Luijf Yoeri M, DeVries J Hans, Zwinderman Koos, Leelarathna Lalantha, Nodale Marianna, Caldwell Karen, Kumareswaran Kavita, Elleri Daniela, Allen Janet M, Wilinska Malgorzata E, Evans Mark L, Hovorka Roman, Doll Werner, Ellmerer Martin, Mader Julia K, Renard Eric, Place Jerome, Farret Anne, Cobelli Claudio, Del Favero Simone, Dalla Man Chiara, Avogaro Angelo, Bruttomesso Daniela, Filippi Alessio, Scotton Rachele, Magni Lalo, Lanzola Giordano, Di Palma Federico, Soru Paola, Toffanin Chiara, De Nicolao Giuseppe, Arnolds Sabine, Benesch Carsten, Heinemann Lutz
Corresponding author: Yoeri M. Luijf,
Diabetes Care. 2013 Dec;36(12):3882-7. doi: 10.2337/dc12-1956. Epub 2013 Oct 29.
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.
比较两种经验证的闭环(CL)算法与患者自我控制的持续皮下胰岛素输注(CSII)在血糖控制方面的效果。
本研究是一项多中心、随机、三向交叉、开放标签试验,纳入48例1型糖尿病患者,病程至少6个月,均接受持续皮下胰岛素输注治疗。在三次住院期间,包括进餐和运动时,血糖由帕维亚大学和帕多瓦大学的算法结合弗吉尼亚大学和加利福尼亚大学圣巴巴拉分校开发的安全监督模块(国际人工胰腺[iAP])、剑桥大学的算法(CAM)控制23小时,或由患者自身进行开环(OL)控制。主要分析基于意向性治疗原则。主要结局指标包括处于目标范围内的时间(血糖水平在3.9至8.0 mmol/L之间,或餐后在3.9至10.0 mmol/L之间)。
CL和OL模式下处于目标范围内的时间相似:OL为62.6%,iAP为59.2%,CAM为58.3%。虽然OL模式下的平均血糖水平显著更低(分别为7.19、8.15和8.26 mmol/L)(总体P = 0.001),但CL模式下低血糖(<3.9 mmol/L)的时间百分比几乎降低了三倍(分别为6.4%、2.1%和2.0%)(总体P = 0.001),≤2.8 mmol/L的时间更少(总体P = 0.038)。各算法之间的结局无显著差异。
CAM和iAP算法均能提供安全的血糖控制。