Sensitivity of the Predictive Hypoglycemia Minimizer System to the Algorithm Aggressiveness Factor

• Published in: Journal of diabetes science and technology Vol. 10; no. 1; pp. 104 - 110
• Main Authors: Finan, Daniel A., Dassau, Eyal, Breton, Marc D., Patek, Stephen D., McCann, Thomas W., Kovatchev, Boris P., Doyle, Francis J., Levy, Brian L., Venugopalan, Ramakrishna
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.01.2016
• Subjects: Adult; Algorithms; Blood Glucose - analysis; Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring - methods; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 - blood; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 - drug therapy; Feasibility Studies; Female; Humans; Hypoglycemia - blood; Hypoglycemia - prevention & control; Hypoglycemic Agents - administration & dosage; Infusion Pumps, Implantable; Insulin - administration & dosage; Insulin Infusion Systems; Male; Middle Aged; Original; Pancreas, Artificial; model predictive control; Aggressiveness factor; type 1 diabetes; closed-loop control; artificial pancreas; algorithm
• ISSN: 1932-2968; 1932-3107
• DOI: 10.1177/1932296815593292

Background: The Predictive Hypoglycemia Minimizer System (“Hypo Minimizer”), consisting of a zone model predictive controller (the “controller”) and a safety supervision module (the “safety module”), aims to mitigate hypoglycemia by preemptively modulating insulin delivery based on continuous glucose monitor (CGM) measurements. The “aggressiveness factor,” a pivotal variable in the system, governs the speed and magnitude of the controller’s insulin dosing characteristics in response to changes in CGM levels. Methods: Twelve adults with type 1 diabetes were studied in closed-loop in a clinical research center for approximately 24 hours. This analysis focused primarily on the effect of the aggressiveness factor on the automated insulin-delivery characteristics of the controller, and secondarily on the glucose control results. Results: As aggressiveness increased from “conservative” to “medium” to “aggressive,” the controller recommended less insulin (–3.3% vs –14.4% vs –19.5% relative to basal) with a higher frequency (5.3% vs 14.4% vs 20.3%) during the critical times when the CGM was reading 90-120 mg/dl and decreasing. Blood glucose analyses indicated that the most aggressive setting resulted in the most desirable combination of the least time spent <70 mg/dl and the most time spent 70-180 mg/dl, particularly in the overnight period. Hyperglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, or severe hypoglycemia did not occur with any of the aggressiveness values. Conclusion: The Hypo Minimizer’s controller took preemptive action to prevent hypoglycemia based on predicted changes in CGM glucose levels. The most aggressive setting was quickest to take action to reduce insulin delivery below basal and achieved the best glucose metrics.