Adjustment of Insulin Pump Settings in Type 1 Diabetes Management: Advisor Pro Device Compared to Physicians' Recommendations.
Advisor Pro
automated decision support
insulin pump settings adjustments
self-monitoring of blood glucose
type 1 diabetes
Journal
Journal of diabetes science and technology
ISSN: 1932-2968
Titre abrégé: J Diabetes Sci Technol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101306166
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
27
10
2020
medline:
23
3
2022
entrez:
26
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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). 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. 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. 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33100030
doi: 10.1177/1932296820965561
pmc: PMC8861776
doi:
Substances chimiques
Blood Glucose
0
Glycated Hemoglobin A
0
Hypoglycemic Agents
0
Insulin
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
364-372Références
N Engl J Med. 1993 Sep 30;329(14):977-86
pubmed: 8366922
Diabet Med. 2018 Apr;35(4):419-429
pubmed: 29356074
Lancet. 2019 Mar 16;393(10176):1138-1148
pubmed: 30808512
J Pediatr. 2009 Nov;155(5):668-72.e1-3
pubmed: 19643434
Diabetes Care. 2015 Jun;38(6):971-8
pubmed: 25998289
Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan;43(Suppl 1):S66-S76
pubmed: 31862749
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018 Oct;20(10):2458-2466
pubmed: 29885025
Diabetes Care. 1987 Jan-Feb;10(1):1-19
pubmed: 2882967
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019 Feb;21(2):66-72
pubmed: 30657336
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2018 Feb 21;18(2):1-160
pubmed: 29541282
Diabetes Care. 2018 Sep;41(9):2026-2044
pubmed: 30093549
Pediatr Diabetes. 2018 Oct;19 Suppl 27:84-104
pubmed: 30144259
Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan;43(Suppl 1):S77-S88
pubmed: 31862750
Diabet Med. 2015 Aug;32(8):1036-50
pubmed: 25510978
Diabetes Spectr. 2016 Feb;29(1):54-7
pubmed: 26912967
Diabetes Care. 2019 Nov;42(11):2050-2056
pubmed: 31488568
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020 Mar;22(3):169-173
pubmed: 31596132
Diabet Med. 2015 Jan;32(1):69-77
pubmed: 25204362