Evaluation of an Automated Priming Bolus for Improving Prandial Glucose Control in Full Closed Loop Delivery
Authors' conclusion
While there was no difference in TIR, when BPS was active an improved postprandial AUC in FCL was obtained via earlier insulin injection.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with T1D; two 24-h sessions with identical meals and activitycrossover
- Participants
- 11 adults
- Comparison
- Full closed loop automated insulin delivery (AID) with vs without bolus priming system
Methodological detailssupervised, Food and activity challenges on the day in-between sessions to test bolus priming system (BPS) safety and robustness
- Supervised
- Food and activity challenges on the day in-between sessions to test BPS safety and robustness
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Daytime CGM TIR 70-180 mg/dL
Further findings
Insulin delivery during 3 h postprandial
| Outcome | BPS | no-BPS | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Daytime time-below-range <70 mg/dL | 0% (range 0–2.1) | 0% (range 0–1.3) | |
| Postprandial iAUC, meals with potential to trigger BPS (43 of 66 meals; 24/19)Lower with BPS | 2530 ± 1934 | 3228 ± 2029 | P = 0.047 |
| 4-h TIR, meals with potential to trigger BPS | 51.2% (range 19.8–83.3) | 40.2% (range 20.8–56.3) | P = 0.24 |
Insulin delivery during 3 h postprandial
- Indistinguishable
4-h time-in-range (TIR), meals with potential to trigger BPS
- Continuous glucose monitor (CGM) outcomes inconclusive
Safety
- No severe adverse events
Original publication
Evaluation of an Automated Priming Bolus for Improving Prandial Glucose Control in Full Closed Loop Delivery. Diabetes Technol Ther. Published 6 November 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →