Medizinische Universität Graz Austria/Österreich - Forschungsportal - Medical University of Graz
Gewählte Publikation:
SHR Neuro Krebs Kardio Lipid Stoffw Microb
Luijf, YM; DeVries, JH; Zwinderman, K; Leelarathna, L; Nodale, M; Caldwell, K; Kumareswaran, K; Elleri, D; Allen, JM; Wilinska, ME; Evans, ML; Hovorka, R; Doll, W; Ellmerer, M; Mader, JK; Renard, E; Place, J; Farret, A; Cobelli, C; Del Favero, S; Dalla Man, C; Avogaro, A; Bruttomesso, D; Filippi, A; Scotton, R; Magni, L; Lanzola, G; Di Palma, F; Soru, P; Toffanin, C; De Nicolao, G; Arnolds, S; Benesch, C; Heinemann, L; AP@home Consortium.
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.
Diabetes Care. 2013; 36(12):3882-3887
Doi: 10.2337/dc12-1956
[OPEN ACCESS]
Web of Science
PubMed
FullText
FullText_MUG
- Co-Autor*innen der Med Uni Graz
- Doll Werner
- Ellmerer Martin
- Mader Julia
- Altmetrics:
- Dimensions Citations:
- Plum Analytics:
- Scite (citation analytics):
- Abstract:
- To compare two validated closed-loop (CL) algorithms versus patient self-control with CSII in terms of glycemic control. 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). 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. Both CAM and iAP algorithms provide safe glycemic control.
- Find related publications in this database (using NLM MeSH Indexing)
- Administration, Cutaneous -
- Adult -
- Algorithms -
- Blood Glucose - metabolism
- Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring - methods
- Cross-Over Studies -
- Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 - blood
- Equipment Design -
- Female -
- Follow-Up Studies -
- Humans -
- Hypoglycemic Agents - administration & dosage
- Infusion Pumps -
- Insulin - administration & dosage
- Insulin Infusion Systems -
- Male -
- Self Care - methods
- Treatment Outcome -