Cargando…

Day and Night Closed-Loop Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A comparison of two closed-loop algorithms driving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus patient self-management

OBJECTIVE: To compare two validated closed-loop (CL) algorithms versus patient self-control with CSII in terms of glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was a multicenter, randomized, three-way crossover, open-label trial in 48 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus for at least 6...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Luijf, Yoeri M., DeVries, J. Hans, Zwinderman, Koos, Leelarathna, Lalantha, Nodale, Marianna, Caldwell, Karen, Kumareswaran, Kavita, Elleri, Daniela, Allen, Janet M., Wilinska, Malgorzata E., Evans, Mark L., Hovorka, Roman, Doll, Werner, Ellmerer, Martin, Mader, Julia K., Renard, Eric, Place, Jerome, Farret, Anne, Cobelli, Claudio, Del Favero, Simone, Dalla Man, Chiara, Avogaro, Angelo, Bruttomesso, Daniela, Filippi, Alessio, Scotton, Rachele, Magni, Lalo, Lanzola, Giordano, Di Palma, Federico, Soru, Paola, Toffanin, Chiara, De Nicolao, Giuseppe, Arnolds, Sabine, Benesch, Carsten, Heinemann, Lutz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Diabetes Association 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836152/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24170747
http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc12-1956
_version_ 1782292277996027904
author Luijf, Yoeri M.
DeVries, J. Hans
Zwinderman, Koos
Leelarathna, Lalantha
Nodale, Marianna
Caldwell, Karen
Kumareswaran, Kavita
Elleri, Daniela
Allen, Janet M.
Wilinska, Malgorzata E.
Evans, Mark L.
Hovorka, Roman
Doll, Werner
Ellmerer, Martin
Mader, Julia K.
Renard, Eric
Place, Jerome
Farret, Anne
Cobelli, Claudio
Del Favero, Simone
Dalla Man, Chiara
Avogaro, Angelo
Bruttomesso, Daniela
Filippi, Alessio
Scotton, Rachele
Magni, Lalo
Lanzola, Giordano
Di Palma, Federico
Soru, Paola
Toffanin, Chiara
De Nicolao, Giuseppe
Arnolds, Sabine
Benesch, Carsten
Heinemann, Lutz
author_facet Luijf, Yoeri M.
DeVries, J. Hans
Zwinderman, Koos
Leelarathna, Lalantha
Nodale, Marianna
Caldwell, Karen
Kumareswaran, Kavita
Elleri, Daniela
Allen, Janet M.
Wilinska, Malgorzata E.
Evans, Mark L.
Hovorka, Roman
Doll, Werner
Ellmerer, Martin
Mader, Julia K.
Renard, Eric
Place, Jerome
Farret, Anne
Cobelli, Claudio
Del Favero, Simone
Dalla Man, Chiara
Avogaro, Angelo
Bruttomesso, Daniela
Filippi, Alessio
Scotton, Rachele
Magni, Lalo
Lanzola, Giordano
Di Palma, Federico
Soru, Paola
Toffanin, Chiara
De Nicolao, Giuseppe
Arnolds, Sabine
Benesch, Carsten
Heinemann, Lutz
author_sort Luijf, Yoeri M.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare two validated closed-loop (CL) algorithms versus patient self-control with CSII in terms of glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was a multicenter, randomized, three-way crossover, open-label trial in 48 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus for at least 6 months, treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Blood glucose was controlled for 23 h by the algorithm of the Universities of Pavia and Padova with a Safety Supervision Module developed at the Universities of Virginia and California at Santa Barbara (international artificial pancreas [iAP]), by the algorithm of University of Cambridge (CAM), or by patients themselves in open loop (OL) during three hospital admissions including meals and exercise. The main analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Main outcome measures included time spent in target (glucose levels between 3.9 and 8.0 mmol/L or between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L after meals). RESULTS: Time spent in the target range was similar in CL and OL: 62.6% for OL, 59.2% for iAP, and 58.3% for CAM. While mean glucose level was significantly lower in OL (7.19, 8.15, and 8.26 mmol/L, respectively) (overall P = 0.001), percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) was almost threefold reduced during CL (6.4%, 2.1%, and 2.0%) (overall P = 0.001) with less time ≤2.8 mmol/L (overall P = 0.038). There were no significant differences in outcomes between algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: Both CAM and iAP algorithms provide safe glycemic control.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3836152
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher American Diabetes Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38361522014-12-01 Day and Night Closed-Loop Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A comparison of two closed-loop algorithms driving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus patient self-management Luijf, Yoeri M. DeVries, J. Hans Zwinderman, Koos Leelarathna, Lalantha Nodale, Marianna Caldwell, Karen Kumareswaran, Kavita Elleri, Daniela Allen, Janet M. Wilinska, Malgorzata E. Evans, Mark L. Hovorka, Roman Doll, Werner Ellmerer, Martin Mader, Julia K. Renard, Eric Place, Jerome Farret, Anne Cobelli, Claudio Del Favero, Simone Dalla Man, Chiara Avogaro, Angelo Bruttomesso, Daniela Filippi, Alessio Scotton, Rachele Magni, Lalo Lanzola, Giordano Di Palma, Federico Soru, Paola Toffanin, Chiara De Nicolao, Giuseppe Arnolds, Sabine Benesch, Carsten Heinemann, Lutz Diabetes Care Original Research OBJECTIVE: To compare two validated closed-loop (CL) algorithms versus patient self-control with CSII in terms of glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was a multicenter, randomized, three-way crossover, open-label trial in 48 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus for at least 6 months, treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Blood glucose was controlled for 23 h by the algorithm of the Universities of Pavia and Padova with a Safety Supervision Module developed at the Universities of Virginia and California at Santa Barbara (international artificial pancreas [iAP]), by the algorithm of University of Cambridge (CAM), or by patients themselves in open loop (OL) during three hospital admissions including meals and exercise. The main analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Main outcome measures included time spent in target (glucose levels between 3.9 and 8.0 mmol/L or between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L after meals). RESULTS: Time spent in the target range was similar in CL and OL: 62.6% for OL, 59.2% for iAP, and 58.3% for CAM. While mean glucose level was significantly lower in OL (7.19, 8.15, and 8.26 mmol/L, respectively) (overall P = 0.001), percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) was almost threefold reduced during CL (6.4%, 2.1%, and 2.0%) (overall P = 0.001) with less time ≤2.8 mmol/L (overall P = 0.038). There were no significant differences in outcomes between algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: Both CAM and iAP algorithms provide safe glycemic control. American Diabetes Association 2013-12 2013-11-13 /pmc/articles/PMC3836152/ /pubmed/24170747 http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc12-1956 Text en © 2013 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details.
spellingShingle Original Research
Luijf, Yoeri M.
DeVries, J. Hans
Zwinderman, Koos
Leelarathna, Lalantha
Nodale, Marianna
Caldwell, Karen
Kumareswaran, Kavita
Elleri, Daniela
Allen, Janet M.
Wilinska, Malgorzata E.
Evans, Mark L.
Hovorka, Roman
Doll, Werner
Ellmerer, Martin
Mader, Julia K.
Renard, Eric
Place, Jerome
Farret, Anne
Cobelli, Claudio
Del Favero, Simone
Dalla Man, Chiara
Avogaro, Angelo
Bruttomesso, Daniela
Filippi, Alessio
Scotton, Rachele
Magni, Lalo
Lanzola, Giordano
Di Palma, Federico
Soru, Paola
Toffanin, Chiara
De Nicolao, Giuseppe
Arnolds, Sabine
Benesch, Carsten
Heinemann, Lutz
Day and Night Closed-Loop Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A comparison of two closed-loop algorithms driving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus patient self-management
title Day and Night Closed-Loop Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A comparison of two closed-loop algorithms driving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus patient self-management
title_full Day and Night Closed-Loop Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A comparison of two closed-loop algorithms driving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus patient self-management
title_fullStr Day and Night Closed-Loop Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A comparison of two closed-loop algorithms driving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus patient self-management
title_full_unstemmed Day and Night Closed-Loop Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A comparison of two closed-loop algorithms driving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus patient self-management
title_short Day and Night Closed-Loop Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A comparison of two closed-loop algorithms driving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus patient self-management
title_sort day and night closed-loop control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a comparison of two closed-loop algorithms driving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus patient self-management
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836152/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24170747
http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc12-1956
work_keys_str_mv AT luijfyoerim dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT devriesjhans dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT zwindermankoos dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT leelarathnalalantha dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT nodalemarianna dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT caldwellkaren dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT kumareswarankavita dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT elleridaniela dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT allenjanetm dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT wilinskamalgorzatae dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT evansmarkl dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT hovorkaroman dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT dollwerner dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT ellmerermartin dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT maderjuliak dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT renarderic dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT placejerome dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT farretanne dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT cobelliclaudio dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT delfaverosimone dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT dallamanchiara dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT avogaroangelo dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT bruttomessodaniela dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT filippialessio dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT scottonrachele dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT magnilalo dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT lanzolagiordano dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT dipalmafederico dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT sorupaola dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT toffaninchiara dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT denicolaogiuseppe dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT arnoldssabine dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT beneschcarsten dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT heinemannlutz dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement
AT dayandnightclosedloopcontrolinadultswithtype1diabetesacomparisonoftwoclosedloopalgorithmsdrivingcontinuoussubcutaneousinsulininfusionversuspatientselfmanagement