ABSTRACT
Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, which connect an insulin pump, continuous glucose monitoring system, and software algorithm to automate insulin delivery based on real-time glycemic data, hold promise for improving outcomes and reducing therapeutic burden for people with diabetes. This article reviews the features of the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System and how it compares to other AID systems available on or currently under review for the U.S. market. It also provides practical guidance for clinicians on how to effectively train and onboard people with diabetes on the Omnipod 5 System, including how to personalize therapy and optimize glycemia. Many people with diabetes receive their diabetes care in primary care settings rather than in a diabetes specialty clinic. Therefore, it is important that primary care providers have access to resources to support the adoption of AID technologies such as the Omnipod 5 System.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: As artificial pancreas (AP) becomes standard of care, consideration of extended use of insulin infusion sets (IIS) and continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) becomes vital. We conducted an outpatient randomized crossover study to test the safety and efficacy of a zone model predictive control (zone-MPC)-based AP system versus sensor augmented pump (SAP) therapy in which IIS and CGM failures were provoked via extended wear to 7 and 21 days, respectively. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A smartphone-based AP system was used by 19 adults (median age 23 years [IQR 10], mean 8.0 ± 1.7% HbA1c) over 2 weeks and compared with SAP therapy for 2 weeks in a crossover, unblinded outpatient study with remote monitoring in both study arms. RESULTS: AP improved percent time 70-140 mg/dL (48.1 vs. 39.2%; P = 0.016) and time 70-180 mg/dL (71.6 vs. 65.2%; P = 0.008) and decreased median glucose (141 vs. 153 mg/dL; P = 0.036) and glycemic variability (SD 52 vs. 55 mg/dL; P = 0.044) while decreasing percent time <70 mg/dL (1.3 vs. 2.7%; P = 0.001). AP also improved overnight control, as measured by mean glucose at 0600 h (140 vs. 158 mg/dL; P = 0.02). IIS failures (1.26 ± 1.44 vs. 0.78 ± 0.78 events; P = 0.13) and sensor failures (0.84 ± 0.6 vs. 1.1 ± 0.73 events; P = 0.25) were similar between AP and SAP arms. Higher percent time in closed loop was associated with better glycemic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Zone-MPC significantly and safely improved glycemic control in a home-use environment despite prolonged CGM and IIS wear. This project represents the first home-use AP study attempting to provoke and detect component failure while successfully maintaining safety and effective glucose control.