BACKGROUND: In outpatient studies of closed-loop insulin delivery systems, it is not typically practical to obtain blood glucose measurements for an outcome measure. Using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device as both part of the intervention and as the outcome in a clinical trial can give a biased estimate of the treatment effect. A stochastic adjustment has been proposed to correct this problem. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed Monte Carlo simulations to assess the performance of the stochastic adjustment in various scenarios where the CGM device was used passively and when it was used to inform insulin delivery. The resulting bias for using CGM to estimate the percentage of glucose values inside a target range was compared with and without the proposed stochastic adjustment. RESULTS: CGM bias for estimating the percentage of glucose values 70-180 mg/dL ranged from -6% to +4% in the various scenarios studied. In some circumstances, stochastic adjustment did indeed reduce this CGM bias. However, in other circumstances, stochastic adjustment made the bias worse. Stochastic adjustment tended to underestimate the true percentage of glucose values in range for most, but not all, scenarios considered in these simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Stochastic adjustment is not a general solution to the problem of CGM bias. The proposed adjustment relies on an implicit assumption that usually does not hold. The appropriate level of adjustment depends on how efficacious the closed-loop system is, which is not typically known in practice.
BACKGROUND: In outpatient studies of closed-loop insulin delivery systems, it is not typically practical to obtain blood glucose measurements for an outcome measure. Using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device as both part of the intervention and as the outcome in a clinical trial can give a biased estimate of the treatment effect. A stochastic adjustment has been proposed to correct this problem. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed Monte Carlo simulations to assess the performance of the stochastic adjustment in various scenarios where the CGM device was used passively and when it was used to inform insulin delivery. The resulting bias for using CGM to estimate the percentage of glucose values inside a target range was compared with and without the proposed stochastic adjustment. RESULTS: CGM bias for estimating the percentage of glucose values 70-180 mg/dL ranged from -6% to +4% in the various scenarios studied. In some circumstances, stochastic adjustment did indeed reduce this CGM bias. However, in other circumstances, stochastic adjustment made the bias worse. Stochastic adjustment tended to underestimate the true percentage of glucose values in range for most, but not all, scenarios considered in these simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Stochastic adjustment is not a general solution to the problem of CGM bias. The proposed adjustment relies on an implicit assumption that usually does not hold. The appropriate level of adjustment depends on how efficacious the closed-loop system is, which is not typically known in practice.
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: 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: Marc Breton; Anne Farret; Daniela Bruttomesso; Stacey Anderson; Lalo Magni; Stephen Patek; Chiara Dalla Man; Jerome Place; Susan Demartini; Simone Del Favero; Chiara Toffanin; Colleen Hughes-Karvetski; Eyal Dassau; Howard Zisser; Francis J Doyle; Giuseppe De Nicolao; Angelo Avogaro; Claudio Cobelli; Eric Renard; Boris Kovatchev Journal: Diabetes Date: 2012-06-11 Impact factor: 9.461
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: Helen R Murphy; Kavita Kumareswaran; Daniela Elleri; Janet M Allen; Karen Caldwell; Martina Biagioni; David Simmons; David B Dunger; Marianna Nodale; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Stephanie A Amiel; Roman Hovorka Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-10-19 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: David M Maahs; Bruce A Buckingham; Jessica R Castle; Ali Cinar; Edward R Damiano; Eyal Dassau; J Hans DeVries; Francis J Doyle; Steven C Griffen; Ahmad Haidar; Lutz Heinemann; Roman Hovorka; Timothy W Jones; Craig Kollman; Boris Kovatchev; Brian L Levy; Revital Nimri; David N O'Neal; Moshe Philip; Eric Renard; Steven J Russell; Stuart A Weinzimer; Howard Zisser; John W Lum Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 19.112