Automated insulin delivery -
A Consensus Report of the Joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.
Diabetes Care 1 December ; 45 12 : — A technological solution for the management of diabetes in people who require intensive insulin therapy has been sought for decades.
The last 10 years have seen substantial growth in devices that can be integrated into clinical care. Driven by the availability of reliable systems for continuous glucose monitoring, we have entered an era in which insulin delivery through insulin pumps can be modulated based on sensor glucose data.
Over the past few years, regulatory approval of the first automated insulin delivery AID systems has been granted, and these systems have been adopted into clinical care. Additionally, a community of people living with type 1 diabetes has created its own systems using a do-it-yourself approach by using products commercialized for independent use.
With several AID systems in development, some of which are anticipated to be granted regulatory approval in the near future, the joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association has created this consensus report.
We provide a review of the current landscape of AID systems, with a particular focus on their safety. We conclude with a series of recommended targeted actions. This is the fourth in a series of reports issued by this working group.
The working group was jointly commissioned by the executives of both organizations to write the first statement on insulin pumps, which was published in The original authoring group was comprised by three nominated members of the American Diabetes Association and three nominated members of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Additional authors have been added to the group to increase diversity and range of expertise. Each organization has provided a similar internal review process for each manuscript prior to submission for editorial review by the two journals.
Harmonization of editorial and substantial modifications has occurred at both levels. The members of the group have selected the subject of each statement and submitted the selection to both organizations for confirmation.
A biological cure for type 1 diabetes T1D is not realistic in the near future 1 — 4. These AID systems integrate data from a continuous glucose monitoring CGM system, a control algorithm, and an insulin pump to automate subcutaneous insulin delivery.
Many different terms for AID systems are in use; however, all describe the same fundamental approach Table 1. Food and Drug Administration FDA. However, expectations need to be set adequately so that individuals with diabetes and providers understand what such systems can and cannot do.
However, issues seen with medical products like CGM systems and insulin pumps e. Individuals with diabetes who are considering this type of advanced diabetes therapy should not only have appropriate technical understanding of the system but also be able to revert to standard diabetes treatment i.
They should be able to independently troubleshoot and have access to their health care provider HCP , if needed see below. In addition, their HCP should have easy remote access to their AID system data.
Simply giving a person with diabetes an AID system without support and adequate training presents safety issues without improving outcomes. Presently, AID systems are not available to all people with diabetes due to the high costs associated with this advanced version of diabetes therapy.
It is hoped that all parts of AID systems including insulin and digital access to the data will become more affordable in the future. This statement is not a scientific review of all publications involving AID systems; its focus is on safety issues in line with previously published statements 6 — 8.
We provide a short overview on the benefits, limitations, and challenges of current AID systems, followed by a review of a number of critical safety aspects.
Finally, we make a series of consensus recommendations for all concerned parties to further enhance and refine the safe use of these systems. For an understanding of the impact of various technologies used to treat diabetes, a uniform way to assess the wealth of data generated is required.
This holds particularly true in terms of frequency and severity of episodes of hypo- and hyperglycemia. Recognition of the limitations inherent to HbA 1c resulted in release of consensus guidelines in regarding key metrics that could be derived from CGM systems Indeed, time in range TIR and visualization of data through standardized reports such as the Ambulatory Glucose Profile AGP are now being leveraged in both research studies and clinical practice.
Furthermore, benchmarks for time in various glucose ranges based on CGM data have been developed 12 , However, while agreeing that TIR is an important metric, there is still a need to standardize reporting of this parameter e. The dawn of AID systems dates back over 40 years with the advent of Biostator, which consisted of an algorithm on a microcomputer that would adjust intravenous insulin infusion rates based on real-time whole blood glucose measurements 15 — Much progress has since been made in the development of AID systems, and there has been exponential growth in the field over the past 10 years 18 , Regardless of the AID system used, a clear picture has emerged with this technology demonstrating improvements in glycemic control—as reflected by improvement in HbA 1c —in adults and also in children and adolescents Findings of two meta-analyses, with their limitations acknowledged, support that AID use is associated with improvement in TIR 21 , Furthermore, early studies indicate how usage of such AID systems benefits quality of life—namely, by improving sleep, reducing anxiety, and relieving some of the burden of daily diabetes management However, future research is needed to demonstrate whether such improvements will also be present on a population level—versus in selected study populations.
Future AID systems might use artificial intelligence to adjust responses of the system to the needs of the individual with diabetes. Such systems might also make use of additional hormones and medications like glucagon, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, amylin analogs, and sodium—glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors to improve the performance of the systems; however, the benefits of using noninsulin adjuncts have to be carefully evaluated.
Despite the clear benefits of AID, limitations also exist. These limitations can be classified into categories of physiological, technological, and behavioral Table 2. Foremost, among the physiological limitations of AID systems lie the issues of where glucose is being sensed and where insulin is being delivered.
As CGM sensors are placed in interstitial fluid ISF , there is an inherent lag time in the sensor glucose value as compared with blood glucose measurements This issue is exacerbated at times of rapid changes in glucose. Even with the currently available rapid-acting insulin analogs, the pharmacodynamic response of insulin is impeded by delivery via insulin pumps into the subcutaneous space 25 — The hybrid approach adopted for AID systems, in which users need to bolus manually for carbohydrate intake, was developed secondary to these limitations Yet, development of more suitable insulin products and algorithms with inclusion of meal detection and the ability to sense the glucose level every minute may allow for the eventual creation of a full AID system 29 , Usage of information about the level of physical activity measured by wearables or smartphones will help with adjustment of insulin dosage based on the current needs of the patient; currently, it is not clear how well AID systems generally handle patient insulin requirements during physical activity.
Artificial intelligence may eventually assist with such an individualization and customization 31 ; an example demonstrating such work being done is development of applications for smartphones to determine carbohydrate content based on pictures of a meal.
Although there has been substantial progress in diabetes technologies, other fundamental limitations with devices still exist. In recent years, factory-calibrated CGM systems have reduced this issue.
With compression lows, aberrant CGM glucose readings may be due to sleep position leading to decreased blood flow to tissues near the tip of the glucose sensor in the subcutaneous tissue Missing CGM data and loss of connectivity lead to reversion to preprogrammed manual pump settings in AID systems, which could be incorrect for the individual in a specific situation.
Furthermore, individuals with diabetes may have challenges obtaining their CGM devices consistently due to reordering or supply problems.
The CGM may stop functioning or fall off before the full expected duration of use is reached, requiring patients to go through the process of obtaining replacement sensors or devices.
Integral to AID systems are the insulin pumps used as one of their foundational components. Without algorithms for site failure detection, it will be essential for people with diabetes and providers to problem solve hyperglycemia and include the possibility that insulin flow through the IIS has been either partially or completely blocked as the etiology for the issue.
Even patch pumps can be prone to infusion set issues see Table 2. The development of more consistent methods for subcutaneous insulin infusion could benefit all insulin pump wearers. Integration of continuous ketone monitors, which have been assessed in small clinical feasibility trials, might provide an added safety feature to AID systems in the future 34 , Exploration into how environmental factors, including temperature variation and electromagnetic fields, impact sensor and pump technology is warranted.
Data management by individuals with diabetes and their providers is essential to understand the effectiveness of AID and impact of behavioral modifications, particularly with regard to meal bolusing and exercise. With increasing use of cloud-based automatic data uploading to servers, the need to educate and encourage patients to manually transmit data from their devices to the cloud is reduced.
However, in the present landscape, some systems still require manual, cumbersome data-handling procedures by patients or HCPs , and operating system updates can affect the ability of medical devices to transfer data for analysis; thus, clinical practices need to account for the time required into clinical workflow.
Data from other systems can be readily accessed by clinicians if permission is granted by users in real time via dedicated password-protected websites. While the ability to remotely monitor CGM data has transformed how HCPs and caregivers can be involved in the care of those with diabetes thus increasing support connectivity , power outages and server failures may lead to data disruptions that can impact an enormous number of patients Contingency plans for how such lapses in data transfer will be managed may help to mitigate the fear of consequences, especially for pediatric populations.
Undoubtedly, the AID systems that are commercially available, as well as those that are in late phases of clinical development, are by no means perfect, and manufacturers of these AID systems have already announced successor products to overcome some of the limitations present with currently available products.
Explaining the nuances of the CGM system used for AID may help patients with diabetes in selecting the system that best suits them Points of discussion include whether finger-stick calibrations are necessary, as well as the expected duration of glucose sensor wear.
Additionally, with the advent of remote data monitoring, understanding the data-sharing capabilities of AID systems is crucial. Sharing features may include only CGM data or additional data regarding insulin delivery. These features may be used by a caregiver, such as a parent of a young child; family member of a senior; or the person with diabetes who prefers using their smartphone to check their data on a more regular basis rather than assessing information from the insulin pump itself.
It is important to recognize that in devising a treatment plan, providers should work together with patients and their caregivers to broach the topic of AID systems.
Using a structured method to review currently available AID systems will lay the framework upon which patients with diabetes can choose what features are most important to them. This shared decision-making will lead to successful integration of therapy into the care plan.
Having the key AID data and action plan automatically available in the electronic health record would also facilitate coordination of care across a team of health care professionals supporting patients on AID systems.
In the European Union EU and other countries outside the U. Although access to an AID system may be less physician restricted in the U. and more determined by insurance coverage or ability to meet costs, a methodical approach to system selection is still needed. Overall, the approval and reimbursement process of AID systems varies considerably between countries.
Thus, it will be imperative to have software updates of hardware to ensure continued access to the latest technologies. Paramount in the transition to using AID systems is setting realistic expectations of what the available systems can and cannot do.
For example, with hybrid AID systems, the timing of meal bolusing should ideally occur prior to eating and with accurate assessment of carbohydrate content, with consideration also of the impact of the meal composition e.
While future iterations of AID systems may allow for automatic detection of meal-related glycemic excursions, first-generation AID systems need meal announcements by the user. Accurate and well-timed bolusing will clearly minimize postprandial glycemic excursions and increase TIR.
In some systems, delayed meal dosing can result in hypoglycemia because of the overlap between insulin given automatically by the AID system in response to the postprandial glycemic excursion and the relative overbolusing of giving a delayed full meal bolus.
If bolusing postprandially, some patients may need to reduce the meal bolus to account for the insulin already provided by the AID system. Patients are also expected to announce any upcoming physical activity to avoid hypoglycemia. Concern exists that patients transitioning to AID systems may become less skilled in dosing insulin as they rely more heavily on their technology.
Thus, it will be essential that patients, as well as providers, understand that like any technology, components of AID systems can fail. When hyperglycemia occurs, patients may need to return to fundamental diabetes management, such as assessing ketones and considering whether an IIS occlusion or failure has led to the hyperglycemia.
They will need clear instructions on how to restore normoglycemia, even possibly returning to conventional continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion CSII or insulin injection therapy so preprogrammed basal rates are used and appropriate correction doses can be administered.
Contingency planning should include access to batteries, charging cables, IIS, reservoirs, a vial of insulin, syringes or insulin pens and needles , a glucose meter and test strips, glucagon, ketone test strips, and a backup glucose sensor and transmitter for the CGM system.
In addition, a plan for transition to insulin injection therapy, as well as a supply of unexpired insulin pens or vials with rapid-acting and long-acting insulins, should be available for use until a replacement for the AID system is available.
It is also critical to consider potential disruption in availability of supplies, as has been noted during the coronavirus disease era. For example, if there is a supply issue with glucose sensors or transmitters, if the sensors or transmitters do not last for their intended duration of time, or if there is a change in insurance plans and a prior authorization is required, individuals with diabetes may find themselves running out of supplies.
Furthermore, traveling can be exceptionally challenging, especially if key components break unexpectedly. Thus, it is essential to always have a backup subcutaneous insulin therapy plan, as described above. Devices that require charging through USB electric cable can be difficult to charge in certain regions e.
Medical imaging can also be a challenge because certain scans e. IIS can stay in place, but removing the glucose sensor can be a problem if sensors are in short supply. However, the recommendations for removing CGM systems are based on caution, largely in the absence of data from device testing under these conditions.
In at least one simulation it was found that CGM can stay in place during radiographic and MRI procedures 38 , Discussions regarding treatment of hypoglycemic events in patients using an AID system need to highlight that since basal insulin will be suspended, fewer carbohydrates will need to be consumed to return to euglycemia.
Even though hypoglycemia can be corrected with fewer carbohydrates, people with diabetes need to be educated to overcome fear of hypoglycemia and avoid overcorrecting hypoglycemia, which often causes hyperglycemia with the use of AID systems.
Also, AID users have noticed anecdotally that the AID system assumes that the person with diabetes is still in a state of hypoglycemia with delivery suspension long after the hypoglycemia has been corrected with rapid-acting glucose, and people with diabetes find themselves experiencing hyperglycemia 30—40 min after having corrected hypoglycemia even if they use fewer carbs.
Since AID systems increase insulin delivery based on elevated glucose levels, patients may find they are limited in the manual correction bolus that can be given.
Helping patients understand that this is due to insulin being proactively delivered by the AID system may help minimize frustration in the initial transition period. Educating patients with diabetes on AID system functionality and how to determine whether insulin delivery is being increased or suspended may allow for trust to be established with this automated process.
Indeed, for those who have achieved targeted glycemia with traditional CSII or multiple daily insulin injections, delegating the decision-making process to this new technology may be difficult. Education also needs to focus on the different modes that these AID systems have.
The most common feature allows the AID algorithm to adapt, for example, to exercise. Alternatively, overnight algorithms may allow some systems to tighten targets, thereby allowing for more aggressive insulin delivery. As commercial AID systems become more widely used, education regarding what to do with an urgent question will be crucial.
There should be a clear distinction between technical support delivered by the manufacturer and clinical support delivered by the clinical support team. Such a helpline should be staffed by people with specific diabetes experience, i. Most practices do not have the capacity to provide this level of support, especially where general practitioners may treat those with diabetes due to the limited number of subspecialists in a region.
An additional level of complexity with technical support arises with multiple manufacturers contributing to a given AID system. For example, in the case of an unknown failure of an AID system built using components from different manufacturers, who should be contacted?
Calls must be promptly answered, and multiple language options based on regional need should be easily chosen. Those employed to answer calls must be familiar with the given AID system so they can support the patient with most, if not all, questions regarding system use.
The questions asked by the call center staff must be simple and nonconfrontational, as individuals with lower literacy, numeracy, and technical skills may not be able to provide detailed information.
The most common concern that may arise could be whether the AID system or one of its components needs to be replaced. Trained call-line workers will need to help patients troubleshoot a given situation, help them check and change the pump settings, and potentially provide authorization for new components of the AID system to be sent if it is deemed that the current system is not functioning as intended.
Potential AID system issues may include repeated loss of data transfer from the transmitter of the CGM system or an insulin pump that has a cracked screen.
However, this requires that the patient have the choice of different AID systems available in the country and through the health care system. Just as CSII offers a plethora of options of different insulin pumps, IIS, and other components, it is anticipated that a number of AID systems will be commercially available in the not-too-distant future.
Paramount to having an open dialogue with the patient in considering therapeutic options is presenting information in a standardized and adequate manner.
Ideally, the patient would have the chance to evaluate different AID systems before making a decision for a given system.
With certain differences in technology and handling of AID systems currently available, a systematic approach for defining how each advanced diabetes technology works has been proposed. A: Adjust—How can the user adjust insulin delivery, which parameters can be adjusted to influence insulin delivery during automation, and which parameters are fixed?
With conventional CSIIs, the same parameters for system setup are held constant across a range of devices; however, this does not hold true for AID systems. Two approaches exist for AID targets: a treat-to-target AID system that has a singular set point e.
Conversely, for treat-to-range systems there are CGM values between which the system tries to maximize the TIR e. Thus, the first step may be understanding which type of target a given AID system uses, followed by assessment of the threshold at which these targets are set.
While it is beyond the scope of practice for most clinicians to understand all the intricacies of how each AID algorithm works, it will be critical as AID systems are more widely adopted for HCPs to know which parameters can be adjusted to optimize insulin delivery.
To date, all AID systems allow for adjustment of the insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio except Diabeloop DLBG1, which uses machine learning to optimize the meal ratio on an ongoing basis.
Some of the newer AID systems on the market will give automated correction boluses, while others may not. The strategy for determining the dose allowed to be given by automated correction, as well as the frequency with which these autocorrections can be provided, will differ by system.
Indeed, without comprehension of what parameters are adjustable, some clinicians may alter settings that have no impact on AID, thereby increasing frustration of both patients and providers in their experience with the product.
With commercialization of AID systems, companies should seek to include materials that clearly delineate the settings that can be adjusted. Companies should also provide clinical scenarios to highlight when such optimization would be needed and how to successfully implement the changes.
Providers will need to inform patients of when AID systems may automatically revert to manual mode i. Thus, it is a good practice to update these manual settings intermittently while patients are using AID systems, as overall insulin needs may be changing, particularly in the pediatric population.
Should such features not be available, it may be critical to consider altering the low-glucose thresholds and predictive low alerts when not using the AID feature so that the patient with diabetes can manually respond to the hypoglycemic event. It may not be prudent to continue with AID in certain situations, and patients may be instructed to revert to conventional CSII.
These situations include illness, when there may be temporarily increased insulin resistance and elevated glucose levels, as well as reduction in oral intake and ketosis without elevated glucose levels. Resolution of ketones will be contingent on increased insulin delivery; however, this may not be possible if a patient is solely relying on the AID system.
Likewise, should a clinical situation arise in which treatment necessitates use of systemic steroids, it is possible that the AID system does not respond rapidly enough to account for the increased insulin requirements often necessitated with steroids. Finally, the lower targets needed in pregnancy may not be achievable on an AID system.
Given that AID systems are new in diabetes care and subject to ongoing rapid development, many practitioners may not be fully aware of how to teach individuals with diabetes how to use them.
As a result, manufacturers may need to provide training either directly to patients or diabetes care and education specialists or by means of online videos. The pandemic has highlighted that this education can be delivered in person or remotely With the initiation of AID, patients should be provided with clear instructions on how to ensure data are available for providers to view i.
Particularly during early use, providers will need to take a more proactive approach than with previous nonintegrated insulin pumps. Although teaching tools for medical devices like AID systems include user guides, these are often not easy to read.
They are hundreds of pages long, and the chances that patients and even HCPs will read them are slim. In the case of troubleshooting, often it is not easy to find appropriate support. Many learn from videos, which, if available, are often very helpful. However, such teaching tools need to be available in multiple languages, created for learners of all skill levels, and sensitive to the inclusion of people from varying ethnicities.
Communication with the HCP may be through the use of interpreter services in case of language barriers. Undoubtedly, there will be a steep learning curve as use of AID systems becomes more prevalent.
Patient acceptance and safety will come through education and adjustments to ensure safe use. For people with diabetes whose management strategies have been primarily focused on permissive hyperglycemia, the return to more targeted glucose levels may lead to the sensation of hypoglycemia.
Instructions on this phenomenon and encouragement that the threshold for symptoms will be lowered may help patients adapt to this transitional period as they initiate AID therapy. Providers will need to understand how to access data so that dose optimization on AID systems can be made.
They may need to assure they have programs installed for local uploading of devices in their offices. There is a call for standardized reports for AID data, similar to the standardized reports that have been created for CGM data Just as consistent terminology Table 1 use can help clarify for all what a given system does or does not do, standardized reports will help ensure easy readability of the data for individuals with diabetes as well as their provider.
AID holds the promise to improve care for all individuals living with diabetes who require insulin. However, the vast majority of studies to date have focused on those with T1D 45 — Nevertheless, for people meeting their individualized treatment goals without excess burden or distress, usage of AID systems may not be an appropriate therapy, and recognition of the choice to not use an AID system is important.
The current evidence base is mostly built on studies where selected participants were able to engage with self-management and had received structured education or an equivalent level of support, which may impact the outcome of these studies and therefore their generalizability.
There is a need for well-conducted studies in populations who differ from those included in the studies, who may, in some cases, be most apt to benefit.
However, more data from real-world studies were published recently e. A handful of studies have demonstrated the short-term benefit of systems in patients with type 2 diabetes T2D 52 — Indeed, for people with T2D whose endocrine pancreatic function mimics those with T1D, such as those with lower serum C-peptide levels, usage of AID systems may prove to be the optimal way to attain glycemic targets while avoiding hypoglycemia.
Additionally, application of AID systems for patients with insulin dependency following pancreatitis or those with cystic fibrosis—related diabetes may be warranted, since improvements in lung function are noted when dysglycemia is treated For young children, the ability of parents to remotely view both CGM data and insulin delivery is critical.
Similarly, for older adults in assisted living facilities, such remote monitoring tools may be of great help. Additionally, in both of these circumstances, it may be best to have only basic functionality on the insulin pump itself in order to prevent errant and unwanted bolus insulin delivery.
However, as youth with diabetes achieve greater independence in their care, access to greater functionality of AID systems is likely to be appropriate over time. Including an option for the HCP to individualize pump settings for this purpose is recommended.
Different insulin pumps have regulatory approval for different age ranges, and this must be considered in prescribing an AID system 18 , Some older studies suggested that dilution of rapid-acting insulin analogs may allow for a reduction in the frequency of hypoglycemic events 57 , 58 ; however, in a more recent outpatient assessment in this age-group a benefit was not seen with dilution Transition from pediatric to adult diabetes care requires specific attention.
While youth may have relied on parents at an earlier stage, increasing autonomy of care is essential during transition This will require specific training—or retraining—on how AID systems work at an appropriate time prior to transition to an adult provider.
In patients who may experience acute metabolic events where insulin sensitivity can change rapidly e. Assessment of these situations in a standardized manner to determine safety of various devices would be prudent.
Evidence is now emerging regarding use of AID systems during times where insulin action time may be changing due to reduced or changed insulin clearance e. Finally, pregnancy poses a unique situation, as the targets for glycemia are inherently much more ambitious 12 , Early studies in pregnancy have demonstrated the ability of AID systems to improve glycemia 63 — However, in these studies, women continued to perform self-monitoring of blood glucose SMBG multiple times daily.
In the Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Women With Type 1 Diabetes in Pregnancy Trial CONCEPTT , fetal outcomes were evaluated in comparison of CGM plus SMBG monitoring with SMBG alone Clear benefits were illustrated in those on sensor therapy However, no benefit in glycemia was seen in those preparing for pregnancy.
Moreover, data on outcomes are lacking from individuals with preexisting T2D or gestational diabetes mellitus. Because pregnancy glycemic targets are currently lower than the targets allowed by most commercially available AID systems, it is important to follow glycemic guidelines for pregnant women and find the best method for achieving these outcomes in an individual patient.
One study has shown the adaptability of AID systems to respond to the ever-changing insulin requirements in pregnancy, which are most pronounced immediately after delivery, when insulin requirements are drastically decreased Currently, the CamAPS FX system is the only AID system approved for pregnant women with diabetes Levy and colleagues indicated that the technology may also benefit people with type 2 diabetes who require insulin, regardless of how they were taking insulin at baseline and whether they were also using other oral or injectable glucose-lowering medications.
Levy, Professor of Medicine Endocrinology, Diabetes and Bone Disease , and Director of the Mount Sinai Diabetes Center. She presented data from the prospective, single-arm trial of 30 adults with type 2 diabetes in November , during the virtual meeting of the Diabetes Technology Society.
The study was sponsored by Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. The participants had a mean age of 54 years, median diabetes duration of 14 years, and a mean hemoglobin A1C of 8. They were a diverse group; with an enrollment consistent with what would be seen in people with type 2 diabetes based on race and ethnicity.
At baseline, just over half were using CGMs, 13 were using only basal insulin, and 17 were using both basal and pre-meal insulin. Among those 17 participants, 15 were using multiple daily injections, and two were using insulin pumps.
Most participants were also taking other medications, including sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 SGLT2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 GLP-1 agonistsdipeptidyl peptidase 4 DPP-4 inhibitors or a combination of more than one medication in addition to insulin as is typical for people with type 2 diabetes.
They continued taking these adjunctive medications throughout the trial. This new automated insulin dosing AID system uses an algorithm to determine and command insulin delivery. Because the pancreas does not make insulin in people with type 1 diabetes, they have to consistently monitor their glucose levels throughout the day and have insulin therapy through injection with a syringe, an insulin pen or insulin pump to avoid becoming hyperglycemic high glucose levels.
In addition, management of type 1 diabetes includes following a healthy eating plan and physical activity. This adaptive algorithm removes the need to manually adjust insulin pump therapy settings and variables as is needed with conventional pump therapy and is easier to initiate than other available AID systems.
The iLet device also simplifies use at mealtime by replacing conventional carb counting with a new meal announcement feature. The human pancreas naturally supplies a low, continuous rate of insulin, known as basal or background insulin.
Today, the U. Automated insulin delivery and Drug Administration cleared the Beta Bionics iLet ACE Automatd and dlivery iLet Dosing Decision Software BMI for Obesity people six nisulin of age and Mindful eating habits with type 1 diabetes. These Automated insulin delivery delievry, along with a compatible FDA-cleared BMI for Obesity continuous glucose Automater iCGMwill form a new system called the iLet Bionic Pancreas. This new automated insulin dosing AID system uses an algorithm to determine and command insulin delivery. Because the pancreas does not make insulin in people with type 1 diabetes, they have to consistently monitor their glucose levels throughout the day and have insulin therapy through injection with a syringe, an insulin pen or insulin pump to avoid becoming hyperglycemic high glucose levels. In addition, management of type 1 diabetes includes following a healthy eating plan and physical activity. Diabetic coma support U. BMI for Obesity Autmoated pancreas naturally supplies a BMI for Obesity, continuous rate of Aufomated, known Automated insulin delivery basal or background BMI for Obesity. It BMI for Obesity by measuring glucose levels every insuli minutes BMI for Obesity automatically Maca root and weight loss or delivwry insulin. The system includes a sensor that attaches to the body to measure glucose levels under the skin; an insulin pump strapped to the body; and an infusion patch connected to the pump with a catheter that delivers insulin. While the device automatically adjusts insulin levels, users need to manually request insulin doses to counter carbohydrate meal consumption. According to the U. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 5 percent of people with diabetes have type 1 diabetes.
wohin die Welt gerollt wird?
Diese glänzende Idee fällt gerade übrigens
Nach meiner Meinung lassen Sie den Fehler zu. Es ich kann beweisen. Schreiben Sie mir in PM.