Patient decision-making of CGM sensor driven insulin therapies in type 1 diabetes: In silico assessment

Author(s):  
M. Vettoretti ◽  
A. Facchinetti ◽  
G. Sparacino ◽  
C. Cobelli
2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (6) ◽  
pp. 1281-1290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Vettoretti ◽  
Andrea Facchinetti ◽  
Giovanni Sparacino ◽  
Claudio Cobelli

2021 ◽  
pp. 193229682110123
Author(s):  
Chiara Roversi ◽  
Martina Vettoretti ◽  
Simone Del Favero ◽  
Andrea Facchinetti ◽  
Pratik Choudhary ◽  
...  

Background: In the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D), systematic and random errors in carb-counting can have an adverse effect on glycemic control. In this study, we performed an in silico trial aiming at quantifying the impact of different levels of carb-counting error on glycemic control. Methods: The T1D patient decision simulator was used to simulate 7-day glycemic profiles of 100 adults using open-loop therapy. The simulation was repeated for different values of systematic and random carb-counting errors, generated with Gaussian distribution varying the error mean from -10% to +10% and standard deviation (SD) from 0% to 50%. The effect of the error was evaluated by computing the difference of time inside (∆TIR), above (∆TAR) and below (∆TBR) the target glycemic range (70-180mg/dl) compared to the reference case, that is, absence of error. Finally, 3 linear regression models were developed to mathematically describe how error mean and SD variations result in ∆TIR, ∆TAR, and ∆TBR changes. Results: Random errors globally deteriorate the glycemic control; systematic underestimations lead to, on average, up to 5.2% more TAR than the reference case, while systematic overestimation results in up to 0.8% more TBR. The different time in range metrics were linearly related with error mean and SD ( R2>0.95), with slopes of [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] for ∆TIR, [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] for ∆TAR, and [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] for ∆TBR. Conclusions: The quantification of carb-counting error impact performed in this work may be useful understanding causes of glycemic variability and the impact of possible therapy adjustments or behavior changes in different glucose metrics.


2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Visentin ◽  
Enrique Campos-Náñez ◽  
Michele Schiavon ◽  
Dayu Lv ◽  
Martina Vettoretti ◽  
...  

Background: A new version of the UVA/Padova Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) Simulator is presented which provides a more realistic testing scenario. The upgrades to the previous simulator, which was accepted by the Food and Drug Administration in 2013, are described. Method: Intraday variability of insulin sensitivity (SI) has been modeled, based on clinical T1D data, accounting for both intra- and intersubject variability of daily SI. Thus, time-varying distributions of both subject’s basal insulin infusion and insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio were calculated and made available to the user. A model of “dawn” phenomenon based on clinical T1D data has been also included. Moreover, the model of subcutaneous insulin delivery has been updated with a recently developed model of commercially available fast-acting insulin analogs. Models of both intradermal and inhaled insulin pharmacokinetics have been included. Finally, new models of error affecting continuous glucose monitoring and self-monitoring of blood glucose devices have been added. Results: One hundred in silico adults, adolescent, and children have been generated according to the above modifications. The new simulator reproduces the intraday glucose variability observed in clinical data, also describing the nocturnal glucose increase, and the simulated insulin profiles reflect real life data. Conclusions: The new modifications introduced in the T1D simulator allow to extend its domain of validity from “single-meal” to “single-day” scenarios, thus enabling a more realistic framework for in silico testing of advanced diabetes technologies including glucose sensors, new insulin molecules and artificial pancreas.


2005 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 153-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas O. Stewart ◽  
Joseph P. DeMarco

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria C.E. Rossi ◽  
Antonio Nicolucci ◽  
Fabio Pellegrini ◽  
Daniela Bruttomesso ◽  
Paolo Di Bartolo ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document