Insulin dose optimization using an automated artificial intelligence-based decision support system in youths with type 1 diabetes
Revital Nimri,Tadej Battelino,Lori M. Laffel,Robert H. Slover,Desmond Schatz,Stuart A. Weinzimer,Klemen Dovc,Thomas Danne,Moshe Phillip,Shlomit Shalitin,Rachel Bello,Michal Nevo-Shenker,Naama Fisch-Shvalb,Galit Shiovitch-Mantzuri,Orit Choresh,Irit Drutz,Yehiel Nava,Alona Hemo,Orna Hermon,Rachel Nave,Natasa Bratina,Darja Smigoe-Schweiger,Brigita Mali,Ana Gianini,Urska Sever,Barbara Murn Berkopec,Michelle Katz,Elvira Isganaitis,Sanjeev Mehta,Heidi Quinn,Nisha Naik,Zijing Guo,Lisa Volkening,Gregory Forlenza,R. Paul Wadwa,G. Todd Alonso,Laurel Messer,Lindsey Towers,Katie Thivener,Cari Berget,Samantha Lange,Emily Jost,Maria Rossick-Solis,Michael Haller,Paul Hiers,Laura Jacobsen,Madison Smith,Anastasia O’Neill,Jennifer Hosford,Alexis Perry,Eda Cengiz,Jennifer Sherr,Kathryn Gibbons,Lori Carria,Melinda Zgorski,Torben Biester,Olga Kordonouri,Thekla von dem Berge,Sarah Biester,Kerstin Remus,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-1045-7
IF: 82.9
2020-09-01
Nature Medicine
Abstract:Despite the increasing adoption of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring devices, most people with type 1 diabetes do not achieve their glycemic goals<sup><a href="/articles/s41591-020-1045-7#ref-CR1">1</a></sup>. This could be related to a lack of expertise or inadequate time for clinicians to analyze complex sensor-augmented pump data. We tested whether frequent insulin dose adjustments guided by an automated artificial intelligence-based decision support system (AI-DSS) is as effective and safe as those guided by physicians in controlling glucose levels. ADVICE4U was a six-month, multicenter, multinational, parallel, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial in 108 participants with type 1 diabetes, aged 10–21 years and using insulin pump therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT03003806). Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive remote insulin dose adjustment every three weeks guided by either an AI-DSS, (AI-DSS arm, <i>n</i> = 54) or by physicians (physician arm, <i>n</i> = 54). The results for the primary efficacy measure—the percentage of time spent within the target glucose range (70–180 mg dl<sup>−1</sup> (3.9–10.0 mmol l<sup>−1</sup>))—in the AI-DSS arm were statistically non-inferior to those in the physician arm (50.2 ± 11.1% versus 51.6 ± 11.3%, respectively, <i>P</i> < 1 × 10<sup>−7</sup>). The percentage of readings below 54 mg dl<sup>−1</sup> (<3.0 mmol l<sup>−1</sup>) within the AI-DSS arm was statistically non-inferior to that in the physician arm (1.3 ± 1.4% versus 1.0 ± 0.9%, respectively, <i>P</i> < 0.0001). Three severe adverse events related to diabetes (two severe hypoglycemia, one diabetic ketoacidosis) were reported in the physician arm and none in the AI-DSS arm. In conclusion, use of an automated decision support tool for optimizing insulin pump settings was non-inferior to intensive insulin titration provided by physicians from specialized academic diabetes centers.
biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology,medicine, research & experimental