Insulin-plus-Pramlintide Artificial Pancreas in Type 1 Diabetes—Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a randomized crossover comparison between i) dual-hormone, rapid insulin and amylin (Pramlintide), artificial pancreas (DAP), ii) regular insulin (Humulin R) and amylin artificial pancreas (R-DAP), and iii) rapid insulin-alone artificial pancreas (AP) in 12 adults with type 1 diabetes. Insulin and amylin were delivered simultaneously, in a basal-bolus manner, using a novel dosing algorithm, with a fixed ratio (6 µg/u), mimicking a co-formulation. Participants were admitted three times for 24 hours and ingested three meals and a bedtime snack. Prior to closed-loop study, amylin was delivered for two weeks, and basal rates and carb ratios were optimized. Over the 24-hour study, DAP increased time spent in target range [3.9-10.0 mmol/L] compared to AP from 71% to 85% (P=0.03) and decreased glucose variability (CV) from 34% to 25% (P=0.01), without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia (P=NS). Overnight, DAP and AP achieved high and similar time in tight target range [3.9-7.8 mmol/L; 77%, 71%, P=NS]. Moderate nausea was reported by two participants (16%) on DAP compared to 0 (0%) on AP. There was no benefits associated with R-DAP compared to AP during day or night period. We conclude that a dual-hormone artificial pancreas delivering rapid insulin and amylin with fixed ratio improves glucose control and reduces glucose variability compared to insulin-alone, first-generation, artificial pancreas.Table 1.Comparisons between AP, DAP, and R-DAP (mean±SD)OutcomeAPDAPR-DAPP-value DAP vs. APP-value R-DAP vs. APTime spent between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L during 24-hour study period (%)71 ± 1985 ± 1072 ± 160.030.86Mean glucose level during 24-hour study period (mmol/L)8.2 ± 1.37.4 ± 1.17.7 ± 0.80.070.38Coefficient of variance during 24-hour study period (%)34 ± 1125 ± 635 ± 80.010.65Time spent between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L during daytime period (%)58 ± 2678 ± 1666 ± 210.020.58Mean glucose level during daytime period (mmol/L)9.1 ± 1.97.8 ± 1.58.4 ± 1.50.020.34Time spent between 3.9 and 7.8 mmol/L during overnight period (%)77 ± 2071 ± 2965 ± 190.470.16Mean glucose level during overnight period (mmol/L)6.6 ± 0.96.8 ± 0.96.6 ± 1.20.510.87 Disclosure A. Haidar: Consultant; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Research Support; Self; AgaMatrix, Medtronic MiniMed, Inc. M. Tsoukas: Speaker's Bureau; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. S. Twardy: None. N. Strauss: None. J. Yale: Advisory Panel; Self; Medtronic, Abbott. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Abbott. Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca. Advisory Panel; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Sanofi. Advisory Panel; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Advisory Panel; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Takeda Canada Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Takeda Canada Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Merck & Co., Inc.. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Merck & Co., Inc., Bayer AG. Research Support; Self; Mylan, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi. J. Rutkowski: None. A. Bossy: Other Relationship; Self; Insulet Corporation, Medtronic. E. Pytka: Consultant; Self; Animas Corporation. H.T. Nguyen: None. L. Legault: Advisory Panel; Self; Insulet Corporation. Research Support; Self; Merck & Co., Inc., Sanofi. Advisory Panel; Self; Medtronic. Other Relationship; Self; Eli Lilly and Company.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".