Federico Di Palma

Safety of Outpatient Closed-Loop Control: First Randomized Crossover Trials of a Wearable Artificial Pancreas

OBJECTIVE We estimate the effect size of hypoglycemia risk reduction on closed-loop control (CLC) versus open-loop (OL) sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy in supervised outpatient setting. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Twenty patients with type 1 diabetes initiated the study at the Universities of Virginia, Padova, and Montpellier and Sansum Diabetes Research Institute; 18 completed the entire protocol. Each patient participated in two 40-h outpatient sessions, CLC versus OL, in randomized order. Sensor (Dexcom G4) and insulin pump (Tandem t:slim) were connected to Diabetes Assistant (DiAs)—a smartphone artificial pancreas platform. The patient operated the system through the DiAs user interface during both CLC and OL; study personnel supervised on site and monitored DiAs remotely. There were no dietary restrictions; 45-min walks in town and restaurant dinners were included in both CLC and OL; alcohol was permitted. RESULTS The primary outcome—reduction in risk for hypoglycemia as measured by the low blood glucose (BG) index (LGBI)—resulted in an effect size of 0.64, P = 0.003, with a twofold reduction of hypoglycemia requiring carbohydrate treatment: 1.2 vs. 2.4 episodes/session on CLC versus OL (P = 0.02). This was accompanied by a slight decrease in percentage of time in the target range of 3.9–10 mmol/L (66.1 vs. 70.7%) and increase in mean BG (8.9 vs. 8.4 mmol/L; P = 0.04) on CLC versus OL. CONCLUSIONS CLC running on a smartphone (DiAs) in outpatient conditions reduced hypoglycemia and hypoglycemia treatments when compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy. This was accompanied by marginal increase in average glycemia resulting from a possible overemphasis on hypoglycemia safety.

2 month evening and night closed-loop glucose control in patients with type 1 diabetes under free-living conditions: a randomised crossover trial

BACKGROUND An artificial pancreas (AP) that can be worn at home from dinner to waking up in the morning might be safe and efficient for first routine use in patients with type 1 diabetes. We assessed the effect on glucose control with use of an AP during the evening and night plus patient-managed sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAP) during the day, versus 24 h use of patient-managed SAP only, in free-living conditions. METHODS In a crossover study done in medical centres in France, Italy, and the Netherlands, patients aged 18-69 years with type 1 diabetes who used insulin pumps for continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion were randomly assigned to 2 months of AP use from dinner to waking up plus SAP use during the day versus 2 months of SAP use only under free-living conditions. Randomisation was achieved with a computer-generated allocation sequence with random block sizes of two, four, or six, masked to the investigator. Patients and investigators were not masked to the type of intervention. The AP consisted of a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and insulin pump connected to a modified smartphone with a model predictive control algorithm. The primary endpoint was the percentage of time spent in the target glucose concentration range (3·9-10·0 mmol/L) from 2000 to 0800 h. CGM data for weeks 3-8 of the interventions were analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis including patients who completed at least 6 weeks of each intervention period. The 2 month study period also allowed us to asses HbA1c as one of the secondary outcomes. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02153190. FINDINGS During 2000-0800 h, the mean time spent in the target range was higher with AP than with SAP use: 66·7% versus 58·1% (paired difference 8·6% [95% CI 5·8 to 11·4], p<0·0001), through a reduction in both mean time spent in hyperglycaemia (glucose concentration >10·0 mmol/L; 31·6% vs 38·5%; -6·9% [-9·8% to -3·9], p<0·0001) and in hypoglycaemia (glucose concentration <3·9 mmol/L; 1·7% vs 3·0%; -1·6% [-2·3 to -1·0], p<0·0001). Decrease in mean HbA1c during the AP period was significantly greater than during the control period (-0·3% vs -0·2%; paired difference -0·2 [95% CI -0·4 to -0·0], p=0·047), taking a period effect into account (p=0·0034). No serious adverse events occurred during this study, and none of the mild-to-moderate adverse events was related to the study intervention. INTERPRETATION Our results support the use of AP at home as a safe and beneficial option for patients with type 1 diabetes. The HbA1c results are encouraging but preliminary. FUNDING European Commission.

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 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.

Day and Night Closed-Loop Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

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.

First Use of Model Predictive Control in Outpatient Wearable Artificial Pancreas

OBJECTIVE Inpatient studies suggest that model predictive control (MPC) is one of the most promising algorithms for artificial pancreas (AP). So far, outpatient trials have used hypo/hyperglycemia-mitigation or medical-expert systems. In this study, we report the first wearable AP outpatient study based on MPC and investigate specifically its ability to control postprandial glucose, one of the major challenges in glucose control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A new modular MPC algorithm has been designed focusing on meal control. Six type 1 diabetes mellitus patients underwent 42-h experiments: sensor-augmented pump therapy in the first 14 h (open-loop) and closed-loop in the remaining 28 h. RESULTS MPC showed satisfactory dinner control versus open-loop: time-in-target (70–180 mg/dL) 94.83 vs. 68.2% and time-in-hypo 1.25 vs. 11.9%. Overnight control was also satisfactory: time-in-target 89.4 vs. 85.0% and time-in-hypo: 0.00 vs. 8.19%. CONCLUSIONS This outpatient study confirms inpatient evidence of suitability of MPC-based strategies for AP. These encouraging results pave the way to randomized crossover outpatient studies.

Day and Night Closed-Loop Glucose Control in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Under Free-Living Conditions: Results of a Single-Arm 1-Month Experience Compared With a Previously Reported Feasibility Study of Evening and Night at Home

OBJECTIVE After testing of a wearable artificial pancreas (AP) during evening and night (E/N-AP) under free-living conditions in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), we investigated AP during day and night (D/N-AP) for 1 month. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Twenty adult patients with T1D who completed a previous randomized crossover study comparing 2-month E/N-AP versus 2-month sensor augmented pump (SAP) volunteered for 1-month D/N-AP nonrandomized extension. AP was executed by a model predictive control algorithm run by a modified smartphone wirelessly connected to a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and insulin pump. CGM data were analyzed by intention-to-treat with percentage time-in-target (3.9–10 mmol/L) over 24 h as the primary end point. RESULTS Time-in-target (mean ± SD, %) was similar over 24 h with D/N-AP versus E/N-AP: 64.7 ± 7.6 vs. 63.6 ± 9.9 (P = 0.79), and both were higher than with SAP: 59.7 ± 9.6 (P = 0.01 and P = 0.06, respectively). Time below 3.9 mmol/L was similarly and significantly reduced by D/N-AP and E/N-AP versus SAP (both P < 0.001). SD of blood glucose concentration (mmol/L) was lower with D/N-AP versus E/N-AP during whole daytime: 3.2 ± 0.6 vs. 3.4 ± 0.7 (P = 0.003), morning: 2.7 ± 0.5 vs. 3.1 ± 0.5 (P = 0.02), and afternoon: 3.3 ± 0.6 vs. 3.5 ± 0.8 (P = 0.07), and was lower with D/N-AP versus SAP over 24 h: 3.1 ± 0.5 vs. 3.3 ± 0.6 (P = 0.049). Insulin delivery (IU) over 24 h was higher with D/N-AP and SAP than with E/N-AP: 40.6 ± 15.5 and 42.3 ± 15.5 vs. 36.6 ± 11.6 (P = 0.03 and P = 0.0004, respectively). CONCLUSIONS D/N-AP and E/N-AP both achieved better glucose control than SAP under free-living conditions. Although time in the different glycemic ranges was similar between D/N-AP and E/N-AP, D/N-AP further reduces glucose variability.

Randomized summer camp crossover trial in 5-to 9-year-old children: Outpatient wearable artificial pancreas is feasible and safe

OBJECTIVE The Pediatric Artificial Pancreas (PedArPan) project tested a children-specific version of the modular model predictive control (MMPC) algorithm in 5- to 9-year-old children during a camp. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A total of 30 children, 5- to 9-years old, with type 1 diabetes completed an outpatient, open-label, randomized, crossover trial. Three days with an artificial pancreas (AP) were compared with three days of parent-managed sensor-augmented pump (SAP). RESULTS Overnight time-in-hypoglycemia was reduced with the AP versus SAP, median (25th–75th percentiles): 0.0% (0.0–2.2) vs. 2.2% (0.0–12.3) (P = 0.002), without a significant change of time-in-target, mean: 56.0% (SD 22.5) vs. 59.7% (21.2) (P = 0.430), but with increased mean glucose 173 mg/dL (36) vs. 150 mg/dL (39) (P = 0.002). Overall, the AP granted a threefold reduction of time-in-hypoglycemia (P < 0.001) at the cost of decreased time-in-target, 56.8% (13.5) vs. 63.1% (11.0) (P = 0.022) and increased mean glucose 169 mg/dL (23) vs. 147 mg/dL (23) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS This trial, the first outpatient single-hormone AP trial in a population of this age, shows feasibility and safety of MMPC in young children. Algorithm retuning will be performed to improve efficacy.

Artificial Pancreas: Model Predictive Control Design from Clinical Experience:

Background: The objective of this research is to develop a new artificial pancreas that takes into account the experience accumulated during more than 5000 h of closed-loop control in several clinical research centers. The main objective is to reduce the mean glucose value without exacerbating hypo phenomena. Controller design and in silico testing were performed on a new virtual population of the University of Virginia/Padova simulator. Methods: A new sensor model was developed based on the Comparison of Two Artificial Pancreas Systems for Closed-Loop Blood Glucose Control versus Open-Loop Control in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes trial AP@home data. The Kalman filter incorporated in the controller has been tuned using plasma and pump insulin as well as plasma and continuous glucose monitoring measures collected in clinical research centers. New constraints describing clinical knowledge not incorporated in the simulator but very critical in real patients (e.g., pump shutoff) have been introduced. The proposed model predictive control (MPC) is characterized by a low computational burden and memory requirements, and it is ready for an embedded implementation. Results: The new MPC was tested with an intensive simulation study on the University of Virginia/Padova simulator equipped with a new virtual population. It was also used in some preliminary outpatient pilot trials. The obtained results are very promising in terms of mean glucose and number of patients in the critical zone of the control variability grid analysis. Conclusions: The proposed MPC improves on the performance of a previous controller already tested in several experiments in the AP@home and JDRF projects. This algorithm complemented with a safety supervision module is a significant step toward deploying artificial pancreases into outpatient environments for extended periods of time.

Monitoring Artificial Pancreas Trials Through Agent-based Technologies: A Case Report

The increase in the availability and reliability of network connections lets envision systems supporting a continuous remote monitoring of clinical parameters useful either for overseeing chronic diseases or for following clinical trials involving outpatients. We report here the results achieved by a telemedicine infrastructure that has been linked to an artificial pancreas platform and used during a trial of the AP@home project, funded by the European Union. The telemedicine infrastructure is based on a multiagent paradigm and is able to deliver to the clinic any information concerning the patient status and the operation of the artificial pancreas. A web application has also been developed, so that the clinic staff and the researchers involved in the design of the blood glucose control algorithms are able to follow the ongoing experiments. Albeit the duration of the experiments in the trial discussed in the article was limited to only 2 days, the system proved to be successful for monitoring patients, in particular overnight when the patients are sleeping. Based on that outcome we can conclude that the infrastructure is suitable for the purpose of accomplishing an intelligent monitoring of an artificial pancreas either during longer trials or whenever that system will be used as a routine treatment.

On optimality of nonlinear model predictive control

In this note the optimality property of nonlinear model predictive control (MPC) is analyzed. It is well known that the MPC approximates arbitrarily well the infinite horizon (IH) controller as the optimization horizon increases. Hence, it makes sense to suppose that the performance of the MPC is a not decreasing function of the optimization horizon. This work, by means of a counterexample, shows that the previous conjecture is fallacious, even for simple linear systems.