Cited by 94Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and Education

Intraperitoneal insulin delivery provides superior glycaemic regulation to subcutaneous insulin delivery in model predictive control‐based fully‐automated artificial pancreas in patients with type 1 diabetes: a pilot study

Open access
Dassau, Eyal, Renard, Eric, Place, Jérôme, Farret, Anne, Pelletier, Marie‐José, Lee, Justin, Huyett, Lauren M., Chakrabarty, Ankush +2 more·2017·Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism

Abstract

Aims: To compare intraperitoneal ( IP ) to subcutaneous ( SC ) insulin delivery in an artificial pancreas ( AP ). Research design and methods: Ten adults with type 1 diabetes participated in a non‐randomized, non‐blinded sequential AP study using the same SC glucose sensing and Zone Model Predictive Control ( ZMPC ) algorithm adjusted for insulin clearance. On first admission, subjects underwent closed‐loop control with SC delivery of a fast‐acting insulin analogue for 24 hours. Following implantation of a DiaPort IP insulin delivery system, the identical 24‐hour trial was performed with IP regular insulin delivery. The clinical protocol included 3 unannounced meals with 70, 40 and 70 g carbohydrate, respectively. Primary endpoint was time spent with blood glucose ( BG ) in the range of 80 to 140 mg/ dL (4.4‐7.7 mmol/L). Results: Percent of time spent within the 80 to 140 mg/ dL range was significantly higher for IP delivery than for SC delivery: 39.8 ± 7.6 vs 25.6 ± 13.1 ( P = .03). Mean BG (mg/ dL ) and percent of time spent within the broader 70 to 180 mg/ dL range were also significantly better for IP insulin: 151.0 ± 11.0 vs 190.0 ± 31.0 ( P = .004) and 65.7 ± 9.2 vs 43.9 ± 14.7 ( P = .001), respectively. Superiority of glucose control with IP insulin came from the reduced time spent in hyperglycaemia (>180 mg/ dL : 32.4 ± 8.9 vs 53.5 ± 17.4, P = .014; >250 mg/ dL : 5.9 ± 5.6 vs 23.0 ± 11.3, P = .0004). Higher daily doses of insulin ( IU ) were delivered with the IP route (43.7 ± 0.1 vs 32.3 ± 0.1, P < .001) with no increased percent time spent <70 mg/ dL ( IP : 2.5 ± 2.9 vs SC : 4.1 ± 5.3, P = .42). Conclusions: Glycaemic regulation with fully‐automated AP delivering IP insulin was superior to that with SC insulin delivery. This pilot study provides proof‐of‐concept for an AP system combining a ZMPC algorithm with IP insulin delivery.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/dom.12999

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Inpatient 24-hour trials with three unannounced meals demonstrated that an AP with IP infusion can achieve significantly better glucose control compared to SC infusion and spare meal announcement, due to the fast insulin delivery route represented by the peritoneum.

    “Inpatient 24-hour trials with three unannounced meals demonstrated that an AP with IP infusion can achieve significantly better glucose control compared to SC infusion and spare meal announcement, 141 due to the fast insulin delivery route represented by the peritoneum.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dassau, E., Renard, E., Place, J., Farret, A., Pelletier, M., Lee, J., Huyett, L. M., Chakrabarty, A., Doyle, F. J., & Zisser, H. C.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Nutrition and INSERM Clinical Investigation Center 1411 University Hospital of Montpellier Montpellier France
  • Department of Psychology, Institute of Functional Genomics, CNRS UMR5203, INSERM U1191 University of Montpellier Montpellier France
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Corresponding author
Zisser, Howard C.
Venue
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-07-06
Volume
19
Issue
12
Pages
1698-1705
ISSN
  • 1462-8902 (ISSN-L)
  • 1463-1326
OpenAlex
W2611157854
Cited by
94
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 1
FWCI
8.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01DK085628, DP3DK101068)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
subcutaneous insulin administration, type 1 diabetes, artificial pancreas, model predictive control, glycemic control, hyperglycemia, insulin clearance, regular insulin, insulin dose, continuous glucose monitoring, hypoglycemia
MeSH terms
Proof of Concept Study, Adult, Algorithms, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, France, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Hypoglycemia, Hypoglycemic Agents, Infusions, Parenteral, Insulin Infusion Systems, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Pancreas, Artificial, Infusions, Subcutaneous, Insulin Lispro, Insulin, Regular, Human

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review