderks Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2011-05-01
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: Bruce Buckingham; H Peter Chase; Eyal Dassau; Erin Cobry; Paula Clinton; Victoria Gage; Kimberly Caswell; John Wilkinson; Fraser Cameron; Hyunjin Lee; B Wayne Bequette; Francis J Doyle Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-03-03 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: Eyal Dassau; Howard Zisser; Rebecca A Harvey; Matthew W Percival; Benyamin Grosman; Wendy Bevier; Eran Atlas; Shahar Miller; Revital Nimri; Lois Jovanovic; Francis J Doyle Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-11-27 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jordan E Pinsker; Alejandro J Laguna Sanz; Joon Bok Lee; Mei Mei Church; Camille Andre; Laura E Lindsey; Francis J Doyle; Eyal Dassau Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 6.118
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: Jordan E Pinsker; Joon Bok Lee; Eyal Dassau; Dale E Seborg; Paige K Bradley; Ravi Gondhalekar; Wendy C Bevier; Lauren Huyett; Howard C Zisser; Francis J Doyle Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-06-11 Impact factor: 19.112
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