Performance Effect of Adjusting Insulin Sensitivity for Model-Based Automated Insulin Delivery Systems.
Humans
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1
/ drug therapy
Hypoglycemic Agents
Blood Glucose
/ analysis
Insulin Resistance
Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring
Insulin Infusion Systems
Hypoglycemia
/ prevention & control
Insulin
Hyperglycemia
/ drug therapy
Insulin, Regular, Human
/ therapeutic use
Glucose
Algorithms
automated insulin delivery
glucose management
insulin sensitivity
model predictive control
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:
11 2023
11 2023
Historique:
pmc-release:
20
10
2024
medline:
2
11
2023
pubmed:
21
10
2023
entrez:
21
10
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Model predictive control (MPC) has become one of the most popular control strategies for automated insulin delivery (AID) in type 1 diabetes (T1D). These algorithms rely on a prediction model to determine the best insulin dosing every sampling time. Although these algorithms have been shown to be safe and effective for glucose management through clinical trials, managing the ever-fluctuating relationship between insulin delivery and resulting glucose uptake (aka insulin sensitivity, IS) remains a challenge. We aim to evaluate the effect of informing an AID system with IS on the performance of the system. The University of Virginia (UVA) MPC control-based hybrid closed-loop (HCL) and fully closed-loop (FCL) system was used. One-day simulations at varying levels of IS were run with the UVA/Padova T1D Simulator. The AID system was informed with an estimated value of IS obtained through a mixed meal glucose tolerance test. Relevant controller parameters are updated to inform insulin dosing of IS. Performance of the HCL/FCL system with and without information of the changing IS was assessed using a novel performance metric penalizing the time outside the target glucose range. Feedback in AID systems provides a certain degree tolerance to changes in IS. However, IS-informed bolus and basal dosing improve glycemic outcomes, providing increased protection against hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia according to the individual's physiological state. The proof-of-concept analysis presented here shows the potentially beneficial effects on system performance of informing the AID system with accurate estimates of IS. In particular, when considering reduced IS, the informed controller provides increased protection against hyperglycemia compared with the naïve controller. Similarly, reduced hypoglycemia is obtained for situations with increased IS. Further tailoring of the adaptation schemes proposed in this work is needed to overcome the increased hypoglycemia observed in the more resistant cases and to optimize the performance of the adaptation method.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Model predictive control (MPC) has become one of the most popular control strategies for automated insulin delivery (AID) in type 1 diabetes (T1D). These algorithms rely on a prediction model to determine the best insulin dosing every sampling time. Although these algorithms have been shown to be safe and effective for glucose management through clinical trials, managing the ever-fluctuating relationship between insulin delivery and resulting glucose uptake (aka insulin sensitivity, IS) remains a challenge. We aim to evaluate the effect of informing an AID system with IS on the performance of the system.
METHOD
The University of Virginia (UVA) MPC control-based hybrid closed-loop (HCL) and fully closed-loop (FCL) system was used. One-day simulations at varying levels of IS were run with the UVA/Padova T1D Simulator. The AID system was informed with an estimated value of IS obtained through a mixed meal glucose tolerance test. Relevant controller parameters are updated to inform insulin dosing of IS. Performance of the HCL/FCL system with and without information of the changing IS was assessed using a novel performance metric penalizing the time outside the target glucose range.
RESULTS
Feedback in AID systems provides a certain degree tolerance to changes in IS. However, IS-informed bolus and basal dosing improve glycemic outcomes, providing increased protection against hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia according to the individual's physiological state.
CONCLUSIONS
The proof-of-concept analysis presented here shows the potentially beneficial effects on system performance of informing the AID system with accurate estimates of IS. In particular, when considering reduced IS, the informed controller provides increased protection against hyperglycemia compared with the naïve controller. Similarly, reduced hypoglycemia is obtained for situations with increased IS. Further tailoring of the adaptation schemes proposed in this work is needed to overcome the increased hypoglycemia observed in the more resistant cases and to optimize the performance of the adaptation method.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37864340
doi: 10.1177/19322968231206798
pmc: PMC10658700
doi:
Substances chimiques
Hypoglycemic Agents
0
Blood Glucose
0
Insulin
0
Insulin, Regular, Human
0
Glucose
IY9XDZ35W2
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1470-1481Subventions
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : R01 DK129553
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: M.M-.V. receives research support and royalties through her institution from Dexcom. C.F. receives royalties from Dexcom and Novo Nordisk managed through her institution. M.D.B. receives research support through his institution from Tandem, Dexcom, and Novo Nordisk; M.D.B. received honorarium and travel compensation from Sanofi and Tandem; M.D.B. consults for Dexcom and Sanofi.
Références
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2018 Mar;65(3):479-488
pubmed: 28092515
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2021 Nov;211:106401
pubmed: 34560603
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018 Mar;12(2):273-281
pubmed: 29451021
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2008 Dec;10(6):441-4
pubmed: 19049372
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017 Jan;11(1):29-36
pubmed: 27613658
Diabetes Care. 2020 Apr;43(4):799-805
pubmed: 32144167
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009 Jan;3(1):44-55
pubmed: 19444330
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2007 Oct;54(10):1740-9
pubmed: 17926672
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014 Sep;8(5):1035-41
pubmed: 24876436
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2020 Sep;24(9):2681-2689
pubmed: 31995506
Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2017 Jul;13(7):425-436
pubmed: 28304392
Diabetes. 2014 Apr;63(4):1203-13
pubmed: 24651807
IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2009 Jan 1;2:54-96
pubmed: 20936056
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019 Nov;13(6):1044-1053
pubmed: 31595784
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010 Sep 01;4(5):1174-81
pubmed: 20920437
Physiol Meas. 2004 Aug;25(4):905-20
pubmed: 15382830
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2022 May;24(5):362-371
pubmed: 35099302
N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 18;375(7):644-54
pubmed: 27532830
Endocr Rev. 2019 Dec 1;40(6):1521-1546
pubmed: 31276160
Diabetes. 2013 Jul;62(7):2223-9
pubmed: 23447123
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2007 Nov;1(6):834-41
pubmed: 19756210
Control Eng Pract. 2023 Feb;131:
pubmed: 36506413
Diabetes Care. 2021 Aug 15;:
pubmed: 34400480
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 7;12(11):e0187754
pubmed: 29112978
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008 Jul;2(4):630-5
pubmed: 19885239
Diabetes Care. 2016 Jul;39(7):1135-42
pubmed: 27289127