Cargando…

Performance of an Automated Insulin Delivery System: Results of Early Phase Feasibility Studies

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have demonstrated improvements in time-in-range (TIR, blood glucose 70–180 mg/dL) without increasing hypoglycemia. Testing a closed-loop system in an inpatient environment with supervised challenges allows for initial evaluation of performance and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Christiansen, Mark, Bartee, Amy, Lalonde, Amy, Jones, Richard E., Katz, Michelle, Wolpert, Howard, Brazg, Ronald
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906863/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32940537
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/dia.2020.0318
_version_ 1783655379727548416
author Christiansen, Mark
Bartee, Amy
Lalonde, Amy
Jones, Richard E.
Katz, Michelle
Wolpert, Howard
Brazg, Ronald
author_facet Christiansen, Mark
Bartee, Amy
Lalonde, Amy
Jones, Richard E.
Katz, Michelle
Wolpert, Howard
Brazg, Ronald
author_sort Christiansen, Mark
collection PubMed
description Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have demonstrated improvements in time-in-range (TIR, blood glucose 70–180 mg/dL) without increasing hypoglycemia. Testing a closed-loop system in an inpatient environment with supervised challenges allows for initial evaluation of performance and safety of the system. Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) were enrolled into two similar studies (n = 10 per study), with 3-day inpatient analysis periods. Participants tested a Lilly hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system comprising an investigational insulin pump, insulin lispro, a pump-embedded model predictive control algorithm, a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and an external dedicated controller. Each protocol included meal-related and exercise challenges to simulate real-world diabetes self-management errors. Only study staff interacted with the HCL system. Performance was assessed using standard CGM metrics overall and within prespecified periods. Results: Participants (25% male) had mean ± standard deviation (SD) age 44.7 ± 14.2 years, T1D duration 30.2 ± 11.1 years, A1C 7.2% ± 0.8%, and insulin usage 0.53 ± 0.21 U/(kg·day). Percentage TIR 70–180 mg/dL (mean ± SD) was 81.2 ± 8.4 overall, 85.2 ± 8.1 outside of challenge periods, 97.3 ± 5.3 during the nocturnal periods, and 74.5 ± 16.2 for the postprandial periods. During challenge periods, percentage TIR for the overbolus challenge was 65.4 ± 29.2 and that for the delayed bolus challenge was 57.1 ± 25.1. No adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, or unanticipated adverse device events occurred while participants were using the HCL system. Conclusions: In participants with T1D, Lilly AID system demonstrated expected algorithm performance and safety with satisfactory glycemic outcomes overall and in response to simulated diabetes management challenges. Additional studies in less supervised conditions and with broader patient populations are warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration number NCT03743285, NCT03849612.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7906863
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79068632021-02-26 Performance of an Automated Insulin Delivery System: Results of Early Phase Feasibility Studies Christiansen, Mark Bartee, Amy Lalonde, Amy Jones, Richard E. Katz, Michelle Wolpert, Howard Brazg, Ronald Diabetes Technol Ther Original Articles Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have demonstrated improvements in time-in-range (TIR, blood glucose 70–180 mg/dL) without increasing hypoglycemia. Testing a closed-loop system in an inpatient environment with supervised challenges allows for initial evaluation of performance and safety of the system. Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) were enrolled into two similar studies (n = 10 per study), with 3-day inpatient analysis periods. Participants tested a Lilly hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system comprising an investigational insulin pump, insulin lispro, a pump-embedded model predictive control algorithm, a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and an external dedicated controller. Each protocol included meal-related and exercise challenges to simulate real-world diabetes self-management errors. Only study staff interacted with the HCL system. Performance was assessed using standard CGM metrics overall and within prespecified periods. Results: Participants (25% male) had mean ± standard deviation (SD) age 44.7 ± 14.2 years, T1D duration 30.2 ± 11.1 years, A1C 7.2% ± 0.8%, and insulin usage 0.53 ± 0.21 U/(kg·day). Percentage TIR 70–180 mg/dL (mean ± SD) was 81.2 ± 8.4 overall, 85.2 ± 8.1 outside of challenge periods, 97.3 ± 5.3 during the nocturnal periods, and 74.5 ± 16.2 for the postprandial periods. During challenge periods, percentage TIR for the overbolus challenge was 65.4 ± 29.2 and that for the delayed bolus challenge was 57.1 ± 25.1. No adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, or unanticipated adverse device events occurred while participants were using the HCL system. Conclusions: In participants with T1D, Lilly AID system demonstrated expected algorithm performance and safety with satisfactory glycemic outcomes overall and in response to simulated diabetes management challenges. Additional studies in less supervised conditions and with broader patient populations are warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration number NCT03743285, NCT03849612. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers 2021-03-01 2021-02-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7906863/ /pubmed/32940537 http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/dia.2020.0318 Text en © Eli Lilly and Company, 2021; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. This Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Christiansen, Mark
Bartee, Amy
Lalonde, Amy
Jones, Richard E.
Katz, Michelle
Wolpert, Howard
Brazg, Ronald
Performance of an Automated Insulin Delivery System: Results of Early Phase Feasibility Studies
title Performance of an Automated Insulin Delivery System: Results of Early Phase Feasibility Studies
title_full Performance of an Automated Insulin Delivery System: Results of Early Phase Feasibility Studies
title_fullStr Performance of an Automated Insulin Delivery System: Results of Early Phase Feasibility Studies
title_full_unstemmed Performance of an Automated Insulin Delivery System: Results of Early Phase Feasibility Studies
title_short Performance of an Automated Insulin Delivery System: Results of Early Phase Feasibility Studies
title_sort performance of an automated insulin delivery system: results of early phase feasibility studies
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906863/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32940537
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/dia.2020.0318
work_keys_str_mv AT christiansenmark performanceofanautomatedinsulindeliverysystemresultsofearlyphasefeasibilitystudies
AT barteeamy performanceofanautomatedinsulindeliverysystemresultsofearlyphasefeasibilitystudies
AT lalondeamy performanceofanautomatedinsulindeliverysystemresultsofearlyphasefeasibilitystudies
AT jonesricharde performanceofanautomatedinsulindeliverysystemresultsofearlyphasefeasibilitystudies
AT katzmichelle performanceofanautomatedinsulindeliverysystemresultsofearlyphasefeasibilitystudies
AT wolperthoward performanceofanautomatedinsulindeliverysystemresultsofearlyphasefeasibilitystudies
AT brazgronald performanceofanautomatedinsulindeliverysystemresultsofearlyphasefeasibilitystudies