BACKGROUND: The ongoing improvement of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensors and of insulin pumps are paving the way for a fast implementation of artificial pancreas (AP) for type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients. The case for type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients is less obvious since usually some residual beta cell function allows for simpler therapy approaches, and even multiple daily injections (MDI) therapy is not very widespread. However, the number of insulin dependent T2D patients is vastly increasing and therefore a need for understanding chances and challenges of an automated insulin therapy arises. Based on this background, this article analyzes conditions under which the use of more advanced therapeutic approaches, particularly AP, could bring a substantial improvement and should be considered as a viable therapy option. METHOD: Data of 14 insulin-treated T2D patients on MDI wearing a CGM device and deviation analysis methods were used to estimate the expected improvements in the clinical outcome by using self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) with advanced carbohydrate counting, a full AP or intermediate approaches, either CGM measurements with MDI therapy or SMBG with insulin pump. HbA1C and time in range (70-140 mg/dl, 70-180 mg/dl, respectively) were used as a performance measure. Outcome measures beyond glycemic control (eg, compliance, patient acceptance) have not been analyzed in this study. RESULTS: AP has the potential to improve the condition of many poorly controlled insulin-treated T2D patients. However, as the interpatient variability is much higher than in T1D, a prescreening is recommended to select suitable patients. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical criteria need to be developed for inclusion/exclusion of T2D patients for AP related therapies.
BACKGROUND: The ongoing improvement of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensors and of insulin pumps are paving the way for a fast implementation of artificial pancreas (AP) for type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients. The case for type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients is less obvious since usually some residual beta cell function allows for simpler therapy approaches, and even multiple daily injections (MDI) therapy is not very widespread. However, the number of insulin dependent T2Dpatients is vastly increasing and therefore a need for understanding chances and challenges of an automated insulin therapy arises. Based on this background, this article analyzes conditions under which the use of more advanced therapeutic approaches, particularly AP, could bring a substantial improvement and should be considered as a viable therapy option. METHOD: Data of 14 insulin-treated T2D patients on MDI wearing a CGM device and deviation analysis methods were used to estimate the expected improvements in the clinical outcome by using self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) with advanced carbohydrate counting, a full AP or intermediate approaches, either CGM measurements with MDI therapy or SMBG with insulin pump. HbA1C and time in range (70-140 mg/dl, 70-180 mg/dl, respectively) were used as a performance measure. Outcome measures beyond glycemic control (eg, compliance, patient acceptance) have not been analyzed in this study. RESULTS: AP has the potential to improve the condition of many poorly controlled insulin-treated T2D patients. However, as the interpatient variability is much higher than in T1D, a prescreening is recommended to select suitable patients. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical criteria need to be developed for inclusion/exclusion of T2D patients for AP related therapies.
Entities:
Keywords:
artificial pancreas; deviation analysis; diabetes therapy; model predictive control; type 2 diabetes
Authors: Giuseppe Fico; Liss Hernández; Jorge Cancela; Miguel María Isabel; Andrea Facchinetti; Chiara Fabris; Rafael Gabriel; Claudio Cobelli; María Teresa Arredondo Waldmeyer Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2017-01-09
Authors: Roy W Beck; Tonya D Riddlesworth; Katrina Ruedy; Andrew Ahmann; Stacie Haller; Davida Kruger; Janet B McGill; William Polonsky; David Price; Stephen Aronoff; Ronnie Aronson; Elena Toschi; Craig Kollman; Richard Bergenstal Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Roy W Beck; Tonya Riddlesworth; Katrina Ruedy; Andrew Ahmann; Richard Bergenstal; Stacie Haller; Craig Kollman; Davida Kruger; Janet B McGill; William Polonsky; Elena Toschi; Howard Wolpert; David Price Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kirstine J Bell; Alan W Barclay; Peter Petocz; Stephen Colagiuri; Jennie C Brand-Miller Journal: Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 32.069
Authors: Monika Reddy; Pau Herrero; Mohamed El Sharkawy; Peter Pesl; Narvada Jugnee; Darrell Pavitt; Ian F Godsland; George Alberti; Christofer Toumazou; Desmond G Johnston; Pantelis Georgiou; Nick S Oliver Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2015-11-17