15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      The Artificial Pancreas: How Closed-Loop Control Is Revolutionizing Diabetes

      IEEE Control Systems
      Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references118

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Current state of type 1 diabetes treatment in the U.S.: updated data from the T1D Exchange clinic registry.

          To examine the overall state of metabolic control and current use of advanced diabetes technologies in the U.S., we report recent data collected on individuals with type 1 diabetes participating in the T1D Exchange clinic registry. Data from 16,061 participants updated between 1 September 2013 and 1 December 2014 were compared with registry enrollment data collected from 1 September 2010 to 1 August 2012. Mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was assessed by year of age from 75 years. The overall average HbA1c was 8.2% (66 mmol/mol) at enrollment and 8.4% (68 mmol/mol) at the most recent update. During childhood, mean HbA1c decreased from 8.3% (67 mmol/mol) in 2-4-year-olds to 8.1% (65 mmol/mol) at 7 years of age, followed by an increase to 9.2% (77 mmol/mol) in 19-year-olds. Subsequently, mean HbA1c values decline gradually until ∼30 years of age, plateauing at 7.5-7.8% (58-62 mmol/mol) beyond age 30 until a modest drop in HbA1c below 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) in those 65 years of age. Severe hypoglycemia (SH) and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) remain all too common complications of treatment, especially in older (SH) and younger patients (DKA). Insulin pump use increased slightly from enrollment (58-62%), and use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) did not change (7%). Although the T1D Exchange registry findings are not population based and could be biased, it is clear that there remains considerable room for improving outcomes of treatment of type 1 diabetes across all age-groups. Barriers to more effective use of current treatments need to be addressed and new therapies are needed to achieve optimal metabolic control in people with type 1 diabetes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Sustained effect of intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus on development and progression of diabetic nephropathy: the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study.

            (2003)
            The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) demonstrated the benefits of intensive treatment of diabetes in reducing glycemic levels and slowing the progression of diabetic nephropathy. The DCCT cohort has been examined annually for another 8 years as part of the follow-up Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study. During the EDIC study, glycemic levels no longer differed substantially between the 2 original treatment groups. To determine the long-term effects of intensive vs conventional diabetes treatment during the DCCT on kidney function during the EDIC study. Observational study begun in 1993 (following DCCT closeout) in 28 medical centers in the United States and Canada. Participants were 1349 (of 1375) EDIC volunteers who had kidney evaluation at years 7 or 8. Development of microalbuminuria, clinical-grade albuminuria, hypertension, or increase in serum creatinine level. Results were analyzed by intention-to-treat analyses, comparing the 2 original DCCT treatment groups. New cases of microalbuminuria occurred during the EDIC study in 39 (6.8%) of the participants originally assigned to the intensive-treatment group vs 87 (15.8%) of those assigned to the conventional-treatment group, for a 59% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39%-73%) reduction in odds, adjusted for baseline values, compared with a 59% (95% CI, 36%-74%) reduction at the end of the DCCT (P<.001 for both comparisons). New cases of clinical albuminuria occurred in 9 (1.4%) of the participants in the original intensive-treatment group vs 59 (9.4%) of those in the original conventional-treatment group, representing an 84% reduction in odds (95% CI, 67%-92%), compared with a reduction of 57% (95% CI, -1% to +81%) at the end of the DCCT. Fewer cases of hypertension (prevalence at year 8, 29.9% vs 40.3%; P<.001) developed in the original intensive-treatment group. Significantly fewer participants reached a serum creatinine level of 2 mg/dL or greater in the intensive-treatment vs the conventional-treatment group (5 vs 19, P =.004), but there were no differences in mean log clearance values. Although small numbers of patients required dialysis and/or transplantation, fewer patients experienced either of these outcomes in the intensive group (4 vs 7, P =.36). The persistent beneficial effects on albumin excretion and the reduced incidence of hypertension 7 to 8 years after the end of the DCCT suggest that previous intensive treatment of diabetes with near-normal glycemia during the DCCT has an extended benefit in delaying progression of diabetic nephropathy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Outpatient glycemic control with a bionic pancreas in type 1 diabetes.

              The safety and effectiveness of automated glycemic management have not been tested in multiday studies under unrestricted outpatient conditions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                IEEE Control Systems
                IEEE Control Syst.
                Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
                1066-033X
                1941-000X
                October 2016
                October 2016
                : 36
                : 5
                : 28-47
                Article
                10.1109/MCS.2016.2584318
                e1e81eb4-f1fc-4e95-b5f7-b43a45242553
                © 2016
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article