Search

The Fifth Artificial Pancreas Workshop: Enabling Fully Automation, Access, and Adoption was held at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Campus in Bethesda, Maryland on May 1 to 2, 2023. The organizing Committee included representatives of NIH, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Diabetes Technology Society, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF), and the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. In previous years, the NIH Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic Diseases along with other diabetes organizations had organized periodic workshops, and it had been seven years since the NIH hosted the Fourth Artificial Pancreas in July 2016. Since then, significant improvements in insulin delivery have occurred. Several automated insulin delivery (AID) systems are now commercially available. The workshop featured sessions on: (1) Lessons Learned from Recent Advanced Clinical Trials and Real-World Data Analysis, (2) Interoperability, Data Management, Integration of Systems, and Cybersecurity, Challenges and Regulatory Considerations, (3) Adaptation of Systems Through the Lifespan and Special Populations: Are Specific Algorithms Needed, (4) Development of Adaptive Algorithms for Insulin Only and for Multihormonal Systems or Combination with Adjuvant Therapies and Drugs: Clinical Expected Outcomes and Public Health Impact, (5) Novel Artificial Intelligence Strategies to Develop Smarter, More Automated, Personalized Diabetes Management Systems, (6) Novel Sensing Strategies, Hormone Formulations and Delivery to Optimize Close-loop Systems, (7) Special Topic: Clinical and Real-world Viability of IP-IP Systems. "Fully automated closed-loop insulin delivery using the IP route," (8) Round-table Panel: Closed-loop performance: What to Expect and What are the Best Metrics to Assess it, and (9) Round-table Discussion: What is Needed for More Adaptable, Accessible, and Usable Future Generation of Systems? How to Promote Equitable Innovation? This article summarizes the discussions of the Workshop., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: DCK is a consultant for Better Therapeutics, EOFlow, Integrity, Lifecare, Nevro, Novo, Sanofi, and Thirdwayv. DK has received research support from Abbott Diabetes Care. AW receives research salary support from UnitedHealth Group. REA, TT, AMY, JH, CEM, WAL have no disclosures.

Diabetes Technology Society hosted its annual Diabetes Technology Meeting from November 3 to November 5, 2022. Meeting topics included (1) the measurement of glucose, insulin, and ketones; (2) virtual diabetes care; (3) metrics for managing diabetes and predicting outcomes; (4) integration of continuous glucose monitor data into the electronic health record; (5) regulation of diabetes technology; (6) digital health to nudge behavior; (7) estimating carbohydrates; (8) fully automated insulin delivery systems; (9) hypoglycemia; (10) novel insulins; (11) insulin delivery; (12) on-body sensors; (13) continuous glucose monitoring; (14) diabetic foot ulcers; (15) the environmental impact of diabetes technology; and (16) spinal cord stimulation for painful diabetic neuropathy. A live demonstration of a device that can allow for the recycling of used insulin pens was also presented.

Diabetes Technology Society hosted its annual Diabetes Technology Meeting on November 4 to November 6, 2021. This meeting brought together speakers to discuss various developments within the field of diabetes technology. Meeting topics included blood glucose monitoring, continuous glucose monitoring, novel sensors, direct-to-consumer telehealth, metrics for glycemia, software for diabetes, regulation of diabetes technology, diabetes data science, artificial pancreas, novel insulins, insulin delivery, skin trauma, metabesity, precision diabetes, diversity in diabetes technology, use of diabetes technology in pregnancy, and green diabetes. A live demonstration on a mobile app to monitor diabetic foot wounds was presented.

Diabetes Technology Society hosted its annual Diabetes Technology Meeting on November 12 to November 14, 2020. This meeting brought together speakers to cover various perspectives about the field of diabetes technology. The meeting topics included artificial intelligence, digital health, telemedicine, glucose monitoring, regulatory trends, metrics for expressing glycemia, pharmaceuticals, automated insulin delivery systems, novel insulins, metrics for diabetes monitoring, and discriminatory aspects of diabetes technology. A live demonstration was presented.

Newly developed patch pumps are starting to occupy a noticeable fraction of the insulin delivery market. New entrants, using novel technologies, promise accurate, flexible insulin delivery at lower costs. In the section, we review the currently available devices, discuss some of the devices on the horizon, and speculate about some fascinating new approaches. In this first article, we provide an overview of the simplified devices-V-Go, PAQ, and One Touch Via-and of the more complex devices-Omnipod, Cellnovo, JewelPump, Solo, SFC Fluidics pump, Libertas, Medtronic pump, and EOPatch. We also discuss controllers, smartphones, and cybersecurity.

Insulin pens are more accurate and easier to teach than other methods of insulin delivery. They also do not suffer from the risk of mismatch of insulin concentration and type of insulin syringe. The ISO standard used to test insulin pens, however, needs to be updated to reflect their clinical use., (© 2015 Diabetes Technology Society.)

With the availability of a smaller mixing pen, mass marketing of less stable medications is possible. Bidureon is one such medication, and the properties of its pen are discussed along with the prospects for future mixing pens., (© 2015 Diabetes Technology Society.)

Self-monitoring of blood glucose provides information about blood glucose control. The data become useful information and knowledge through careful analysis for patterns that are appropriate or can be corrected. Some analyses can be performed on newer blood glucose meters, but most often, this needs to be done on a computer, tablet, or smartphone. There are a few established methods of presenting the data that make analysis easier. In this article, we discuss four types of data presentations and the methods for utilizing them., (© 2013 Diabetes Technology Society.)

Regulatory interest has focused on the accuracy of blood glucose monitoring systems. Currently, almost all systems meet the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197 clinical standard (≥95% of the values within 20% of the reference for values above 75 mg/dl and within 15 mg/dl below that level). Should the systems have to meet one of the extended ISO standards of 15%, 10%, or even 5%? There is a wide variety of people with diabetes doing glucose monitoring, and the majority do not need better accuracy. Indeed, when selecting an insulin dose, the inaccuracy of the glucose reading has little effect compared with the inaccuracy in counting carbohydrates and the variability in insulin absorption. It might be far better to evaluate the accuracy in a standard method and provide the accuracy values on a standard label. Patients and health care providers could then select the monitoring system that best meets their needs., (© 2010 Diabetes Technology Society.)

Glucose monitoring has become an integral part of diabetes care but has some limitations in accuracy. Accuracy may be limited due to strip manufacturing variances, strip storage, and aging. They may also be due to limitations on the environment such as temperature or altitude or to patient factors such as improper coding, incorrect hand washing, altered hematocrit, or naturally occurring interfering substances. Finally, exogenous interfering substances may contribute errors to the system evaluation of blood glucose. In this review, I discuss the measurement of error in blood glucose, the sources of error, and their mechanism and potential solutions to improve accuracy in the hands of the patient. I also discuss the clinical measurement of system accuracy and methods of judging the suitability of clinical trials and finally some methods of overcoming the inaccuracies. I have included comments about additional information or education that could be done today by manufacturers in the appropriate sections. Areas that require additional work are discussed in the final section., (Copyright 2009 Diabetes Technology Society.)

Most blood glucose monitoring systems need coding to correct for variation in lots of enzyme, which leads to differences in lots of strips. About 16% of patients miscode the meters, although the magnitude of the miscoding is unstudied. This miscoding has the potential to cause errors as high as 30% and to cause errors in adjusting insulin therapy that could lead to hypoglycemia at least 10% of the time. Studies of these systems suggest that they have accuracy similar to other current meters and have similar physical characteristics. Because they do not require coding, they are often easier to use. No-coding systems have the potential to avoid some errors in blood glucose.