BACKGROUND: Initial Food and Drug Administration-approved artificial pancreas (AP) systems will be hybrid closed-loop systems that require prandial meal announcements and will not eliminate the burden of premeal insulin dosing. Multiple model probabilistic predictive control (MMPPC) is a fully closed-loop system that uses probabilistic estimation of meals to allow for automated meal detection. In this study, we describe the safety and performance of the MMPPC system with announced and unannounced meals in a supervised hotel setting. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Android phone-based AP system with remote monitoring was tested for 72 h in six adults and four adolescents across three clinical sites with daily exercise and meal challenges involving both three announced (manual bolus by patient) and six unannounced (no bolus by patient) meals. Safety criteria were predefined. Controller aggressiveness was adapted daily based on prior hypoglycemic events. RESULTS: Mean 24-h continuous glucose monitor (CGM) was 157.4 ± 14.4 mg/dL, with 63.6 ± 9.2% of readings between 70 and 180 mg/dL, 2.9 ± 2.3% of readings <70 mg/dL, and 9.0 ± 3.9% of readings >250 mg/dL. Moderate hyperglycemia was relatively common with 24.6 ± 6.2% of readings between 180 and 250 mg/dL, primarily within 3 h after a meal. Overnight mean CGM was 139.6 ± 27.6 mg/dL, with 77.9 ± 16.4% between 70 and 180 mg/dL, 3.0 ± 4.5% <70 mg/dL, 17.1 ± 14.9% between 180 and 250 mg/dL, and 2.0 ± 4.5%> 250 mg/dL. Postprandial hyperglycemia was more common for unannounced meals compared with announced meals (4-h postmeal CGM 197.8 ± 44.1 vs. 140.6 ± 35.0 mg/dL; P < 0.001). No participants met safety stopping criteria. CONCLUSIONS: MMPPC was safe in a supervised setting despite meal and exercise challenges. Further studies are needed in a less supervised environment.
BACKGROUND: Initial Food and Drug Administration-approved artificial pancreas (AP) systems will be hybrid closed-loop systems that require prandial meal announcements and will not eliminate the burden of premeal insulin dosing. Multiple model probabilistic predictive control (MMPPC) is a fully closed-loop system that uses probabilistic estimation of meals to allow for automated meal detection. In this study, we describe the safety and performance of the MMPPC system with announced and unannounced meals in a supervised hotel setting. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Android phone-based AP system with remote monitoring was tested for 72 h in six adults and four adolescents across three clinical sites with daily exercise and meal challenges involving both three announced (manual bolus by patient) and six unannounced (no bolus by patient) meals. Safety criteria were predefined. Controller aggressiveness was adapted daily based on prior hypoglycemic events. RESULTS: Mean 24-h continuous glucose monitor (CGM) was 157.4 ± 14.4 mg/dL, with 63.6 ± 9.2% of readings between 70 and 180 mg/dL, 2.9 ± 2.3% of readings <70 mg/dL, and 9.0 ± 3.9% of readings >250 mg/dL. Moderate hyperglycemia was relatively common with 24.6 ± 6.2% of readings between 180 and 250 mg/dL, primarily within 3 h after a meal. Overnight mean CGM was 139.6 ± 27.6 mg/dL, with 77.9 ± 16.4% between 70 and 180 mg/dL, 3.0 ± 4.5% <70 mg/dL, 17.1 ± 14.9% between 180 and 250 mg/dL, and 2.0 ± 4.5%> 250 mg/dL. Postprandial hyperglycemia was more common for unannounced meals compared with announced meals (4-h postmeal CGM 197.8 ± 44.1 vs. 140.6 ± 35.0 mg/dL; P < 0.001). No participants met safety stopping criteria. CONCLUSIONS:MMPPC was safe in a supervised setting despite meal and exercise challenges. Further studies are needed in a less supervised environment.
Entities:
Keywords:
Artificial pancreas; Clinical trial; Fully closed-loop; Type 1 diabetes
Authors: Firas H El-Khatib; Courtney Balliro; Mallory A Hillard; Kendra L Magyar; Laya Ekhlaspour; Manasi Sinha; Debbie Mondesir; Aryan Esmaeili; Celia Hartigan; Michael J Thompson; Samir Malkani; J Paul Lock; David M Harlan; Paula Clinton; Eliana Frank; Darrell M Wilson; Daniel DeSalvo; Lisa Norlander; Trang Ly; Bruce A Buckingham; Jamie Diner; Milana Dezube; Laura A Young; April Goley; M Sue Kirkman; John B Buse; Hui Zheng; Rajendranath R Selagamsetty; Edward R Damiano; Steven J Russell Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kellee M Miller; Nicole C Foster; Roy W Beck; Richard M Bergenstal; Stephanie N DuBose; Linda A DiMeglio; David M Maahs; William V Tamborlane Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Fraser Cameron; Günter Niemeyer; Darrell M Wilson; B Wayne Bequette; Kari S Benassi; Paula Clinton; Bruce A Buckingham Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Daniel R Cherñavvsky; Mark D DeBoer; Patrick Keith-Hynes; Benton Mize; Molly McElwee; Susan Demartini; Spencer F Dunsmore; Christian Wakeman; Boris P Kovatchev; Marc D Breton Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2014-10-27 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: P G Jacobs; J El Youssef; R Reddy; N Resalat; D Branigan; J Condon; N Preiser; K Ramsey; M Jones; C Edwards; K Kuehl; J Leitschuh; U Rajhbeharrysingh; J R Castle Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2016-08-15 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Arianne C van Bon; Yoeri M Luijf; Rob Koebrugge; Robin Koops; Joost B L Hoekstra; J Hans DeVries Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Gregory P Forlenza; Laurel H Messer; Cari Berget; R Paul Wadwa; Kimberly A Driscoll Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 4.810
Authors: Max L Eckstein; Benjamin Weilguni; Martin Tauschmann; Rebecca T Zimmer; Faisal Aziz; Harald Sourij; Othmar Moser Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Laurel H Messer; Cari Berget; Ashlee Ernst; Lindsey Towers; Robert H Slover; Gregory P Forlenza Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 4.866