Closed-Loop Control of Postprandial Glycemia Using an Insulin-on-Board Limitation Through Continuous Action on Glucose Target

[EN] Background: Postprandial (PP) control remains a challenge for closed-loop (CL) systems. Few studies with inconsistent results have systematically investigated the PP period. Objective: To compare a new CL algorithm with current pump therapy (open loop [OL]) in the PP glucose control in type 1 d...

ver descrição completa

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autores: Rossetti, P., Quirós, C., Moscardo-Garcia, Vanessa, Comas, A., Giménez, M., Ampudia-Blasco, F.J., León, F., Montaser Roushdi Ali, Eslam, Conget, I., Vehí, J., Bondía Company, Jorge|||0000-0001-7286-3719
Formato: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2017
País:España
Recursos:Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV)
Repositorio:RiuNet. Repositorio Institucional de la Universitat Politécnica de Valéncia
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:riunet.upv.es:10251/148245
Acesso em linha:https://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/148245
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palavra-chave:Artificial pancreas
Glucose control
Postprandial
INGENIERIA DE SISTEMAS Y AUTOMATICA
Descrição
Resumo:[EN] Background: Postprandial (PP) control remains a challenge for closed-loop (CL) systems. Few studies with inconsistent results have systematically investigated the PP period. Objective: To compare a new CL algorithm with current pump therapy (open loop [OL]) in the PP glucose control in type 1 diabetes (T1D) subjects. Methods: A crossover randomized study was performed in two centers. Twenty T1D subjects (F/M 13/7, age 40.7 -10.4 years, disease duration 22.6 +/- 9.9 years, and A1c 7.8% +/- 0.7%) underwent an 8-h mixed meal test on four occasions. In two (CL1/CL2), after meal announcement, a bolus was given followed by an algorithmdriven basal infusion based on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Alternatively, in OL1/OL2 conventional pump therapy was used. Main outcome measures were as follows: glucose variability, estimated with the coefficient of variation (CV) of the area under the curve (AUC) of plasma glucose (PG) and CGM values, and from the analysis of the glucose time series; mean, maximum (C-max), and time to C-max glucose concentrations and time in range (<70, 70-180, >180 mg/dL). Results: CVs of the glucose AUCs were low and similar in all studies (around 10%). However, CL achieved greater reproducibility and better PG control in the PP period: CL1 = CL2<OL1<OL2 (PG(mean) 123 +/- 47 and 125 +/- 44 vs. 152 +/- 53 and 159 +/- 54 mg/dL) and C-max OL 217.1 +/- 67.0 mg/dL versus CL 183.3 +/- 63.9 mg/dL, P < 0.0001. Time-in-range was higher with CL versus OL (80% vs. 64%; P < 0.001). Neither the time below 70 mg/dL (CL 6.1% vs. OL 3.2%; P > 0.05) nor the need for oral glucose was significantly different (CL 40.0% vs. OL 22.5% of meals; P = 0.054). Conclusions: This novel CL algorithm effectively and consistently controls PP glucose excursions without increasing hypoglycemia. Study registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: study number NCT02100488.