Home | About | Journals | Submit | Contact Us | Français |

**|**J Diabetes Sci Technol**|**v.3(5); 2009 September**|**PMC2769900

Formats

Article sections

Authors

Related links

J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009 September; 3(5): 1047–1057.

Published online 2009 September. doi: 10.1177/193229680900300508

PMCID: PMC2769900

Sami S. Kanderian, M.S.,^{1} Stu Weinzimer, M.D.,^{2} Gayane Voskanyan, Ph.D.,^{1,}^{3} and Garry M. Steil, Ph.D.^{4}

Correspondence to: Garry M. Steil, Ph.D., Children's Hospital Boston, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115; email address ude.dravrah.snerdlihc@liets.yrrag

Copyright © 2009 Diabetes Technology Society

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Algorithms for closed-loop insulin delivery can be designed and tuned empirically; however, a metabolic model that is predictive of clinical study results can potentially accelerate the process.

Using data from a previously conducted closed-loop insulin delivery study, existing models of meal carbohydrate appearance, insulin pharmacokinetics, and the effect on glucose metabolism were identified for each of the 10 subjects studied. Insulin's effects to increase glucose uptake and decrease endogenous glucose production were described by the Bergman minimal model, and compartmental models were used to describe the pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous insulin absorption and glucose appearance following meals. The composite model, comprised of only five equations and eight parameters, was identified with and without intraday variance in insulin sensitivity (S_{I}), glucose effectiveness at zero insulin (*GEZI*), and endogenous glucose production (*EGP*) at zero insulin.

Substantial intraday variation in SI, GEZI and EGP was observed in 7 of 10 subjects (root mean square error in model fit greater than 25 mg/dl with fixed parameters and nadir and/or peak glucose levels differing more than 25 mg/dl from model predictions). With intraday variation in these three parameters, plasma glucose and insulin were well fit by the model (*R*^{2} = 0.933 ± 0.00971 [mean ± standard error of the mean] ranging from 0.879–0.974 for glucose; *R*^{2} = 0.879 ± 0.0151, range 0.819–0.972 for insulin). Once subject parameters were identified, the original study could be reconstructed using only the initial glucose value and basal insulin rate at the time closed loop was initiated together with meal carbohydrate information (glucose, *R*^{2} = 0.900 ± 0.015; insulin delivery, *R*^{2} = 0.640 ± 0.034; and insulin concentration, *R*^{2} = 0.717 ± 0.041).

Metabolic models used in developing and comparing closed-loop insulin delivery algorithms will need to explicitly describe intraday variation in metabolic parameters, but the model itself need not be comprised by a large number of compartments or differential equations.

Open-loop glucose control using either continuous subcutaneous (SC) insulin infusion or multiple insulin injections, with or without continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), results in less-than-optimal glucose control in many individuals with diabetes mellitus.^{1} Changing physio-logical conditions during the day or between days together with an inability of individuals to accurately estimate carbohydrate intake can result in undesired glucose excursions that might be avoided with a closed-loop system. However, limitations exist in designing closed-loop algorithms based on clinical studies alone. Clinical studies take substantial resources to perform, limiting the number of subjects that can be enrolled and the total time each subject is studied. Changing controller design based purely on empirical results may require numerous clinical iterations before satisfactory results are obtained, and closed-loop studies performed with no *a priori* knowledge of the controller's expected behavior may introduce unnecessary risk to the patient. A mathematical model of glucose metabolism can potentially accelerate the process, provided the model can predict results from changes in controller design or tuning. Numerous models exist in the literature for simulating glucose profiles,^{2} but the models do not typically describe intraday or interday variance in the patient metabolic profile. Most models have not been identified specifically using data from individuals with type 1 diabetes.^{3}

One approach to modeling is to “clone” subjects previously studied under closed-loop insulin delivery. This approach has been used previously to evaluate control algorithm for intravenous insulin delivery in the intensive care unit.^{4} Obtaining model parameters from closed-loop data acquired over a 24 h period can potentially allow intraday variance to be quantified. Closed-loop data are ideally suited for identifying parameters in that frequent blood samples are available for measuring plasma glucose and insulin levels, insulin delivery rates vary substantially through the day (persistent excitation), and meal carbohydrate intake can be accurately determined by trained dieticians. Subjects identified from closed-loop data should allow model simulations to be performed, evaluating new control strategies and the results compared with the original clinical results. Ideally, the results from such simulations would be validated in new clinical studies on either the same subjects or on subjects independent from those used to identify the model. The initial step requires model parameters to be identified on a fixed number of subjects, and this is the focus of the present study.

Data from a previous closed-loop study conducted in 10 adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus were used to identify a composite metabolic model. Details of the study have been published;^{5} however, in brief, 10 subjects were studied (8 females, 2 males, mean [± standard deviation] aged 42.5 ± 11.5 years, duration of diabetes 18.0 ± 13.5 years) under closed-loop control for approximately 28 h. Blood samples were taken approximately every 20 min for measurement of plasma insulin and glucose. A proportional-integral-derivative (PID) model of the β cell^{6} was used with the Medtronic MiniMed SC glucose sensor and insulin pump to effect closed-loop control on a minute-to-minute sample interval. The content and the amount of ingested carbohydrates was determined and logged by a trained dietician at the time of the study. Breakfast, lunch, dinner, and a late-night snack were given on day 1 followed by breakfast on day 2. Carbohydrate consumed at times other than scheduled meals were in response to blood glucose < 60 mg/dl or hypoglycemic symptoms, with juice denoted by †.

Metabolic models describing the pharmacokinetic (PK)pharmacodynamic (PD) response of SC insulin, glucose appearance following meals (*Ra*), and the effect of insulin to lower blood glucose were used. For the PK/PD response,an identifiable realization of the three-compartment model originally studied by Insel and colleagues^{7} was used to describe plasma insulin concentration (*Ip*) in response to SC insulin delivery [*ID*; **Equations (1)–(3)**]. Insulin effect (*I*_{EFF}) was coupled with the Bergman minimal model^{8} [**Equations (3)** and **(4)**, with **Equation (3)** overlapping the Sherwin model] and a two-compartment model of glucose appearance following a meal (*R _{A}*) was chosen [

$$\frac{d{I}_{SC}\left(t\right)}{dt}=-\frac{1}{{\tau}_{1}}\cdot {I}_{SC}\left(t\right)+\frac{1}{{\tau}_{1}}\frac{ID\left(t\right)}{{C}_{I}}$$

(1)

$$\frac{d{I}_{P}\left(t\right)}{dt}=-\frac{1}{{\tau}_{2}}\cdot {I}_{P}\left(t\right)+\frac{1}{{\tau}_{2}}\cdot {I}_{SC}\left(t\right)$$

(2)

$$\frac{d{I}_{EFF}\left(t\right)}{dt}=-{p}_{2}\cdot {I}_{EFF}\left(t\right)+{p}_{2}\cdot {S}_{I}\cdot {I}_{P}\left(t\right)$$

(3)

$$\frac{dG\left(t\right)}{dt}=-\left(GEZI+{I}_{EFF}\right)\cdot G\left(t\right)+EGP+{R}_{A}\left(t\right)$$

(4)

$${R}_{A}\left(t\right)=\frac{{C}_{H}\left(t\right)}{{V}_{G}\cdot {\tau}_{m}{\text{\hspace{0.17em}}}^{2}}\cdot t\cdot {e}^{-\frac{1}{{\tau}_{m}}}$$

(5)

The MVP model has eight identifiable parameters: τ_{1} and τ_{2} are time constants associated with insulin movement between the SC delivery site and plasma (time constants relate to the more familiar concept of a single process half-time *T*_{1/2} by a factor 0.693); *C _{I}* is insulin clearance (ml/min);

Two modifications to the model were tested. First, the two-compartment PK model [**Equations (1)** and **(2)**] was compared with a three-compartment model:

$$\frac{d{I}_{SC}\left(t\right)}{dt}=-\frac{1}{{\tau}_{1}}\cdot {I}_{SC}\left(t\right)+\frac{1}{{\tau}_{1}}\frac{ID\left(t\right)}{{C}_{I}}$$

(6)

$$\frac{d{I}_{2}\left(t\right)}{dt}=-\frac{1}{{\tau}_{2}}\cdot {I}_{2}\left(t\right)+\frac{1}{{\tau}_{2}}\cdot {I}_{SC}\left(t\right)$$

(7)

$$\frac{d{I}_{P}\left(t\right)}{dt}=-\frac{1}{{\tau}_{3}}\cdot {I}_{P}\left(t\right)+\frac{1}{{\tau}_{3}}\cdot {I}_{2}\left(t\right)$$

(8)

Second, the two-compartment meal model with equal time constants [**Equation (5)**] was compared with a similar two-compartment model with unequal time constants τ_{M1} and τ_{M2}:

$${R}_{A}\left(t\right)=\cdot \frac{{C}_{H}\left(t\right)}{{V}_{G}\cdot \left({\tau}_{m1}-{\tau}_{m2}\right)}\left[{e}^{-\frac{1}{{\tau}_{m1}}}-{e}^{-\frac{1}{{\tau}_{m}}}\right]$$

(9)

Comparisons were performed with sequential *F* tests^{13} with *p* < .05 considered significant.

**Equations (1)–(3)** and **(5)** were transformed to a discrete form using *Z* transforms.^{14} The bilinear equation describing insulin's effect on glucose [**Equation (4)**] has no exact *Z* transform and was transformed to the discrete 1 min sample interval using a first forward difference derivative approximation. Parameter identification and model simulations were performed using MATLAB version 6.5 (Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA) together with a custom graphical user interface designed with LabView 6.1 (National Instruments, Austin, TX). Marquardt–Levenberg and Nelder–Mead nonlinear least squares fitting algorithms were used to minimize the sum squared error between the model and measured plasma insulin and glucose concentrations. For **Equations (1)**and **(2)**, which have interchangeable time constants, the larger time constant was assigned to τ_{1} and the smaller time constant was assigned to τ_{2}. Subject data were fit individually, with individual fits averaged. Identification and model validation was performed in four steps:

*Step 1: The known insulin delivery rates were used to estimate parameters of the insulin PK model*. Parameters τ_{1,} τ_{2}, and *C _{I}* were identified in each of the 10 subjects by minimizing the sum square error (SSE) between the model predicted plasma insulin concentration (

*Step 2: The measured plasma insulin profile and known meal carbohydrate content was used to identify p _{2}, GEZI, S_{I}, EGP, V_{G}, and* τ

*Step 3: Model fits were evaluated, and if deemed to be inadequate, intraday variation was introduced*. Each fit from the procedures in step 2 was assessed for adequacy according to three criteria: (1) root mean square difference between the fitted glucose profile and the measured plasma glucose profile was required to be less than 25 mg/dl, (2) peak postprandial glucose and the peak model predicted glucose were required be within 25 mg/dl following each meal with the peak values needing to be within 0.5 h of each other, and (3) nadir glucose for excursions of plasma glucose below 80 mg/dl were required to be predicted by the model to within 15 mg/dl, with the nadirs occurring within 0.5 h of each other. If the fitted profile failed to meet any of these three criteria, the fit was repeated but with *S _{I}*,

*Step 4: Validation of model simulations*. Once metabolic parameters for each subject were identified, the entire closed-loop study was reconstructed using the original control equations together with a previously published model of the SC glucose sensing^{15,16} with 10 min (τ_{SEN}) SC interstitial fluid (*ISF*) delay:^{15,16}

$$\frac{d{G}_{ISF}\left(t\right)}{dt}=-\frac{1}{{\tau}_{SEN}}\cdot {G}_{ISF}\left(t\right)+\frac{1}{{\tau}_{SEN}}\cdot {G}_{P}\left(t\right)$$

(10)

Digital filters used in the original study to smooth the sensor signal (seven-point finite impulse response filter with 3 cycles/hour cutoff) and estimate the rate of change of glucose (slope of the sensor signal over the previous 15 min) were also included to reproduce as closely as possible all conditions under which the original study^{5} was performed (a process sometimes referred to as putting the hardware in the loop^{17}). With experimental conditions in place, plasma glucose, insulin delivery, and insulin concentration were simulated using only the glucose concentration and the basal insulin delivery rate at the time closed loop was initiated. The simulated results (10 individual profiles) were then compared to the clinical study data using *R*^{2} and mean absolute difference (MAD).*Statistics* were performed either with GraphPad Prism version 5.00 for Windows (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA) or MATLAB version 6.5. Data are reported as mean ± standard error of the mean unless otherwise noted.

*Step 1:* Plasma insulin concentration was well described by the two-compartment PK insulin model [**Equations (1)** and **(2)**] with average correlation (*R*^{2}) equal to 0.879 ± 0.0151 (range 0.819 to 0.972) and MAD 4.20 ± 1.15 μU/ml (**Figure 1B**, with plasma and sensor glucose from the original study shown in **Figure 1A**). Time delays associated with insulin appearance in plasma were estimated to be 70.5 ± 8.8 and 44.6 ± 6.4 min (**Table 1**). Repeating the analysis with the three-compartment PK model [**Equations (6)–(8)**] resulted in significantly better plasma insulin fits in 2 of the 10 subjects (*F* test; *p* < .05; data not shown).

Average profile of all 10 subjects. (A) Closed-loop plasma glucose (closed circles ± standard error) and sensor (solid curve; SEM not shown) observed in the adults studied under closed-loop PID insulin delivery.^{5} (B) Plasma insulin concentrations **...**

Estimated Virtual Patient Model Parameters Based on Known Insulin Delivery Rates and Measured Plasma Insulin Concentrations.

*Step 2:* Fitting the plasma glucose profile with the equal time constant meal model [**Equation (6)**] and no intraday variation in *S _{I}*,

Identification of a subject where no intraday variation was necessary to fit the glucose profile (subject 7). **(A)** Plasma glucose concentration (solid circles) and model fit (solid curve) showing peak postprandial and nadir glucose for glucose below 80 **...**

Carbohydrate Consumed in the Proportional-Integral-Derivative Closed-Loop Study^{5} Used in Identifying the Virtual Patient Model^{a}

*Step 3:* Seven of the 10 subjects failed to meet one of the three fit criteria and were deemed to have intraday variation in their metabolic profiles. An example subject (**Figure 3**, subject 8) showed good model fits for meals at hours 8 and 13 (peak postprandial meal and model not different by more than 15 mg/dl) but failed to follow the meal at hour 18 (no postprandial peak and a nadir error of 34 mg/dl, failing both criteria 2 and criteria 3). Allowing intraday variation in metabolic parameters produced acceptable fits (**Figure 3C**) by increasing *S _{I}* and endogenous glucose production decreasing between 18:00 and 23:25 h (

Identification of a subject where intraday variation in model parameters was necessary to adequately fit plasma glucose (subject 8). **(A)** Glucose profile fit without intraday variation. **(B)** Meal glucose appearance identified without intraday variance. **...**

The 10 individual model-predicted glucose profiles, 3 identified without intraday variation like the one shown in **Figure 2** and 7 identified with intraday variation like the one shown in **Figure 3**, fit their respective measured plasma glucose profiles well. Correlation coefficients ranging from 0.879 to 0.974 (*R*^{2} = 0.933 ± 0.00971) with MAD 11.51 ± 2.93 mg/dl (parameters in **Tables 1** and **22**; average of the individual fits shown in **Figure 4A**, solid curve). No significant improvement in fit was obtained when the two meal time constants were allowed to be unequal [**equation (9)**; data not shown]. Peak meal absorption times tended to be fastest at breakfast, with increasingly longer times observed for lunch, dinner, and snack (47 ± 5, 55 ± 6, 74 ± 19, and 78 ± 17 min analysis of variance; **Table 2**), although this did not achieve statistical significance. Supplemental carbohydrate, however, peaked significantly faster (31 ± 10 min; *p* < .05, analysis of variance), with juice typically peaking within 10–15 min (**Table 2**, pure juice indicated by †).

Average fit (solid curve) and simulated (dashed curve) profiles of all 10 subjects. Profiles were fit and simulated individually and then averaged. (A) Plasma glucose (circles ± standard error), model fit (solid curve; standard error bars not **...**

*Step 4:* The entire study was simulated using only the conditions at the time closed-loop control was initiated and the meal carbohydrate information**.** Coupling the MVP model with a model describing SC glucose sensor delay [**Equation (10)**] and the PID algorithm used in the original clinical study^{5} produced plasma glucose (**Figure 4A** dashed curve; *R*^{2} = 0.900 ± 0.015, ranging from 0.816 to 0.961), insulin delivery (**Figure 4B**; *R*^{2} = 0.640 ± 0.034, range 0.448 to 0.767), and insulin concentration (**Figure 4C**, dashed curve; *R*^{2} = 0.717 ± 0.041, range 0.558 to 0.880) responses nearly identical to those of the original study despite no knowledge of experimental data other than the glucose concentration and basal insulin rate at the time closed loop was initiated and the amount of carbohydrates consumed at each meal. Mean absolute difference for the simulated profiles was 16.2 ± 1.6 mg/dl, 1.04 ± 0.148 U/h, and 6.973 ± 0.435 μU/ml for glucose, insulin delivery, and insulin concentration, respectively, with the simulated profiles virtually overlaying the profiles obtained using the known insulin delivery rates and measured plasma insulin concentrations (**Figure 4**, dashed and solid curves).

Results from the present study demonstrate that a low-order PK/PD insulin model can be combined with a low-order model describing glucose appearance following meals and a single compartment model of glucose distribution to yield an identifiable composite model capable of reproducing clinical closed-loop study results. The composite model, composed of only five equations with eight identifiable parameters, reproduced approximately 90% of the observed dynamics in glucose concentration *per se* (**Figure 4**; insulin delivery and insulin concentration reconstructed with model equations). Although none of the submodels used in the MVP model are new, the present study is the first to combine them into a single model and identify parameters from data in subjects with type 1 diabetes and identify changes in parameters over a 24 h period. We believe—as do many others^{3}—that understanding how the parameters change during the day will be an important consideration when developing new closed-loop insulin delivery algorithms.

Although results in the present study establish the MVP model^{11} as an identifiable model capable of reproducing prior closed-loop study results,^{5} they do not fully validate the model as a *simulation* tool. Using the model as a simulation tool will require model validation against clinical results obtained independent from those used during model development and identification. For example, the clinical study results in which the PID algorithm was modified to include a meal bolus^{18} should be reasonably reproducible with only minor differences being attributed to the difference between adult^{5} and pediatric^{18} patient populations. Further validation would be to optimize control parameters for patients previously identified under closed loop and demonstrate in a subsequent clinical study, on the same subjects, that the optimization improves control performance.

Components of the MVP model [**Equations (1)–(5)**] have all been taken from existing literature—with the insulin PK/PD model first advocated by Sherwin and colleagues^{19} in 1974, the Bergman minimal model dominating clinical assessment of insulin sensitivity since 1979,^{20} and the meal model taken almost verbatim from work by Hovorka and associates.^{9} Nonetheless, many higher-order models exist to describe in greater detail metabolic fluxes specific to different tissues and to separate out subtle differences in the time course of insulin's effect to increase glucose uptake and decrease endogenous glucose production. The complete model proposed by Hovorka and coworkers,^{9,10} from which the meal subcomponent used here [**Equation (5)**] was taken, uses higher-order model components for both glucose and insulin, as does the model proposed by Kovatchev and colleagues^{21} and approved by the Food and Drug Administration for preclinical testing of control algorithms. Noteworthy is that many different metabolic models exist, including, but not limited to, the model originally proposed by Sorenson^{22} in 1985, the Karlsburg *Diabetes* Management System developed in Karlsburg to aid in optimizing open-loop insulin therapy,^{23–25} the Internet AIDA simulator developed by Lehmann and associates^{26,27} as an educational tool, and models that have been developed by Chase and coworkers^{28,29} and Van Herpe and colleagues^{30,31} for aid in developing critical care insulin delivery algorithms. Virtually all the models are higher order than the MVP model; however, in most cases, they do not explicitly address intraday or interday variance of model parameters. Variation in these parameters creates a requirement for different basal insulin rates throughout the day and potentially between days. The change in insulin requirement is important for closed-loop simulation studies insofar as different classes of controllers exist that can be shown to correct for a change in control output absent any change in the variable being controlled^{32} (e.g., compensate for decrease in insulin sensitivity with an increase in insulin delivery not driven by any change in fasting glucose,^{2} which should remain at target).

The existence of so many different models raises the question of whether model comparisons of different control algorithms depends on the choice of model or, more importantly, whether model-derived preclinical safety analysis depends on the choice of model. It is possible that all the different models—seven if one were to just consider those referenced in this article^{4,11,21,24,27,28,30}—will produce results sufficiently similar to generate substantially the same conclusions. If this is true, an argument could be made for using the simplest model. More likely, however, is that the differences among models are sufficient to generate different conclusions regarding both the type of controller that should be implemented and how safe it is. If the latter is true, the importance of validating model-based conclusions with clinical studies where the safety of the subject is ensured by monitoring the patient *per se* will become increasingly important.

Generally, the use of higher-order model terms, or more equations, should improve the ability to describe differences in the time course of insulin action in different tissues (e.g., liver, muscle, and fat); however, the use of high-order terms increases the number of parameters to be identified. In some cases, the models may require the addition of multiple glucose tracers,^{33–35} and in other cases, certain model configurations may produce states that are *near* unobservable.^{32} Many advocates of metabolic modeling^{3} argue that these models should be reserved for simulation purposes only, with lower-order models acceptable for use in a control algorithm *per se*. However, if the “simulation” and “control” models differ, understanding the relationship between the two may still be important. Open-loop predictions obtained with the two models should be expected to have a correlation less than 1, as *R*^{2} = 1 would mean the higher-order terms contribute nothing to the dynamic response. However, the two models should also be expected to have a sufficiently high correlation to effect improvements in model-based control algorithms. It is not clear what the threshold correlation needs to be to affect improvements in control or to what extend the unexplained variance (1 − *R*^{2}) should be attributed to inconsistencies in model order versus inconsistencies in model parameters. Differences in how the unexplained variance is attributed can substantially impact closed-loop stability analysis (a full discussion of the relationship between model order and closed-loop stability requires root-locos analysis^{32} and is beyond the scope of this article).

In the present study, evidence supporting a higher-order PK insulin model was found in only 2 of 10 subjects. Using the lower-order two-compartment model produced fits with *R*^{2} ranging from 0.819 to 0.972, suggesting little room for improvement given that some of the variance can be attributed to errors in blood sample times, error in the insulin assay, or errors associated with removing small air bubbles trapped in the insulin syringe. It is possible that the present study lacked statistical power to identify the higher-order terms. If this is the case, testing the PK/PD model order using conditions in which the glucose concentration does not change^{36,37} may offer a more powerful method to detect high-order PK/PD terms. Generally, metabolic models should fit and/or predict not only the data they were identified on, but other experimental conditions such as clamps specifically designed to elucidate insulin PK/PD profiles,^{36–38} different meal responses,^{39–41} and interruptions of insulin delivery.^{42} A more detailed modeling analysis of these types of studies may provide further insight into the need for higher-order PK/PD model terms.

Although high-order model terms were not required to fit the closed-loop data evaluated here, changes in the parameters during the course of the day were required in 7 of 10 subjects. None of the changes related to the insulin model *per se* but were rather associated with the minimal model (parameters *GEZI*, *S _{I}*, and

Although variation in model parameters was structured to capture putative diurnal changes in insulin requirement,^{43–46} the timing of the identified window was surprising in some subjects. For example, the ~18 to 22 h window in **Figure 3D** would not normally be thought of as coinciding with a diurnal change in insulin sensitivity. The window identified was in response to a lower-than-expected postprandial glucose excursion given the amount of carbohydrate ingested and the amount of insulin on board at the time of the meal. For the example, plasma glucose concentration actually fell below premeal levels after the meal was consumed, and the profile could only be fit by decreasing *EGP* and increasing *S _{I}*. It is possible that an acceptable fit may have been obtained by changing the bioavailability of the carbohydrate (

In the present study, the number of patients identified is too small (*N* = 10) to provide a sufficient range of parameters, and the conditions under which the model was shown to reproduce clinical data are too limited, to allow the model to be applied as the sole means of comparing different algorithms or assessing preclinical safety. As more closed-loop studies are conducted, the virtual population can of course be increased, but a more immediate approach would be to expand the range of parameters identified here by increasing or decreasing the value of any one parameter and re-identifying the remaining parameters in the presence of realistic measurement noise (~3% for glucose and 7% for insulin). This should allow the range of parameters to be expanded while ensuring each new parametric configuration produces a realistic subject. Having an identifiable model may also allow published studies to be used in identifying new parametric configurations. For example, changes in parameters that might occur in response to a high-fat meal such as pizza^{39,40} can be identified, or widely varying meal absorption profiles in the presence of carbohydrate from different sources^{41} can be identified. Probably the most promising source of new virtual subjects may reside in the ability to identify the MVP model from open-loop pump and CGM data, for which large databases exist. The low-order submodels chosen as a basis for the MVP model, and the inclusion of intraday variance in insulin requirement, make the MVP model ideally suited for identifying parameters in subjects with different basal rates during the day or documented changes in fasting glucose between days despite the same basal rate.

Metabolic models are widely believed to be able to accelerate the design of closed-loop insulin delivery algorithms. We conclude that such models will need to explicitly describe intraday variation in metabolic parameters but that the model itself need not be comprised of a large number of compartments or differential equations. In the present study, a model comprised of only five equations was identified for 10 subjects using previously acquired closed-loop glucose and insulin profiles. Insulin delivery, insulin concentration, and plasma glucose dynamics were well predicted by the model (*R*^{2} > 0.9 for glucose), but intraday variation in insulin sensitivity, endogenous glucose production, and glucose effectiveness was required to accurately predict the high and low glucose values in 7 of the 10 subjects. Adding intraday variation increased the total number of parameters to be identified from 8 to 11 plus the added the meal time constants, but identification was still achieved using data readily obtained from a closed-loop study.

- CGM
- continuous glucose monitoring
- MAD
- mean absolute difference
- MVP
- Medtronic Virtual Patient
- PD
- pharmacodynamic
- PID
- proportional integral derivative
- PK
- pharmacokinetic
- SC
- subcutaneous
- SSE
- sum square error

1. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. Tamborlane WV, Beck RW, Bode BW, Buckingham B, Chase HP, Clemons R, Fiallo-Scharer R, Fox LA, Gilliam LK, Hirsch IB, Huang ES, Kollman C, Kowalski AJ, Laffel L, Lawrence JM, Lee J, Mauras N, O'Grady M, Ruedy KJ, Tansey M, Tsalikian E, Weinzimer S, Wilson DM, Wolpert H, Wysocki T, Xing D. Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(14):1464–1476. [PubMed]

2. Steil GM, Clark B, Kanderian S, Rebrin K. Modeling insulin action for development of a closed-loop artificial pancreas. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005;7(1):94–108. [PubMed]

3. Steil GM, Reifman J. Mathematical modeling research to support the development of automated insulin delivery systems. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009;3(2):388–395. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

4. Hovorka R, Chassin LJ, Ellmerer M, Plank J, Wilinska ME. A simulation model of glucose regulation in the critically ill. Physiol Meas. 2008;29(8):959–978. [PubMed]

5. Steil GM, Rebrin K, Darwin C, Hariri F, Saad MF. Feasibility of automating insulin delivery for the treatment of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. 2006;55(12):3344–3350. [PubMed]

6. Steil GM, Panteleon AE, Rebrin K. Closed-loop insulin delivery—the path to physiological glucose control. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2004;56(2):125–144. [PubMed]

7. Insel PA, Kramer KJ, Sherwin RS, Liljenquist JE, Tobin JD, Andres R, Berman M. Modeling the insulin-glucose system in man. Fed Proc. 1974;33(7):1865–1868. [PubMed]

8. Bergman RN, Finegood DT, Ader M. Assessment of insulin sensitivity in vivo. Endocr Rev. 1985;6(1):45–86. [PubMed]

9. Hovorka R, Canonico V, Chassin LJ, Haueter U, Massi-Benedetti M, Orsini FM, Pieber TR, Schaller HC, Schaupp L, Vering T, Wilinska ME. Nonlinear model predictive control of glucose concentration in subjects with type 1 diabetes. Physiol Meas. 2004;25(4):905–920. [PubMed]

10. Chassin LJ, Wilinska ME, Hovorka R. Evaluation of glucose controllers in virtual environment: methodology and sample application. Artif Intell Med. 2004;32(3):171–181. [PubMed]

11. Stocker DN, Kanderian S, Cortina GJ, Nitzan T, Plummer J, Steil GM, Mastrototaro JJ. Virtual patient software system for educating and treating individuals with diabetes. U.S. Patent Application 20060771797.

12. Kahn SE, Prigeon RL, McCulloch DK, Boyko EJ, Bergman RN, Schwartz MW, Neifing JL, Ward WK, Beard JC, Palmer JP. The contribution of insulin-dependent and insulin-independent glucose uptake to intravenous glucose tolerance in healthy human subjects. Diabetes. 1994;43(4):587–592. [PubMed]

13. Draper NR, Smith H. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1981. Applied regression analysis.

14. Franklin GF, Powell JD. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1981. Digital control of dynamic systems.

15. Steil GM, Rebrin K, Hariri F, Jinagonda S, Tadros S, Darwin C, Saad MF. Interstitial fluid glucose dynamics during insulin-induced hypoglycaemia. Diabetologia. 2005;48(9):1833–1840. [PubMed]

16. Steil GM, Rebrin K, Mastrototaro J, Bernaba B, Saad MF. Determination of plasma glucose during rapid glucose excursions with a subcutaneous glucose sensor. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2003;5(1):27–31. [PubMed]

17. Dassau E, Palerm CC, Zisser H, Buckingham BA, Jovanovic L, Doyle FJ. In silico evaluation platform for artificial pancreatic beta-cell development—a dynamic simulator for closed-loop control with hardware-in-the-loop. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11(3):187–194. [PubMed]

18. Weinzimer SA, Steil GM, Swan KL, Dziura J, Kurtz N, Tamborlane WV. Fully automated closed-loop insulin delivery versus semiautomated hybrid control in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes using an artificial pancreas. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(5):934–939. [PubMed]

19. Sherwin RS, Kramer KJ, Tobin JD, Insel PA, Liljenquist JE, Berman M, Andres R. A model of the kinetics of insulin in man. J Clin Invest. 1974;53(5):1481–1492. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

20. Bergman RN, Ider YZ, Bowden CR, Cobelli C. Quantitative estimation of insulin sensitivity. Am J Physiol. 1979;236(6):E667–E677. [PubMed]

21. Kovatchev BP, Breton M, Man CD, Cobelli C. In silico preclinical trials: a proof of concept in closed-loop control of type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009;3(1):44–55. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

22. Sorensen JT. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1985. A physiologic model of glucose metabolism in man and its use to design and assess improve insulin therapies for diabetes. Ph.D. Thesis.

23. Rutscher A, Salzsieder E, Thierbach U, Fischer U, Albrecht G. Kadis—a computer-aided decision support system for improving the management of type-1 diabetes. Exp Clin Endocrinol. 1990;95(1):137–147. [PubMed]

24. Salzsieder E, Fischer U, Stoewhas H, Thierbach U, Rutscher A, Menzel R, Albrecht G. A model-based system for the individual prediction of metabolic responses to improve therapy in type I diabetes. Horm Metab Res Suppl. 1990;24:10–19. [PubMed]

25. Augstein P, Vogt L, Kohnert KD, Freyse EJ, Heinke P, Salzsieder E. Outpatient assessment of Karlsburg Diabetes Management System-based decision support. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(7):1704–1708. [PubMed]

26. Lehmann ED, Chatu SS, Hashmy SS. Retrospective pilot feedback survey of 200 users of the AIDA Version 4 Educational Diabetes Program. 1—Quantitative survey data. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2006;8(3):419–432. [PubMed]

27. Lehmann ED, Deutsch T. A physiological model of glucose-insulin interaction in type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Biomed Eng. 1992;14(3):235–242. [PubMed]

28. Chase JG, Shaw GM, Lotz T, LeCompte A, Wong J, Lin J, Lonergan T, Willacy M, Hann CE. Model-based insulin and nutrition administration for tight glycaemic control in critical care. Curr Drug Deliv. 2007;4(4):283–296. [PubMed]

29. Chase JG, Shaw GM, Lin J, Doran CV, Hann C, Lotz T, Wake GC, Broughton B. Targeted glycemic reduction in critical care using closed-loop control. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005;7(2):274–282. [PubMed]

30. Van Herpe T, Pluymers B, Espinoza M, Van den Berghe G, De Moor B. A minimal model for glycemia control in critically ill patients. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2006;1:5432–5435. [PubMed]

31. Van Herpe T, Espinoza M, Pluymers B, Goethals I, Wouters P, Van den Berghe G, De Moor B. An adaptive input-output modeling approach for predicting the glycemia of critically ill patients. Physiol Meas. 2006;27(11):1057–1069. [PubMed]

32. Ogata K. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall; 1997. Modern control engineering.

33. Steil GM, Hwu CM, Janowski R, Hariri F, Jinagouda S, Darwin C, Tadros S, Rebrin K, Saad MF. Evaluation of insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function indexes obtained from minimal model analysis of a meal tolerance test. Diabetes. 2004;53(5):1201–1207. [PubMed]

34. Youn JH, Kim JK, Steil GM. Assessment of extracellular glucose distribution and glucose transport activity in conscious rats. Am J Physiol. 1995;268(4 Pt 1):E712–E721. [PubMed]

35. Steil GM, Richey JM, Kim JK, Wi JK, Rebrin K, Bergman RN, Youn JH. Extracellular glucose distribution is not altered by insulin: analysis of plasma and interstitial L-glucose kinetics. Am J Physiol. 1996;271:E855–E864. [PubMed]

36. Swan KL, Weinzimer SA, Dziura JD, Steil GM, Voskanyan GR, Steffen AT, Martin ML, Tamborlane WV. Effect of puberty on the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of insulin pump therapy in youth with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(1):44–46. [PubMed]

37. Swan KL, Dziura JD, Steil GM, Voskanyan GR, Sikes KA, Steffen AT, Martin ML, Tamborlane WV, Weinzimer SA. Effect of age of infusion site and type of rapid-acting analog on pharmacodynamic parameters of insulin boluses in youth with type 1 diabetes receiving insulin pump therapy. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(2):240–244. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

38. Mudaliar SR, Lindberg FA, Joyce M, Beerdsen P, Strange P, Lin A, Henry RR. Insulin aspart (B28 asp-insulin): a fast-acting analog of human insulin: absorption kinetics and action profile compared with regular human insulin in healthy nondiabetic subjects. Diabetes Care. 1999;22(9):1501–1506. [PubMed]

39. Ahern JA, Gatcomb PM, Held NA, Petit WA, Jr, Tamborlane WV. Exaggerated hyperglycemia after a pizza meal in well-controlled diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1993;16(4):578–580. [PubMed]

40. Jones SM, Quarry JL, Caldwell-McMillan M, Mauger DT, tGabbay RA. Optimal insulin pump dosing and postprandial glycemia following a pizza meal using the continuous glucose monitoring system. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005;7(2):233–240. [PubMed]

41. Mohammed NH, Wolever TM. Effect of carbohydrate source on post-prandial blood glucose in subjects with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin lispro. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2004;65(1):29–35. [PubMed]

42. Zisser H. Quantifying the impact of a short-interval interruption of insulin-pump infusion sets on glycemic excursions. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(2):238–239. [PubMed]

43. Boden G, Chen X, Urbain JL. Evidence for a circadian rhythm of insulin sensitivity in patients with NIDDM caused by cyclic changes in hepatic glucose production. Diabetes. 1996;45(8):1044–1050. [PubMed]

44. Blackard WG, Barlascini CO, Clore JN, Nestler JE. Morning insulin requirements. Critique of dawn and meal phenomena. Diabetes. 1989;38(3):273–277. [PubMed]

45. Carroll MF, Schade DS. The dawn phenomenon revisited: implications for diabetes therapy. Endocr Pract. 2005;11(1):55–64. [PubMed]

46. Lee A, Ader M, Bray GA, Bergman RN. Diurnal variation in glucose tolerance. Cyclic suppression of insulin action and insulin secretion in normal-weight, but not obese, subjects. Diabetes. 1992;41(6):742–749. [PubMed]

47. Panteleon AE, Loutseiko M, Steil GM, Rebrin K. Evaluation of the effect of gain on the meal response of an automated closed-loop insulin delivery system. Diabetes. 2006;55(7):1995–2000. [PubMed]

Articles from Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology are provided here courtesy of **Diabetes Technology Society**

PubMed Central Canada is a service of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) working in partnership with the National Research Council's national science library in cooperation with the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the U.S. National Library of Medicine(NCBI/NLM). It includes content provided to the PubMed Central International archive by participating publishers. |