BACKGROUND: Efficacy and safety of the Medtronic Hybrid Closed-Loop (HCL) system were tested in subjects with type 1 diabetes in a supervised outpatient setting. METHODS: The HCL system is a prototype research platform that includes a sensor-augmented insulin pump in communication with a control algorithm housed on an Android-based cellular device. Nine subjects with type 1 diabetes (5 female, mean age 53.3 years, mean A1C 7.2%) underwent 9 studies totaling 571 hours of closed-loop control using either default or personalized parameters. The system required meal announcements with estimates of carbohydrate (CHO) intake that were based on metabolic kitchen quantification (MK), dietician estimates (D), or subject estimates (Control). Postprandial glycemia was compared for MK, D, and Control meals. RESULTS: The overall sensor glucose mean was 145 ± 43, the overall percentage time in the range 70-180 mg/dL was 80%, the overall percentage time <70 mg/dL was 0.79%. Compared to intervals of default parameter use (225 hours), intervals of personalized parameter use (346 hours), sensor glucose mean was 158 ± 49 and 137 ± 37 mg/dL (P < .001), respectively, and included more time in range (87% vs 68%) and less time below range (0.54% vs 1.18%). Most subjects underestimated the CHO content of meals, but postprandial glycemia was not significantly different between MK and matched Control meals (P = .16) or between D and matched Control meals (P = .76). There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: The HCL system was efficacious and safe during this study. Personally adapted HCL parameters were associated with more time in range and less time below range than default parameters. Accurate estimates of meal CHO did not contribute to improved postprandial glycemia.
BACKGROUND: Efficacy and safety of the Medtronic Hybrid Closed-Loop (HCL) system were tested in subjects with type 1 diabetes in a supervised outpatient setting. METHODS: The HCL system is a prototype research platform that includes a sensor-augmented insulin pump in communication with a control algorithm housed on an Android-based cellular device. Nine subjects with type 1 diabetes (5 female, mean age 53.3 years, mean A1C 7.2%) underwent 9 studies totaling 571 hours of closed-loop control using either default or personalized parameters. The system required meal announcements with estimates of carbohydrate (CHO) intake that were based on metabolic kitchen quantification (MK), dietician estimates (D), or subject estimates (Control). Postprandial glycemia was compared for MK, D, and Control meals. RESULTS: The overall sensor glucose mean was 145 ± 43, the overall percentage time in the range 70-180 mg/dL was 80%, the overall percentage time <70 mg/dL was 0.79%. Compared to intervals of default parameter use (225 hours), intervals of personalized parameter use (346 hours), sensor glucose mean was 158 ± 49 and 137 ± 37 mg/dL (P < .001), respectively, and included more time in range (87% vs 68%) and less time below range (0.54% vs 1.18%). Most subjects underestimated the CHO content of meals, but postprandial glycemia was not significantly different between MK and matched Control meals (P = .16) or between D and matched Control meals (P = .76). There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: The HCL system was efficacious and safe during this study. Personally adapted HCL parameters were associated with more time in range and less time below range than default parameters. Accurate estimates of meal CHO did not contribute to improved postprandial glycemia.
Authors: Trang T Ly; Anirban Roy; Benyamin Grosman; John Shin; Alex Campbell; Salman Monirabbasi; Bradley Liang; Rie von Eyben; Satya Shanmugham; Paula Clinton; Bruce A Buckingham Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-06-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Sue A Brown; Boris P Kovatchev; Marc D Breton; Stacey M Anderson; Patrick Keith-Hynes; Stephen D Patek; Boyi Jiang; Najib Ben Brahim; Paul Vereshchetin; Daniela Bruttomesso; Angelo Avogaro; Simone Del Favero; Federico Boscari; Silvia Galasso; Roberto Visentin; Marco Monaro; Claudio Cobelli Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2015-01-16 Impact factor: 6.118
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
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: Steven J Russell; Firas H El-Khatib; David M Nathan; Kendra L Magyar; John Jiang; Edward R Damiano Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: H Thabit; D Elleri; L Leelarathna; J M Allen; A Lubina-Solomon; M Stadler; E Walkinshaw; A Iqbal; P Choudhary; M E Wilinska; K D Barnard; S R Heller; S A Amiel; M L Evans; D B Dunger; R Hovorka Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Cari Berget; Laurel H Messer; Tim Vigers; Brigitte I Frohnert; Laura Pyle; R Paul Wadwa; Kimberly A Driscoll; Gregory P Forlenza Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: Laurel H Messer; Cari Berget; Tim Vigers; Laura Pyle; Cristy Geno; R Paul Wadwa; Kimberly A Driscoll; Gregory P Forlenza Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2020-01-03 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: Alexander O'Donovan; Sean M Oser; Jessica Parascando; Arthur Berg; Donald E Nease; Tamara K Oser Journal: J Patient Cent Res Rev Date: 2021-07-19
Authors: Jhon E Goez-Mora; María F Villa-Tamayo; Monica Vallejo; Pablo S Rivadeneira Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 5.555