This application is a reissue of U.S. Pat. No. 10,188,795, which issued Jan. 29, 2019, from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/380,516, filed Dec. 15, 2016, titled “BLOOD GLUCOSE CONTROL SYSTEM,” which is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/870,634, filed Apr. 25, 2013, which is a continuation of PCT Application No. PCT/US2011/058688, filed Oct. 31, 2011, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/408,639, filed Oct. 31, 2010, and to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/470,210, filed Mar. 31, 2011, the entire contents of each of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Standard-of-care insulin therapies for regulating blood glucose in diabetes typically involve either multiple daily subcutaneous injections or subcutaneous infusion with an insulin pump. In the case of the former, daily boluses of long-acting insulin formulations, which release slowly into the blood stream, are used to provide the subject's basal metabolic insulin requirement and boluses of rapid-acting insulin formulations, which absorb rapidly into the blood stream, are used to provide insulin for meals or to treat hyperglycemia. In the case of insulin pump therapy, either regular human recombinant insulin is used or, more typically, one of several rapid-acting insulin formulations is used to provide both basal and bolus therapy. In this case, a pre-programmed basal insulin infusion rate (or a preprogrammed daily “profile” containing several different basal insulin infusion rates that vary throughout the day) is prescribed and administered automatically by the insulin pump throughout the day, and individual boluses to insulin for meals or to treat hyperglycemia are administered with the insulin pump manually by the subject as needed. The preprogrammed basal insulin infusion rate (or pre-programmed daily basal insulin infusion rate profile) can be changed to (or temporarily overridden with) a different infusion rate by the subject, but once implemented, will execute the prescribed infusion rate without knowledge of, or regard to, instantaneous glucose levels from a continuous glucose monitoring device.
Clemens & Hough (U.S. Pat. No. 4,464,170) introduced the idea of using glucose-sensor data (obtained from a device capable of frequently sampling blood glucose concentration levels) to modulate the basal infusion rate relative to a previously prescribed basal insulin infusion rate during online operation of an autonomous glucose control system. Their strategy attempts to control drift in blood glucose away from a set point blood glucose value by considering the slope of the least squares fit to past blood glucose values. The method is described in the context of intravenous insulin infusion in an in-patient setting and implicitly assumes that insulin administered by the controller appears instantly in blood.
Techniques are disclosed for adaptation of certain drug-administration parameters that control insulin delivery in a blood glucose control system. In one aspect, a technique provides relatively long-term adaptation of a nominal basal infusion rate around which the infusion of basal insulin is automatically modulated. Use of the method can provide not only a daily control regime tailored to an individual patient, but one that can also adapt to longer-term changes in a patient's needs such as may arise from growth, illness, hormonal fluctuations, physical activity, aging, etc. In another aspect, another technique provides similar adaptation of the size of bolus insulin provided at mealtimes, offering the potential of overall better glycemic control in individuals and also providing the adaptation to longer-term changes in a patient's needs. Both techniques may employ adaptation calculations using a receding-horizon window of recent values of the adapted parameter. In yet another aspect, the system also delivers doses of a counter-regulatory agent such as glucagon to the subject in response, at least in part, to information about estimated accumulation of exogenously infused insulin (either subcutaneously, intramuscularly, intraperitoneally, or intravenously) and/or the effect that insulin might have on glucose levels (either blood glucose concentration or interstitial fluid glucose concentration).
The foregoing and other objects, features and advantages will be apparent from the following description of particular embodiments of the invention, as illustrated in the accompanying drawings in which like reference characters refer to the same parts throughout the different views. The drawings are not necessarily to scale, emphasis instead being placed upon illustrating the principles of various embodiments of the invention.
The contents of the following US provisional patent applications are incorporated herein by reference:
Additionally, the contents of the following US non-provisional patent application is incorporated herein by reference:
A glucose sensor 16 is operatively coupled to the subject 12 to continually sample a glucose level of the subject 12. Sensing may be accomplished in a variety of ways. A controller 18 controls operation of the delivery device(s) 14 as a function of a glucose level signal 19 from the glucose sensor 16 and subject to programmed input parameters (PARAMS) 20 which may be provided by the patient/user. One feature of the disclosed technique is its ability to perform without receiving explicit information regarding either meals that the subject 12 has ingested or any other “feedforward” information. One necessary input parameter is the weight of the subject 12. Another externally provided parameter is a “setpoint” which, as described below, establishes a target blood glucose level that the system 10 strives to maintain.
The controller 18 is an electrical device with control circuitry that provides operating functionality as described herein. In one embodiment, the controller 18 may be realized as a computerized device having computer instruction processing circuitry that executes one or more computer programs each including respective sets of computer instructions. In this case the processing circuitry will generally include one or more processors along with memory and input/output circuitry coupled to the processor(s), where the memory stores computer program instructions and data and the input/output circuitry provides interface(s) to external devices such as the glucose sensor 16 and delivery device(s) 14.
Also shown in
The corrective controller 26 regulates blood glucose level using an MPC cost function in a manner described in US patent publication 2008/0208113A1, the contents of which are incorporated by reference herein.
Referring to the Clemens & Hough technique referred to above, while this approach may have practical utility in the setting of intravenous insulin infusion, it is susceptible to uncontrolled escalation of insulin dosing in an outpatient setting where insulin infusion would likely occur subcutaneously resulting in delayed absorption of insulin into blood. Such an approach would potentially have to be overridden often to limit escalation of insulin dosing in such a setting. Another limitation of the method is that it only captures one time scale (equal to the time associated with obtaining a fixed number of consecutive past glucose levels); it does not account for long-time variations in the subject's basal insulin requirement.
Rather than relying solely on the previously prescribed basal insulin infusion rate, which is particularly vulnerable to a run-away escalation of insulin dosing whenever subcutaneous insulin administration is used, an alternative method (herein referred to as Method 1) modulates the basal insulin infusion rate around a fixed “nominal” basal infusion rate, which is determined prior to initiating online operation of the glucose control system (e.g. based on the subject's weight or based on previous open- or closed-loop control results in the subject). This can be described as follows: Through any manner by which automated insulin infusion may be controlled online (such as through a model predictive control strategy, a proportional-integral-derivative control strategy, fuzzy logic, neural networks, or some other control strategy), there can be added a basal infusion rate of insulin delivered when control or corrective doses of insulin are not otherwise indicated. Basal-rate infusion typically uses smaller but more frequent doses than priming or control doses used to treat meals or hyperglycemic excursions in glucose concentration levels. A fixed nominal basal infusion rate can be initially prescribed (i.e. just before initiating online operation of closed-loop control) and then modulated by its own control algorithm, or it can be prescribed in advance in the form of a fixed basal infusion rate profile that follows the same pattern from day to day (or week to week), and is then modulated online. The basal insulin infusion rate is automatically modulated around the fixed nominal infusion rate using any of a variety of control strategies including, but not limited to, model predictive control, proportional-integral-derivative control, fuzzy logic, neural networks, etc.
As another distinction from the method described by Clemens & Hough, the modulation of the basal insulin infusion rate described here should be constrained to fall within minimum and maximum values around the nominal basal infusion rate so as to prevent a run-away escalation of insulin dosing. The maximum value may be, for example, some constant multiple of the fixed nominal basal infusion rate.
Although Method 1 represents an improvement upon the technique of Clemens & Hough by preventing runaway escalation of insulin dosing through constraining the maximum instantaneous basal infusion rate, it only captures one time scale, i.e. that which is associated with the sampling interval between glucose measurements. Method 1 can be further improved with an alternative method (herein referred to as Method 2) that allows the nominal basal infusion rate itself to vary over time, which, in turn, allows the instantaneous basal infusion rate to inherit a second longer time scale capable of capturing physiological variations in the subject's basal metabolic insulin requirement. Whereas the instantaneous basal infusion rate can change rapidly on the very short time scale associated with the sampling interval between glucose measurements, the introduction of a nominal basal infusion rate that varies over time more slowly than the instantaneous basal infusion rate provides a second degree of freedom that can capture physiological drift in a subject's basal metabolic insulin requirement while still constraining the maximum instantaneous basal infusion rate to be some constant multiple of the nominal basal infusion rate, and thereby preventing run-away escalation of basal insulin dosing.
In particular, referring to
As an example of one embodiment of Method 2, the nominal basal infusion rate of insulin (or an insulin-like agent) can be initially prescribed at t=0 as μ0. Then, the nominal basal infusion rate,
where α is a scaling parameter. Alternatively, the implementation could be performed in discrete time, where k is the index of the current time step, δt is the size of the discrete time step (i.e. an index increment of 1), and N=Δt/δt is the size of the time interval, giving the alternative form for the instantaneous dynamic nominal basal infusion rate of:
The instantaneous basal infusion rate, μ(t), or μk in discrete time, is allowed to modulate around the instantaneous dynamic nominal value,
Thus, Method 2 offers an approach that is capable of both preventing run-away escalation of insulin dosing (by constraining the maximum instantaneous basal infusion rate to be some constant multiple of the dynamic nominal basal infusion rate) as well as capturing multiple time scales for adaptation. In particular, μ(t) (or μk) is allowed to vary rapidly online over a time scale δt (which might be on the order of minutes in real time and O(1) in discrete time), whereas
The approach according to Method 2 sets the instantaneous dynamic nominal basal infusion rate,
or in discrete time,
In the same manner as described above for Method 2, in Method 3, the instantaneous basal infusion rate, μ(t) (or μk), is allowed to modulate around the instantaneous dynamic nominal value,
In either implementation, i.e. according to either Method 2 (Equations (1) and (2)) or Method 3 (Equations (3) and (4)), the determined dynamic nominal basal infusion rate can be limited between a global minimum value,
Methods 2 or 3 can equally be applied to adapt online a nominal basal-rate profile that includes a set of different nominal basal-rate levels that could be prescribed for different time periods of the day or for different days, or both. The individual nominal basal-rate levels within a (daily or semi-daily) profile could be of different time durations and their durations or their starting and ending times could also vary from day to day. The individual nominal basal-rate levels could be prescribed globally for all individuals or could be prescribed differently for different individuals, and could be based on previous control results (e.g. open-loop or closed-loop settings for each individual subject).
An example of this embodiment is to use the method above to adapt an initially prescribed μ0:=μ0(t) (or μ0k in discrete time) that could be represented as a piecewise function. As such, Equations (1) or (3) in real time (or Equations (2) and (4) in discrete time) could be applied to each of the individual nominal basal-rate levels within the piecewise function. At the time juncture between consecutive nominal basal-rate levels, the transition could occur as a discontinuous jump from the nominal basal-rate level of the elapsed time period to the nominal basal-rate level of the entered time period. Alternatively, the transition could occur in a gradual fashion (e.g. linearly) over a certain time period that could be fixed or variable. Moreover, the previous adaptation history of individual nominal basal-rate levels could be inherited upon subsequently encountering the same or an overlapping time period or time juncture (e.g. on the next day or after a number of days). The online instantaneous basal infusion rate could then be a modulation based on the current nominal basal-rate level pertaining to the current time period online, or based on adjacent nominal basal-rate levels during a transition between nominal basal-rate levels online.
All of the methods described above could be used in the in-patient (e.g. critical care units or general wards) or out-patient settings and could be used in the context of an autonomous or semi-autonomous closed-loop blood-glucose control system. The methods could also be used in open-loop systems where only the basal infusion rate is automatically controlled and all other doses are manually administered. In any case, modulation of the instantaneous basal infusion rate, μ(t) (or μk), and long-time adaptation of those modulations around the moving average dynamic nominal basal infusion rate,
In another aspect, a method is shown for automatically adapting doses of infused insulin or insulin-like agents (either subcutaneously, intramuscularly, intraperitoneally, or intravenously) where the doses are intended to partially or fully compensate for food (carbohydrate) consumption. The doses can be administered prior to, during, or after food consumption, or could be split across these times. The online adaptation method can automatically tune these meal-time insulin doses on an individual basis and can automatically adjust them over time to respond to long-time changes in the individual's insulin requirement, such as might occur over a period of weeks, months, or years due to developmental changes (e.g. due to hormonal changes that occur during puberty or menopause), or as might occur over a period of hours, days, or weeks due to transient changes (e.g. due to circadian hormonal fluctuations, intercurrent illness, physical activity, or emotional state).
Standard-of-care insulin therapies for regulating blood glucose in diabetes typically involve either multiple daily subcutaneous injections or subcutaneous infusion with an insulin pump. Typically, combinations of “basal and bolus” insulin are administered to meet the subject's basal metabolic insulin requirement as well to regulate hyperglycemia; additional “meal bolus” doses (also referred to herein as “priming doses”) are added to provide insulin for food consumption. Insulin doses intended to compensate for meals are usually estimated on an individual basis based on the quantity and content (carbohydrate and other) of the food, in conjunction with an estimate of the individual's so-called “insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio”, among other factors such as the time of the day, physical activity, health state, emotional state, etc. The correct meal-bolus insulin amount, therefore, could vary significantly among individuals as well as within an individual. Moreover, the amount of meal-bolus insulin is often a major determinant of how well an individual is able to control their blood glucose. We provide a method that would automatically and continually adjust meal-time doses of insulin (intended to partially or fully compensate for food consumption), based on the individual's response to previous meal doses.
In particular, referring to
As an example of one embodiment of the method of
or in discrete time,
The target ratios, βm, can also be varied over time, i.e. βm:=βm(t) (or βkm). Moreover, different time intervals δt could be used in the computations of Cm(τ) (or Cjm) for different meals m (or different time intervals m) of the day. Furthermore, the implementation could start taking effect gradually online (e.g. linearly or stepwise) from the first day at t=1 (or k=1) until the interval size Δt (or N) is reached online. Alternatively, the method can take its full effect from the start while transiently using n=1, 2, 3, . . . in lieu of the intended full interval size N, until n reaches N, after which the implementation takes on its steady form of a “moving average” over its full “receding horizon” N. Finally, the interval length Δt (or N) could also be made variable with m and/or time t (or k).
The method described above could be used in the in-patient (e.g. critical care units or general wards) or out-patient settings and could be used in the context of an autonomous or semi-autonomous closed-loop blood-glucose control system. Feedback from the use of this method during autonomous or semi-autonomous control could also be used to inform open-loop systems, that may or may not be augmented with an online glucose sensor.
In another aspect, a method is shown for automatically modulating doses of infused glucagon (either subcutaneously, intramuscularly, intraperitoneally, or intravenously) that relies in part on information about the estimated accumulation of exogenously infused insulin (either subcutaneously, intramuscularly, intraperitoneally, or intravenously) and/or the effect that insulin might have on glucose levels (either blood glucose concentration or interstitial fluid glucose concentration). Through any manner by which automated glucagon infusion may be controlled online (such as through a model predictive control strategy, a proportional-derivative control strategy, or some other control strategy), there can be derived a mathematical formulation by which the control dose of glucagon depends in some manner upon the estimated accumulation of exogenously infused insulin. Specifically, the particular formulation employed would cause the glucagon infusion rate (or delivery amount) to be higher at times when the accumulation of infused insulin is relatively higher than it would be at times when the accumulation of infused insulin is relatively lower.
In particular, referring to
As an example of one embodiment of the method of
Gdose(t)=ƒ(ie(t)){kp(β−yt)+kd(yt-1−yt)/Ts}; 0≤Gdose(t)≤Gmax, (7)
where Gmax is the maximum allowable glucagon dose (which may be infinite), t is in discrete time, kp is the proportional gain, kd is the derivative gain, Ts is the sampling period, ie(t) is the estimated accumulation of exogenously infused insulin, and ƒ(ie(t)) is some specified function of ie(t) that has units of Gdose(t). An example ƒ(ie(t)) might be a sigmoidal function that is near unity whenever ie(t) is less than some factor times some estimated nominal or baseline value of the plasma insulin level and then begins to increase significantly as ie(t) exceeds this nominal value. Alternatively, in another embodiment, the dependence of Gdose(t) on ie(t) might appear in an additive way, by the introduction of an additional gain parameter, ki, such that
Gdose(t)=kp(β−yt)+kd(yt-1−yt)/Ts+kdie(t); 0≤Gdose(t)≤Gmax, (8)
where ki might vanish whenever ie(t) is less than some factor times some estimated nominal or baseline value of the plasma insulin level.
Variations on the above examples might include an additive term, Gpending(t), which is deducted from Gdose(t), and which represents an estimate of pending subcutaneous glucagon from recent doses. This could be computed, for example, with a function such as
where G1/2 is an estimate of the average half life of subcutaneous doses of glucagon. Note that the estimate Gpending(t) limits unnecessary subcutaneous accumulation of glucagon. Thus, including Gpending(t) in Equations (7) and (8) could provide the alternate forms given by
Gdose(t)=ƒ(ie(t)){kp(β−yt)+kd(yt-1−yt)/Ts−Gpending(t)}; 0≤Gdose(t)≤Gmax, (10)
Gdose(t)=kp(β−yt)+kd(yt-1−yt)/Ts+kdie(t)−Gpending(t); 0≤Gdose(t)≤Gmax, (11)
Alternatively, Gpending(t) might appear in an additive way, by the introduction of an additional gain parameter, kg, such that Gpending(t) in Equations (10) and (11) might be replaced by kgge(t), where ge(t) is the estimated accumulation of exogenously infused glucagon.
In yet another embodiment, the control doses of glucagon, Gdose(t), may employ a model predictive control (MPC) strategy, where the modulation of glucagon doses due to the estimated accumulation of exogenously infused insulin, ie(t), could be achieved using an outer scaling function (similar to the function ƒ(ie(t)) in Equation (7)). For example, the control doses of glucagon may be computed as:
Gdose(t)=g(ie(t))ut; 0≤Gdose(t)≤Gmax, (12)
where ut is the MPC glucagon dose signal and g(ie(t)) is an outer scaling that is similar or identical to ƒ(ie(t)) in that it is some function that is near unity whenever ie(t) is less than some factor times some estimated nominal or baseline value of the plasma insulin level and is significantly higher when as ie(t) exceeds this nominal value. One example for computing ut is using an MPC cost function such as:
where ut denotes the MPC glucagon dose signal, yt the glucose concentration signal, rt the reference set point signal, Nd and Nm are respectively the minimum and maximum (output) prediction costing horizon limits, Nu the control horizon bound, m the weighting on prediction error, and λn the weighting on control signals. The glucose concentration, yt, and the glucagon dose signal, ut, could also be related by subject model. Upon solving Equation (13) for the MPC glucagon dose signal, ut, the outer scaling with g(ie(t)) could then be applied as per Equation (12) to compute the control doses of glucagon, Gdose(t). Alternatively, the control doses of glucagon, Gdose(t), could be based on the MPC glucagon dose signal, ut, and an incorporation of the effect of ie(t) in an additive way, by the introduction of a gain parameter, ki, such that
Gdose(t)=ut+kiie)t); 0≤Gdose(t)≤Gmax, (14)
where ki might vanish whenever ie(t) is less than some factor times some estimated nominal or baseline value of the plasma insulin level.
Furthermore, the control doses of glucagon, Gdose(t), could also take into account the accumulation of glucagon from past glucagon doses. This could be handled by computing a quantity Gpending(t) similar to that described in Equation (9) and computing the control doses of glucagon as per
Gdose(t)=g(ie(t)){ut−Gpending(t)}; 0≤Gdose(t)≤Gmax, (15)
or
Gdose(t)=ut+ki(ie(t))−Gpending(t); 0≤Gdose(t)≤Gmax, (16)
Alternatively, Gpending(t) might appear in an additive way, by the introduction of an additional gain parameter, kg, such that Gpending(t) in Equations (15) and (16) might be replaced by kgge(t), where ge(t) is the estimated accumulation of exogenously infused glucagon.
Another option for accounting for the accumulation of glucagon from past doses is by augmenting the MPC cost function in Equation (13) with a mathematical formulation that estimates the accumulation of exogenous glucagon in a manner similar to that described in US patent publication 2008/0208113A1. Such an augmentation could take into account the accumulation of glucagon in both the administration site(s) as well as in plasma and could be based on pharmacokinetics of the administered glucagon pertaining to the method or route of administration as well as to the specific constituents present in the glucagon solution, including the type of glucagon or glucagon analog itself. With such an augmentation in effect, the MPC glucagon dose signal, ut, becomes an augmented MPC glucagon dose signal, μ′t. The augmented MPC glucagon dose signal, μ′t, could replace the MPC glucagon dose signal, μt in both Equations (12) and (14) to provide the control doses of glucagon, Gdose(t).
Other control signals could replace the MPC glucagon dose signal, ut, in Equations (12), (14), (15), or (16) and could be based on another algorithm such as a neural network, or a fuzzy logic, or a standard optimization algorithm.
In all the formulations above, the function ie(t) may be computed by any manner by which the accumulation of exogenously infused insulin might be estimated.
It will be appreciated that the present invention may be embodied as an overall system such as shown in
While various embodiments of the invention have been particularly shown and described, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes in form and details may be made therein without departing from the scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims.
This invention was made with Government Support under Contract No. DK085633 awarded by the National Institutes of Health. The US Government has certain rights in the invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4280494 | Cosgrove et al. | Jul 1981 | A |
4464170 | Clemens et al. | Aug 1984 | A |
5665065 | Colman | Sep 1997 | A |
6544212 | Galley et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6554798 | Mann et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6572542 | Houben | Jun 2003 | B1 |
7347836 | Peterson | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7491187 | Van Den Berghe et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7651845 | Doyle, III et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7655618 | Green et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7678762 | Green et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7678763 | Green et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7683027 | Green et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7766829 | Sloan et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7806854 | Damiano et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7850641 | Lebel et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
8273052 | Damiano et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8348842 | Osorio | Jan 2013 | B1 |
8377031 | Hayter et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8454510 | Yodfat et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8457901 | Beshan | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8478557 | Hayter | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8562587 | Kovatchev et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8622988 | Hayter | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8679016 | Mastrototaro et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
8690820 | Cinar | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8840582 | Blomquist et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
9283323 | Toumazou | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9351670 | Dunn | May 2016 | B2 |
9398869 | Kovatchev et al. | Jul 2016 | B2 |
9445757 | Desborough | Sep 2016 | B2 |
9486578 | Finan | Nov 2016 | B2 |
9750438 | Kovatchev et al. | Sep 2017 | B2 |
9833570 | El-Khatib et al. | Dec 2017 | B2 |
9839395 | Shariati | Dec 2017 | B2 |
9901677 | Estes | Feb 2018 | B2 |
9907909 | Finan | Mar 2018 | B2 |
9999728 | Parikh | Jun 2018 | B2 |
10188793 | Mazlish | Jan 2019 | B2 |
10188795 | El-Khatib et al. | Jan 2019 | B2 |
10357607 | Blomquist et al. | Jul 2019 | B2 |
10463786 | Saint | Nov 2019 | B2 |
10543313 | Damiano et al. | Jan 2020 | B2 |
10569016 | Rosinko | Feb 2020 | B2 |
10653834 | Kruse et al. | May 2020 | B2 |
20030181852 | Mann et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20040028707 | Pinkerton | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040034295 | Salganicoff | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040147872 | Thompson | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040253736 | Stout et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050272640 | Doyle, III et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060173406 | Hayes | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060272652 | Stocker | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060276771 | Gally | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070282299 | Hellwig | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080154187 | Krulevitch | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080177165 | Blomquist | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080183060 | Steil et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080208113 | Damiano et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080269714 | Mastrototaro et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080319384 | Yodfat et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090006061 | Thukral et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090164239 | Hayter et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090177154 | Blomquist | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20100057057 | Hayter et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100082167 | Haueter et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100125241 | Prud'homme et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100137788 | Braithwaite et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100145262 | Bengtsson | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100256466 | Shekalim et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100262117 | Magni et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100292634 | Kircher, Jr. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110021898 | Wei et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110054391 | Ward et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110208155 | Palerm et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110208156 | Doyle, III et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20120065894 | Tubb et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120078067 | Kovatchev et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120245556 | Kovatchev et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120246106 | Atlas et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120265126 | Estes | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120265722 | Blomquist | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120277723 | Skladnev | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120283694 | Yodfat et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20130190583 | Grosman | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20140031786 | Kircher, Jr. et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20150018633 | Kovachev et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150217052 | Keenan et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150217053 | Booth | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20160224756 | Berger | Aug 2016 | A1 |
20160331898 | Damiano | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20170095612 | El-Khatib et al. | Apr 2017 | A1 |
20170203038 | Desborough et al. | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20180185587 | Brauker | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20180200440 | Mazlish et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20190214124 | Mougiakakou | Jul 2019 | A1 |
20190247578 | Desborough et al. | Aug 2019 | A1 |
20190336684 | O'Connor | Nov 2019 | A1 |
20200254240 | Windmiller | Aug 2020 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1973768 | Jun 2007 | CN |
201186082 | Jan 2009 | CN |
101795623 | Aug 2010 | CN |
102667787 | Sep 2012 | CN |
104667368 | Aug 2017 | CN |
104667379 | Aug 2017 | CN |
1 575 656 | Jun 2009 | EP |
3 453 414 | Mar 2019 | EP |
03-500129 | Mar 1989 | JP |
2001-204817 | Jul 2001 | JP |
2003-079723 | Mar 2003 | JP |
2004-502474 | Jan 2004 | JP |
2007-529241 | Oct 2007 | JP |
2007-529241 | Oct 2007 | JP |
2007-312923 | Dec 2007 | JP |
2008545454 | Dec 2008 | JP |
2010523167 | Jul 2010 | JP |
2010531678 | Sep 2010 | JP |
2010531707 | Sep 2010 | JP |
2012-516735 | Jul 2012 | JP |
2012-519018 | Aug 2012 | JP |
WO 04006982 | Jan 2004 | WO |
WO 04084820 | Oct 2004 | WO |
2006124716 | Nov 2006 | WO |
WO 06124716 | Nov 2006 | WO |
2008057384 | May 2008 | WO |
WO 08057384 | May 2008 | WO |
2008094249 | Aug 2008 | WO |
WO 08094249 | Aug 2008 | WO |
2008114254 | Sep 2008 | WO |
WO 08114254 | Sep 2008 | WO |
2008157780 | Dec 2008 | WO |
2009001349 | Dec 2008 | WO |
WO 08157780 | Dec 2008 | WO |
WO 09001349 | Dec 2008 | WO |
WO 12058694 | May 2012 | WO |
WO 14110541 | Jul 2014 | WO |
WO 15021041 | Feb 2015 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Albisser et al., May 1974, An Artificial Endocrine Pancreas, Diabetes, 23(5):389-396. |
Bellazzi et al., 1995, Adaptive Controllers for Intelligent Monitoring, Artif. Intell. Med., 7:515-540. |
Bellomo et al., May 1982, Optimal Feedback Glycaemia Regulation in Diabetics, Med. & Biol. Eng. & Comp. 20:329-335. |
Berian et al., 2019, A wearable closed-loop insulin delivery systme based on low-power SoCs, Electronics, 8:612. |
Botz, May 1976, An Improved Control Algorithm for an Artificial .beta.-Cell, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., BME-23(3):252-255. |
Brunetti et al., 1993, A Simulation Study on a Self-Tuning Portable Controller of Blood Glucose, Int. J. Artif. Org., 16(1):51-57. |
Candas et al., Feb. 1994, An Adaptive Plasma Glucose Controller Based on a Nonlinear Insulin/Glucose Model, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 41(2):116-124. |
Clemens, 1979, Feedback Control Dynamics for Glucose Controlled Insulin Infusion Systems, Med. Prog. Technol. 6:91-98. |
El-Khatib et al., Apr. 14, 2010, A Bihormonal Closed-Loop Artificial Pancreas for Type 1 Diabetes, Science.Trans. Med., 2(27):1-12. |
El-Khatib et al., Jul. 2009, A Feasibility Study of Bihormonal Closed-Loop Blood-Glucose Control Using Dual Subcutaneous Infusion of Insulin and Glucagon in Ambulatory Diabetic Swine, Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 3(4):789-803. |
El-Khatib, et al., Mar. 2007, Adaptive Closed-Loop Control Provides Blood-Glucose Regulation Using Dual Subcutaneous Insulin nd Glucagon Infusion in Diabetic Swine, Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 1(2):181-192. |
El-Khatib, et al., May 2014, Autonomous and Continuous Adaptation of a Bihormonal Bionic Pancreas in Adults and Adolescents Nilh Type 1 Diabetes, Journal of Clinical Endocrin. Melab., 99(5):1701-1711. |
Femat et al., Aug. 22-27, 1999, Blood Glucose Regulation: An Output Feedback Approach, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Control App. pp. 1290-1293. |
Fischer et al., Aug. 1987, Does Physiological Blood Glucose Control Require an Adaptive Control Strategy?, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., BME-34:575-582. |
Fletcher et al., 2001, Feasibility of an Implanted, Closed-Loop, Blood-Glucose Control Device, Immunology 230, Stanford University, Spring 01, 31 pp. |
Furler et al., Nov.-Dec. 1985, Blood Glucose Control by Intermittent Loop Closure in the Basal Mode: Computer Simulation Studies with a Diabetic Model, Diabetes Care, 8(6):553-561. |
Kan et al., 2000, Novel Control System for Blood Glucose Using a Model Predictive Method, ASAIO Journal, 4:657-662. |
Lal et al., Jul. 5, 2019, Realizing a closed-loop (artifical pancreas) system for the treatment of type 1 diabetes, Endocrine reviews, 40(6):1521-1546. |
Lauritzen et al., May 1983 Pharmacokinetics of Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion, Diabetologia, 24(5):326-329. |
Marliss et al., Jul. 1977, Normalization of Glycemia in Diabetics During Meals with Insulin and Glucagon Delivery by the Artificial Pancreas, Diabetes, 26:663-672. |
Medtronic, 2020, Minimed™ 670G Insulin Pump System, product brochure, https://www.medtronicdiabetes.com/products/minimed-670g-insulin-pump-system, 7 pp. |
Pagurek et al., 1972, Adaptive Control of the Human Glucose Regulatory System, Med. Biol. Eng., 10:752-761. |
Panteleon et al., Jul. 2006, Evaluation of the effect of gain on the meal response of an automated closed-loop insulin delivery system, Diabetes, 55:1995-2000. |
Parker et al., 1996, Model Predictive Control for Infusion Pump Insulin Delivery, Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference of the IEEE, 6:1822-1823. |
Parker et al., Feb. 1999, A Model-Based Algorithm for Blood Glucose Control in Type I Diabetic Patients, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 46(2):148-157. |
Parker et al., Jan.-Feb. 2001, The Intravenous Route to Blood Glucose Control, IEEE Eng. Med. & Biol., pp. 65-73. |
Parrish et al., Jun. 1997, Control of an Artificial Human Pancreas Using the SDRE Method, Proc. American Control Conf., 2:1059-1060. |
Russell et al., Nov. 2010, Efficacy Determinants of Subcutaneous Microdose Glucagon during Closed-Loop Control, Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 4(6):1288-1304. |
Russell, et al., Jun. 15, 2014, Outpatient Glycemic Control with a Bionic Pancreas in Type 1 Diabetes, The New England Journal of Medicine, 371(4):313-325. |
Russell, et al., Nov. 2012, Blood Glucose Control in Type 1 Diabetes With a Bihormonal Bionic Endocrine Pancreas, Diabetes Care, 35:2148-2155. |
Sivaramakrishnan et al., 2017, Optimal model based control for blood glucose insulin system using continuous glucose monitoring, J. Pharm. Sci & Res., 9(4):465-469. |
Steil et al., 2006, Metabolic modelling and the closed-loop insulin delivery problem, Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 74:S183-S186. |
Steil et al., Dec. 2006, Feasibility of automating insulin delivery for the treatment of type 1 diabetes, Diabetes, 55:3344-3350. |
Trajanoski et al., Sep. 1998, Neural Predictive Controller for Insulin Delivery Using the Subcutaneous Route, Biomedical Engineering, 45(9):1122-1134. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61470210 | Mar 2011 | US | |
61408639 | Oct 2010 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13870634 | Apr 2013 | US |
Child | 17160506 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | PCT/US2011/058688 | Oct 2011 | WO |
Child | 13870634 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 15380516 | Dec 2016 | US |
Child | 17160506 | US |