评估全闭环给药中用于改善餐前血糖控制的自动启动给药。

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM Diabetes technology & therapeutics Pub Date : 2024-11-06 DOI:10.1089/dia.2024.0315
Marcela Moscoso-Vasquez, Patricio Colmegna, Charlotte Barnett, Morgan Fuller, Chaitanya L K Koravi, Sue A Brown, Mark D DeBoer, Marc D Breton
{"title":"评估全闭环给药中用于改善餐前血糖控制的自动启动给药。","authors":"Marcela Moscoso-Vasquez, Patricio Colmegna, Charlotte Barnett, Morgan Fuller, Chaitanya L K Koravi, Sue A Brown, Mark D DeBoer, Marc D Breton","doi":"10.1089/dia.2024.0315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Automated insulin delivery (AID) is widely available to people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), providing superior glycemic control versus traditional methods. The next generation of AID devices focus on minimizing user/device interactions, especially around meals (\"full closed loop,\" [FCL]). Our goal was to assess the postprandial glycemic impact of the bolus priming system (BPS), an algorithm delivering fixed insulin doses based on the likelihood of a meal having occurred, in conjunction with UVA's latest AID. <b><i>Method:</i></b> Eleven adults with T1D participated in a supervised randomized-crossover trial assessing glycemic control during two 24-h sessions with identical meals and activity-with and without BPS. On the day in-between study sessions, participants underwent food and activity challenges to test BPS safety and robustness. Continuous glucose monitor (CGM) outcomes and total insulin doses were assessed overall and following meals with potential for BPS to dose additional insulin (CGM >90 mg/dL for 1 h prior). <b><i>Results:</i></b> Daytime CGM outcomes were similar with and without BPS: time-in-range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL 70.6% [62.2-76.5] versus 65.7% [58.6%-80.6%]; time-below-range <70 mg/dL 0% [0-2.1] versus 0% [0-1.3]; respectively. Insulin delivery during 3 h postprandial was indistinguishable 33.5 U [26.4-47.0] versus 35.7 U [28.7-44.9]. Among 43 out of 66 meals with potential to trigger BPS (24/19 BPS/no-BPS), postprandial incremental area-under-the-curve (iAUC) was lower for BPS versus no-BPS (2530 ± 1934 versus 3228 ± 2029, <i>P</i> = 0.047), but CGM outcomes were inconclusive: 4-h-TIR 51.2% [19.8-83.3] versus 40.2% [20.8-56.3] (<i>P</i> = 0.24). There were no severe adverse events. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> While there was no difference in TIR, when BPS was active an improved postprandial AUC in FCL was obtained via earlier insulin injection.</p>","PeriodicalId":11159,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes technology & therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of an Automated Priming Bolus for Improving Prandial Glucose Control in Full Closed Loop Delivery.\",\"authors\":\"Marcela Moscoso-Vasquez, Patricio Colmegna, Charlotte Barnett, Morgan Fuller, Chaitanya L K Koravi, Sue A Brown, Mark D DeBoer, Marc D Breton\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/dia.2024.0315\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Automated insulin delivery (AID) is widely available to people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), providing superior glycemic control versus traditional methods. The next generation of AID devices focus on minimizing user/device interactions, especially around meals (\\\"full closed loop,\\\" [FCL]). Our goal was to assess the postprandial glycemic impact of the bolus priming system (BPS), an algorithm delivering fixed insulin doses based on the likelihood of a meal having occurred, in conjunction with UVA's latest AID. <b><i>Method:</i></b> Eleven adults with T1D participated in a supervised randomized-crossover trial assessing glycemic control during two 24-h sessions with identical meals and activity-with and without BPS. On the day in-between study sessions, participants underwent food and activity challenges to test BPS safety and robustness. Continuous glucose monitor (CGM) outcomes and total insulin doses were assessed overall and following meals with potential for BPS to dose additional insulin (CGM >90 mg/dL for 1 h prior). <b><i>Results:</i></b> Daytime CGM outcomes were similar with and without BPS: time-in-range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL 70.6% [62.2-76.5] versus 65.7% [58.6%-80.6%]; time-below-range <70 mg/dL 0% [0-2.1] versus 0% [0-1.3]; respectively. Insulin delivery during 3 h postprandial was indistinguishable 33.5 U [26.4-47.0] versus 35.7 U [28.7-44.9]. Among 43 out of 66 meals with potential to trigger BPS (24/19 BPS/no-BPS), postprandial incremental area-under-the-curve (iAUC) was lower for BPS versus no-BPS (2530 ± 1934 versus 3228 ± 2029, <i>P</i> = 0.047), but CGM outcomes were inconclusive: 4-h-TIR 51.2% [19.8-83.3] versus 40.2% [20.8-56.3] (<i>P</i> = 0.24). There were no severe adverse events. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> While there was no difference in TIR, when BPS was active an improved postprandial AUC in FCL was obtained via earlier insulin injection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11159,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diabetes technology & therapeutics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diabetes technology & therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2024.0315\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes technology & therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2024.0315","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:胰岛素自动给药(AID)已广泛应用于 1 型糖尿病(T1D)患者,与传统方法相比,它能提供更优越的血糖控制。下一代自动胰岛素给药设备的重点是最大限度地减少用户与设备之间的互动,尤其是在进餐前后("全闭环"[FCL])。我们的目标是评估胰岛素初始化系统(BPS)对餐后血糖的影响,这是一种根据进餐可能性提供固定胰岛素剂量的算法,与 UVA 的最新 AID 结合使用。方法:11 名患有 T1D 的成人参加了一项监督下的随机交叉试验,评估在进餐和活动完全相同的两个 24 小时时段内,使用 BPS 和不使用 BPS 的血糖控制情况。在两次研究之间的一天,参与者接受了食物和活动挑战,以测试 BPS 的安全性和稳健性。对连续血糖监测仪(CGM)的结果和胰岛素总剂量进行整体评估,并在餐后评估 BPS 是否会增加胰岛素剂量(餐前 1 小时 CGM >90 mg/dL)。结果:使用和不使用 BPS 的日间 CGM 结果相似:时间在范围内 (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL 70.6% [62.2-76.5] 对 65.7% [58.6%-80.6%] ;时间低于范围 P = 0.047),但 CGM 结果不确定:4 h-TIR 51.2% [19.8-83.3] 对 40.2% [20.8-56.3] (P = 0.24)。没有发生严重不良事件。结论:虽然 TIR 没有差异,但当 BPS 起作用时,通过提前注射胰岛素可改善 FCL 的餐后 AUC。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluation of an Automated Priming Bolus for Improving Prandial Glucose Control in Full Closed Loop Delivery.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) is widely available to people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), providing superior glycemic control versus traditional methods. The next generation of AID devices focus on minimizing user/device interactions, especially around meals ("full closed loop," [FCL]). Our goal was to assess the postprandial glycemic impact of the bolus priming system (BPS), an algorithm delivering fixed insulin doses based on the likelihood of a meal having occurred, in conjunction with UVA's latest AID. Method: Eleven adults with T1D participated in a supervised randomized-crossover trial assessing glycemic control during two 24-h sessions with identical meals and activity-with and without BPS. On the day in-between study sessions, participants underwent food and activity challenges to test BPS safety and robustness. Continuous glucose monitor (CGM) outcomes and total insulin doses were assessed overall and following meals with potential for BPS to dose additional insulin (CGM >90 mg/dL for 1 h prior). Results: Daytime CGM outcomes were similar with and without BPS: time-in-range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL 70.6% [62.2-76.5] versus 65.7% [58.6%-80.6%]; time-below-range <70 mg/dL 0% [0-2.1] versus 0% [0-1.3]; respectively. Insulin delivery during 3 h postprandial was indistinguishable 33.5 U [26.4-47.0] versus 35.7 U [28.7-44.9]. Among 43 out of 66 meals with potential to trigger BPS (24/19 BPS/no-BPS), postprandial incremental area-under-the-curve (iAUC) was lower for BPS versus no-BPS (2530 ± 1934 versus 3228 ± 2029, P = 0.047), but CGM outcomes were inconclusive: 4-h-TIR 51.2% [19.8-83.3] versus 40.2% [20.8-56.3] (P = 0.24). There were no severe adverse events. Conclusion: While there was no difference in TIR, when BPS was active an improved postprandial AUC in FCL was obtained via earlier insulin injection.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Diabetes technology & therapeutics
Diabetes technology & therapeutics 医学-内分泌学与代谢
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
14.80%
发文量
145
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics is the only peer-reviewed journal providing healthcare professionals with information on new devices, drugs, drug delivery systems, and software for managing patients with diabetes. This leading international journal delivers practical information and comprehensive coverage of cutting-edge technologies and therapeutics in the field, and each issue highlights new pharmacological and device developments to optimize patient care.
期刊最新文献
Impact of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Blood Glucose Monitoring to Support a Carbohydrate-Restricted Nutrition Intervention in People with Type 2 Diabetes. Comparison of Computational Statistical Packages for the Analysis of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data with a Reference Software, "Ambulatory Glucose Profile," in Type 1 Diabetes. Effect of Interrupting Prolonged Sitting with Frequent Activity Breaks on Postprandial Glycemia and Insulin Sensitivity in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes on Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy: A Randomized Crossover Pilot Trial. Evaluation of an Automated Priming Bolus for Improving Prandial Glucose Control in Full Closed Loop Delivery. Safe Options for the Treatment of Mothers and Babies with Pregestational Diabetes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1