English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background:   Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and automated insulin delivery may make diabetes management substantially easier, if the quality of the resulting therapy remains adequate. In this study, a semi-closed-loop control algorithm was used to drive insulin therapy and its quality was compared to that of subject-directed therapy.Method:   Twelve subjects stayed at the study site for approximately 70 hours and were provided with the investigational Automated Pancreas System Test Stand (APS-TS), which was used to calculate insulin dosage recommendations automatically. These recommendations were based on microdialysis CGM values and common diabetes therapy parameters. For the first half of their stay, the subjects directed their diabetes therapy themselves, whereas for the second half, the insulin recommendations were delivered by the APS-TS (so-called algorithm-driven therapy).Results:   During subject-directed therapy, the mean glucose was 114 mg/dl compared to 125 mg/dl during algorithm-driven therapy. Time in target (90 to 150 mg/dl) was approximately 46% during subject-directed therapy and approximately 58% during algorithm-driven therapy. When subjects directed their therapy, approximately 2 times more hypoglycemia interventions (oral administration of carbohydrates) were required than during algorithm-driven therapy. No hyperglycemia interventions (delivery of addition insulin) were necessary during subject-directed therapy, while during algorithm-driven therapy, 2 hyperglycemia interventions were necessary.Conclusions:   The APS-TS was able to adequately control glucose concentrations in the subjects. Time in target was at least comparable or moderately higher during closed-loop control and markedly fewer hypoglycemia interventions were required, thus increasing patient safety.

Use of Microdialysis-Based Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Drive Real-Time Semi-Closed-Loop Insulin Infusion