Suchergebnisse

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The hyperinsulinaemic-hypoglycaemic glucose clamp technique has been developed and applied to assess effects of and responses to hypoglycaemia under standardised conditions. However, the degree to which the methodology of clamp studies is standardised is unclear. This systematic review examines how hyperinsulinaemic-hypoglycaemic clamps have been performed and elucidates potential important differences. METHODS: A literature search in PubMed and EMBASE was conducted. Articles in English published between 1980 and 2018, involving adults with or without diabetes, were included. RESULTS: A total of 383 articles were included. There was considerable variation in essential methodology of the hypoglycaemic clamp procedures, including the insulin dose used (49-fold difference between the lowest and the highest rate), the number of hypoglycaemic steps (range 1-6), the hypoglycaemic nadirs (range 2.0-4.3 mmol/l) and the duration (ranging from 5 to 660 min). Twenty-seven per cent of the articles reported whole blood glucose levels, most venous levels. In 70.8% of the studies, a dorsal hand vein was used for blood sampling, with some form of hand warming to arterialise venous blood in 78.8% of these. Key information was missing in 61.9% of the articles. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Although the hyperinsulinaemic-hypoglycaemic clamp procedure is considered the gold standard to study experimental hypoglycaemia, a uniform standard with key elements on how to perform these experiments is lacking. Methodological differences should be considered when comparing results between hypoglycaemic clamp studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: This systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019120083). ; the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement No 777460. The JU receives support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and EFPIA and T1D Exchange, JDRF, International Diabetes Federation (IDF), The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.

OBJECTIVES: Closed-loop (CL) systems modulate insulin delivery based on glucose levels measured by a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). Accuracy of the CGM affects CL performance and safety. We evaluated the accuracy of the Freestyle Navigator(®) II CGM (Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA) during three unsupervised, randomized, open-label, crossover home CL studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Paired CGM and capillary glucose values (10,597 pairs) were collected from 57 participants with type 1 diabetes (41 adults [mean±SD age, 39±12 years; mean±SD hemoglobin A1c, 7.9±0.8%] recruited at five centers and 16 adolescents [mean±SD age, 15.6±3.6 years; mean±SD hemoglobin A1c, 8.1±0.8%] recruited at two centers). Numerical accuracy was assessed by absolute relative difference (ARD) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197:2013 15/15% limits, and clinical accuracy was assessed by Clarke error grid analysis. RESULTS: Total duration of sensor use was 2,002 days (48,052 h). Overall sensor accuracy for the capillary glucose range (1.1-27.8 mmol/L) showed mean±SD and median (interquartile range) ARD of 14.2±15.5% and 10.0% (4.5%, 18.4%), respectively. Lowest mean ARD was observed in the hyperglycemic range (9.8±8.8%). Over 95% of pairs were in combined Clarke error grid Zones A and B (A, 80.1%, B, 16.2%). Overall, 70.0% of the sensor readings satisfied ISO criteria. Mean ARD was consistent (12.3%; 95% of the values fall within ±3.7%) and not different between participants (P=0.06) within the euglycemic and hyperglycemic range, when CL is actively modulating insulin delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent accuracy of the CGM within the euglycemic-hyperglycemic range using the Freestyle Navigator II was observed and supports its use in home CL studies. Our results may contribute toward establishing normative CGM performance criteria for unsupervised home use of CL. ; Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (#22-2009-802), Diabetes UK (BDA07/0003549) and Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union (Grant Agreement number 247138) with additional support for the Artificial Pancreas work by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (1R01DK085621), Wellcome Strategic Award (100574/Z/12/Z), and National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. ; This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Mary Ann Liebert via http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/dia.2015.0062