Laxminarayan Srinivas, Reifman Jaques, Steil Garry M
DoD Biotechnology High-Performance Computing Software Applications Institute, Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Fort Detrick, MD 21702, USA.
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012 Nov 1;6(6):1401-12. doi: 10.1177/193229681200600621.
Clinical studies have shown that the Medtronic proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control with insulin feedback (IFB) provides stable 24 h glucose control, but with high postprandial glucose. We coupled this algorithm to a Food and Drug Administration-approved type 1 diabetes mellitus simulator to determine whether a proportional-derivative controller with preprogrammed basal rates (PDBASAL) would have better performance.
We performed simulation studies on 10 adult subjects to (1) obtain the basal profiles for the PDBASAL controller; (2) define the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile used to effect IFB, (3) optimize the PID and PDBASAL control parameters, (4) evaluate improvements obtained with IFB, and (5) develop a method to simulate changes in insulin sensitivity and assess the ability of each algorithm to respond to such changes.
PDBASAL control significantly reduced peak postprandial glucose [252 (standard error = 11) versus 279 (14) mg/dl; p < .001] and increased nadir glucose [102 (3) versus 92 (3) mg/dl; p < .001] compared with PID control (both implemented with IFB). However, with PDBASAL control, fasting glucose remained elevated following a 30% decrease in insulin sensitivity [156 (6) mg/dl; different from the target of 110 mg/dl; p < .001] and remained below target following a 30% increase in insulin sensitivity [84 (2) mg/dl; p < .001]. In both cases, PID control returned glucose levels to target.
PDBASAL provides better postprandial glucose control than PID but is not appropriate for subjects whose basal requirements change with insulin sensitivity. Simulations used to compare different control strategies should assess this variability.
临床研究表明,美敦力胰岛素反馈比例积分微分(PID)控制可实现24小时稳定的血糖控制,但餐后血糖较高。我们将该算法与美国食品药品监督管理局批准的1型糖尿病模拟器相结合,以确定具有预编程基础率的比例微分控制器(PDBASAL)是否具有更好的性能。
我们对10名成年受试者进行了模拟研究,以(1)获取PDBASAL控制器的基础曲线;(2)定义用于实现胰岛素反馈(IFB)的药代动力学/药效学曲线,(3)优化PID和PDBASAL控制参数,(4)评估IFB带来的改善,以及(5)开发一种模拟胰岛素敏感性变化的方法,并评估每种算法对此类变化的反应能力。
与PID控制(均采用IFB)相比,PDBASAL控制显著降低了餐后血糖峰值[252(标准误=11)对279(14)mg/dl;p<.001],并提高了血糖最低点[102(3)对92(3)mg/dl;p<.001]。然而,在PDBASAL控制下,胰岛素敏感性降低30%后空腹血糖仍升高[156(6)mg/dl;不同于目标值110mg/dl;p<.001],而胰岛素敏感性增加30%后空腹血糖仍低于目标值[84(2)mg/dl;p<.001]。在这两种情况下,PID控制均使血糖水平恢复至目标值。
PDBASAL比PID能更好地控制餐后血糖,但不适用于基础需求随胰岛素敏感性变化的受试者。用于比较不同控制策略的模拟应评估这种变异性。