Literature DB >> 33100030

Adjustment of Insulin Pump Settings in Type 1 Diabetes Management: Advisor Pro Device Compared to Physicians' Recommendations.

Revital Nimri1, Tal Oron1, Ido Muller2, Ivana Kraljevic3, Montserrat Martín Alonso4, Paivi Keskinen5, Tanja Milicic6, Asaf Oren7,8, Athanasios Christoforidis9, Marieke den Brinker10, Lutgarda Bozzetto11, Andrea Mario Bolla12, Michal Krcma13, Rosa Anna Rabini14, Shadi Tabba15, Lizl Smith16, Andriani Vazeou17, Giulio Maltoni18, Elisa Giani19, Eran Atlas2, Moshe Phillip1,8.   

Abstract

AIMS: To compare insulin dose adjustments made by physicians to those made by an artificial intelligence-based decision support system, the Advisor Pro, in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using an insulin pump and self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG).
METHODS: This was a multinational, non-interventional study surveying 17 physicians from 11 countries. Each physician was asked to provide insulin dose adjustments for the settings of the pump including basal rate, carbohydrate-to-insulin ratios (CRs), and correction factors (CFs) for 15 data sets of pumps and SMBG of people with T1D (mean age 18.4 ± 4.8 years; eight females; mean glycated hemoglobin 8.2% ± 1.4% [66 ± 11mmol/mol]). The recommendations were compared among the physicians and between the physicians and the Advisor Pro. The study endpoint was the percentage of comparison points for which there was an agreement on the direction of insulin dose adjustments.
RESULTS: The percentage (mean ± SD) of agreement among the physicians on the direction of insulin pump dose adjustments was 51.8% ± 9.2%, 54.2% ± 6.4%, and 49.8% ± 11.6% for the basal, CR, and CF, respectively. The automated recommendations of the Advisor Pro on the direction of insulin dose adjustments were comparable )49.5% ± 6.4%, 55.3% ± 8.7%, and 47.6% ± 14.4% for the basal rate, CR, and CF, respectively( and noninferior to those provided by physicians. The mean absolute difference in magnitude of change between physicians was 17.1% ± 13.1%, 14.6% ± 8.4%, and 23.9% ± 18.6% for the basal, CR, and CF, respectively, and comparable to the Advisor Pro 11.7% ± 9.7%, 10.1% ± 4.5%, and 25.5% ± 19.5%, respectively, significant for basal and CR.
CONCLUSIONS: Considerable differences in the recommendations for changes in insulin dosing were observed among physicians. Since automated recommendations by the Advisor Pro were similar to those given by physicians, it could be considered a useful tool to manage T1D.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Advisor Pro; automated decision support; insulin pump settings adjustments; self-monitoring of blood glucose; type 1 diabetes

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33100030      PMCID: PMC8861776          DOI: 10.1177/1932296820965561

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol        ISSN: 1932-2968


  18 in total

1.  Automated insulin dosing guidance to optimise insulin management in patients with type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Richard M Bergenstal; Mary Johnson; Rebecca Passi; Anuj Bhargava; Natalie Young; Davida F Kruger; Eran Bashan; Stanley G Bisgaier; Deanna J Marriott Isaman; Israel Hodish
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2019-02-23       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Adjusting insulin doses in patients with type 1 diabetes who use insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring: Variations among countries and physicians.

Authors:  Revital Nimri; Eyal Dassau; Tomer Segall; Ido Muller; Natasa Bratina; Olga Kordonouri; Rachel Bello; Torben Biester; Klemen Dovc; Ariel Tenenbaum; Avivit Brener; Marko Šimunović; Sophia D Sakka; Michal Nevo Shenker; Caroline Gb Passone; Irene Rutigliano; Davide Tinti; Clara Bonura; Silvana Caiulo; Anna Ruszala; Barbara Piccini; Dinesh Giri; Ronnie Stein; Ivana Rabbone; Patrizia Bruzzi; Jasna Šuput Omladič; Caroline Steele; Guglielmo Beccuti; Michal Yackobovitch-Gavan; Tadej Battelino; Thomas Danne; Eran Atlas; Moshe Phillip
Journal:  Diabetes Obes Metab       Date:  2018-07-18       Impact factor: 6.577

3.  Current state of type 1 diabetes treatment in the U.S.: updated data from the T1D Exchange clinic registry.

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

4.  State of Type 1 Diabetes Management and Outcomes from the T1D Exchange in 2016-2018.

Authors:  Nicole C Foster; Roy W Beck; Kellee M Miller; Mark A Clements; Michael R Rickels; Linda A DiMeglio; David M Maahs; William V Tamborlane; Richard Bergenstal; Elizabeth Smith; Beth A Olson; Satish K Garg
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2019-01-18       Impact factor: 6.118

Review 5.  Diabetes technology: improving care, improving patient-reported outcomes and preventing complications in young people with Type 1 diabetes.

Authors:  P Prahalad; M Tanenbaum; K Hood; D M Maahs
Journal:  Diabet Med       Date:  2018-02-16       Impact factor: 4.359

6.  The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  D M Nathan; S Genuth; J Lachin; P Cleary; O Crofford; M Davis; L Rand; C Siebert
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-09-30       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT): results of feasibility study. The DCCT Research Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  1987 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 19.112

8.  Glycemic control in youth with diabetes: the SEARCH for diabetes in Youth Study.

Authors:  Diana B Petitti; Georgeanna J Klingensmith; Ronny A Bell; Jeanette S Andrews; Dana Dabelea; Giuseppina Imperatore; Santica Marcovina; Catherine Pihoker; Debra Standiford; Beth Waitzfelder; Elizabeth Mayer-Davis
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2009-07-29       Impact factor: 4.406

Review 9.  6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020.

Authors: 
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  Continuous Monitoring of Glucose for Type 1 Diabetes: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2018-02-21
View more
  3 in total

1.  Diabetes Technology Meeting 2021.

Authors:  Nicole Y Xu; Kevin T Nguyen; Ashley Y DuBord; John Pickup; Jennifer L Sherr; Hazhir Teymourian; Eda Cengiz; Barry H Ginsberg; Claudio Cobelli; David Ahn; Riccardo Bellazzi; B Wayne Bequette; Laura Gandrud Pickett; Linda Parks; Elias K Spanakis; Umesh Masharani; Halis K Akturk; John S Melish; Sarah Kim; Gu Eon Kang; David C Klonoff
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2022-05-02

Review 2.  Artificial Intelligence in Perioperative Medicine: A Proposed Common Language With Applications to FDA-Approved Devices.

Authors:  Ryan L Melvin; Matthew G Broyles; Elizabeth W Duggan; Sonia John; Andrew D Smith; Dan E Berkowitz
Journal:  Front Digit Health       Date:  2022-04-25

3.  Diabetes Technology Meeting 2020.

Authors:  Trisha Shang; Jennifer Y Zhang; B Wayne Bequette; Jennifer K Raymond; Gerard Coté; Jennifer L Sherr; Jessica Castle; John Pickup; Yarmela Pavlovic; Juan Espinoza; Laurel H Messer; Tim Heise; Carlos E Mendez; Sarah Kim; Barry H Ginsberg; Umesh Masharani; Rodolfo J Galindo; David C Klonoff
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2021-07
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.