Evolution of the Artificial Pancreas: Components and Integration—CGMs, Insulin, and AP Systems*

Richard M. Bergenstal, Adam Heller, Marc D. Breton, RobertVigersky, Susan A. Brown, Gregory P. Forlenza, Jennifer L. Sherr, Roman Hovorka, Steven J. Russell, Edward R.Damiano, Melissa S. Putman, Roy W. Beck, Eric Renard, Rayhan Lal, Claudio Cobelli, Eyal Dassau, Halis K. Akturk, Michael A. Weiss, Jay S. Skyler

DOI : https://doi.org/10.57105/2415-7252-2024-2-01

Abstract 

The landmark Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) showed that glucose control is critical to reducing the risk of diabetes-related complications. This chapter outlines a series of innovations and investigations that followed the DCCT, aimed at minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia while further improving glucose control. The chapter presents an example of innovations in wired enzyme technology that facilitated the movement from capillary glucose monitoring to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and ultimately, the first-factory calibrated CGM system. The next glycemic management innovation was to connect CGM data to an insulin pump containing an algorithm able to adjust insulin delivery based on the changing glucose levels and trends. The key features of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, currently approved in the United States, are presented. The AID summary table includes type of pump, type and function of the insulin delivery algorithm, the data management system, and the indications for use. The next section explores the innovation of alternative routes of insulin delivery to move toward the goal of a fully automated insulin delivery system. The main trials in developing and implementing an implantable intraperitoneal programmable system are summarized. The last section explores if sensor input in addition to glucose levels such as continuous sensing of ketone, lactate, or insulin levels may provide valuable feedback to move us closer to a fully autonomous AID system. Much of this diabetes innovation and investigation work has been supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases over that last 75 years.


Keywords: continuous glucose monitoring, automated insulin delivery, artificial pancreas, intraperitoneal insulin delivery, insulin formulation, metabolic sensors

References:

  1. Bleicher SJ. Symposium on home blood glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care1980;3:57–149. Crossref. PubMed.
  2. Clark LC. Monitor and control of blood and tissue oxygen. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs1956;2:41–48.
  3. Updike SJ, Hicks GP. The enzyme electrode. Nature1967;214:986–988.
  4. Symposium on potentially implantable glucose sensors. Diabetes Care1982;5(3):147–283.
  5. Skyler JS. Continuous glucose monitoring: an overview of its development. Diabetes Technol Ther2009;11(Suppl 1):S5–S10.
  6. Bergenstal RM. Roadmap to the effective use of continuous glucose monitoring: innovation, investigation, and implementation. Diabetes Spectr2023;36(4):327–336.
  7. Kroc Foundation International Conference. Insulin delivery devices. Diabetes Care1989;3:253–370.
  8. Cobelli C, Renard E, Kovatchev B. Artificial pancreas: past, present, future. Diabetes2011;60:2672–2682.Crossref. PubMed.
  9. Peyser T, Dassau E, Breton M, Skyler JS. The artificial pancreas: current status and future prospects in the management of diabetes. Ann N Y Acad Sci2014;1311:102–123. Crossref. PubMed.
  10. Infante M, Baidal DA, Rickels MR, et al. Dual-hormone artificial pancreas for management of type 1 diabetes: recent progress and future directions. Artif Organs2021;45(9):968–986. Crossref. PubMed.
  11. Heller A, Ulstrup J. Detlev Müller’s discovery of glucose oxidase in 1925. Anal Chem (Washington, DC, US)2021;93(18):7148–7149; Crossref
  12. Aoki A, Rajagopalan R, Heller A. Effect of quaternization on electron diffusion coefficients for redox hydrogels based on poly(4-vinylpyridine). J Phys Chem1995;99(14):5102; Crossref
  13. Aoki A, Heller A. Electron diffusion coefficients in hydrogels formed of cross-linked redox polymers. J Phys Chem1993;97(42):11014.
  14. Rajagopalan R, Aoki A, Heller A. Effect of quaternization of the glucose oxidase “wiring” redox polymer on the maximum current densities of glucose electrodes. J Phys Chem1996;100(9):3719.
  15. Katakis I, Ye L, Heller A. Electrostatic control of the electron-transfer enabling binding of recombinant glucose oxidase and redox polyelectrolytes. J Am Chem Soc1994;116(8):3617.
  16. Ohara TJ, Rajagopalan R, Heller A. Glucose electrodes based on cross-linked bis(2,2′-bipyridine)chloroosmium(+/2+) complexed poly(1-vinylimidazole) films. Anal Chem1993;65(23):3512.
  17. Csoeregi E, Quinn CP, Schmidtke DW, et al. Design, characterization, and one-point in vivo calibration of a subcutaneously implanted glucose electrode. Anal Chem1994;66(19):3131.
  18. Quinn CP, Pishko MV, Schmidtke DW, et al. Kinetics of glucose delivery to subcutaneous tissue in rats measured with 0.3-mm amperometric microsensors. Am J Physiol1995;269(1, pt 1):E155–E161.
  19. Quinn CP, Pathak CP, Heller A, Hubbell JA. Photo-crosslinked copolymers of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) tetra-acrylate and ethylene dimethacrylate for improving biocompatibility of biosensors. Biomaterials1995;16(5):389–396.
  20. Schmidtke DW, Pishko MV, Quinn CP, et al. Statistics for critical clinical decision making based on readings of pairs of implanted sensors. Anal Chem1996;68(17):2845–2849.
  21. Quinn CAP, Connor RE, Heller A. Biocompatible, glucose-permeable hydrogel for in situ coating of implantable biosensors. Biomaterials1998;18(24):1665–1670.
  22. Schmidtke DW, Freeland AC, Heller A, et al. Measurement and modeling of the transient difference between blood and subcutaneous glucose concentrations in the rat after injection of insulin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A1998;95(1):294–299.
  23. Schmidtke DW, Heller A. Accuracy of the one-point in vivo calibration of “wired” glucose oxidase electrodes implanted in jugular veins of rats in periods of rapid rise and decline of the glucose concentration. Anal Chem1998;70(10):2149–2155.
  24. Wagner JG, Schmidtke DW, Quinn CP, et al. Continuous amperometric monitoring of glucose in a brittle diabetic chimpanzee with a miniature subcutaneous electrode. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A1998;95(11):6379–6382.
  25. Bergenstal RM, Garg S, Weinzimer SA, et al. Safety of a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system in patients with type 1 diabetes. JAMA2016;316(13):1407–1408.
  26. Garg SK, Weinzimer SA, Tamborlane WV, et al. Glucose outcomes with the in-home use of a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther2017;19(3):155–163.
  27. Bergenstal RM, Nimri R, Beck RW, et al.; FLAIR Study Group. A comparison of two hybrid closed-loop systems in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes (FLAIR): a multicentre, randomised, crossover trial. Lancet2021;397(10270):208–219.
  28. Carlson AL, Sherr JL, Shulman DI, et al. Safety and glycemic outcomes during the MiniMed™ advanced hybrid closed-loop system pivotal trial in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther2022;24(3):178–189.
  29. Pihoker C, Shulman DI, Forlenza GP, et al. Safety and glycemic outcomes during the MiniMedTM advanced hybrid closed-loop system pivotal trial in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther2023;25(11):755–764.
  30. Brown S, Raghinaru D, Emory E, Kovatchev B. First look at control-IQ: a new-generation automated insulin delivery system. Diabetes Care2018;41(12):2634–2636.
  31. Brown SA, Kovatchev BP, Raghinaru D, et al.; for the iDCL Trial Research Group. 6-month randomized multicenter trial of closed-loop control in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med2019;381:1707–1717. Crossref. PubMed.
  32. Breton MD, Kanapka LG, Beck RW, et al.; for the iDCL Trial Research Group. A randomized trial of closed-loop control in children with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med2020;383:836–845.
  33. Wadwa RP, Reed ZW, Buckingham BA, et al.; for the PEDAP Trial Study Group. Trial of hybrid closed-loop control in young children with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med2023;388(11):991–1001.
  34. Levy CJ, Bailey R, Laffel LM, et al.; TL1 Study Group. Multicenter evaluation of ultra-rapid lispro insulin with control-IQ technology in adults, adolescents, and children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther2024;26(9):652–660.
  35. Cobry EC, Berget C, Messer LH, Forlenza GP. Review of the Omnipod® 5 automated glucose control system powered by Horizon™ for the treatment of type 1 diabetes. Ther Deliv2020;11(8):507–519.
  36. Brown SA, Forlenza GP, Bode BW, et al.; for the Omnipod 5 Research Group. Multicenter trial of a tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery system with customizable glycemic targets in pediatric and adult participants with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care2021;44(7):1630–1640; CrossrefPubMed.
  37. Davis GM, Peters AL, Bode BW, et al. Safety and efficacy of the Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery system in adults with type 2 diabetes: from injections to hybrid closed-loop therapy. Diabetes Care2023;46(4):742–750.
  38. Lum JW, Bailey RJ, Barnes-Lomen V, et al. A real-world prospective study of the safety and effectiveness of the Loop open-source automated insulin delivery system. Diabetes Technol Ther2021;23(5):367–375.
  39. Wong JJ, Hood KK, Hanes SJ, Lal RA, Naranjo D. Psychosocial effects of the loop open-source automated insulin delivery system. J Diabetes Sci Technol2023;17(6):1440–1447.
  40. Castellanos LE, Balliro CA, Sherwood JS, et al. Performance of the insulin-only iLet bionic pancreas and the bihormonal iLet using dasiglucagon in adults with type 1 diabetes in a home-use setting. Diabetes Care2021;44(6):e118–e120.
  41. Bionic Pancreas Research Group; Russell SJ, Beck RW, Damiano ER, et al. A multicenter, randomized trial of a bionic pancreas in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med2022;387(13):1161–1172.
  42. Weissberg-Benchell J, Vesco AT, Shapiro J, et al. Psychosocial impact of the insulin-only iLet bionic pancreas for adults, youth, and caregivers of youth with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther2023;25(10):705–717.
  43. Sherwood JS, Castellanos LE, O’Connor MY, et al. Randomized trial of the insulin-only iLet bionic pancreas for the treatment of cystic fibrosis- related diabetes. Diabetes Care2024;47(1):101–108.
  44. Ware J, Allen JM, Boughton CK, et al.; KidsAP Consortium. Randomized trial of closed-loop control in very young children with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med2022;386(3):209–219.
  45. Boughton CK, Hartnell S, Thabit H, et al. Hybrid closed-loop glucose control compared with sensor augmented pump therapy in older adults with type 1 diabetes: an open-label multicentre, multinational, randomised, crossover study. Lancet Healthy Longev2022;3(3):e135–e142; CrossrefPubMed.
  46. Ware J, Boughton CK, Allen JM, et al. Cambridge hybrid closed-loop algorithm in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre 6-month randomised controlled trial. Lancet Digit Health2022;4(4):e245–e255.
  47. Lee TTM, Collett C, Bergford S, Hartnell S, et al.; AiDAPT Collaborative Group. Automated insulin delivery in women with pregnancy complicated by type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med2023;389(17):1566–1578.
  48. Boughton CK, Allen JM, Ware J, et al.; for the CLOuD Consortium. Closed-loop therapy and preservation of c-peptide secretion in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med2022;387(10):882–893.
  49. Quemerais MA, Doron M, Dutrech F, et al.; Diabeloop Consortium; Diabeloop Consortium. Preliminary evaluation of a new semi-closed-loop insulin therapy system over the prandial period in adult patients with type 1 diabetes: the WP6.0 Diabeloop study. J Diabetes Sci Technol2014;8(6):1177–1184.
  50. Kariyawasam D, Morin C, Casteels K, et al. Hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery versus sensor-augmented pump therapy in children aged 6–12 years: a randomised, controlled, cross-over, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Digit Health2022;4(3):e158–e168.
  51. van Bon AC, Blauw H, Jansen TJP, et al. Bihormonal fully closed-loop system for the treatment of type 1 diabetes: a real-world multicentre, prospective, single-arm trial in the Netherlands. Lancet Digit Health2024;6(4):e272–e280.
  52. Burnside MJ, Lewis DM, Crocket HR, et al. Open-source automated insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med2022;387(10):869–881.
  53. Da Silva J, Bosi E, Jendle J, et al. Real-world performance of the MiniMed™ 670G system in Europe. Diabetes Obes Metab2021;23(8):1942–1949; CrossrefPubMed.
  54. Silva JD, Lepore G, Battelino T, et al. Real-world performance of the MiniMed™ 780G system: first report of outcomes from 4120 users. Diabetes Technol Ther2022;24(2):113–119; CrossrefPubMed.
  55. Kovatchev BP, Singh H, Mueller L, Gonder-Frederick LA. Biobehavioral changes following transition to automated insulin delivery: a large real-life database analysis. Diabetes Care2022;45(11):2636–2643; CrossrefPubMed.
  56. Forlenza GP, DeSalvo DJ, Aleppo G, et al. Real-world evidence of Omnipod® 5 automated insulin delivery system use in 69,902 people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther2024;26(8):514–525; CrossrefPubMed.
  57. Lablanche S, Delagenière J, Jalbert M, et al. 12-month real-life efficacy of the MiniMed 780G advanced closed-loop system in patients living with type 1 diabetes: a French observational, retrospective, multicentric study. Diabetes Technol Ther2024;26(6):426–432; CrossrefPubMed.
  58. Choudhary P, Arrieta A, van den Heuvel T, Castañeda J, Smaniotto V, Cohen O. Celebrating the data from 100,000 real-world users of the MiniMed™ 780G system in Europe, Middle East, and Africa collected over 3 years: from data to clinical evidence. Diabetes Technol Ther2024;26(S3):32–37; CrossrefPubMed.
  59. Graham R, Mueller L, Manning M, et al. Real-world use of control-IQ technology is associated with a lower rate of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis than historical data: results of the Control-IQ observational (CLIO) prospective study. Diabetes Technol Ther2024;26(1):24–32; CrossrefPubMed.
  60. Phillip M, Nimri R, Bergenstal RM, et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of automated insulindelivery technologies in clinical practice. Endocr Rev2023;44(2):254–280; CrossrefPubMed.
  61. Renard E. Insulin delivery route for the artificial pancreas: subcutaneous, intraperitoneal, or intravenous? Pros and cons. J Diabetes Sci Technol2008;2:735–738. Crossref. PubMed.
  62. Micossi P, Cristallo M, Librenti MC, et al. Free insulin profiles after intraperitoneal, intramuscular, and subcutaneous insulin administration. Diabetes Care1986;9(6):575–578. Crossref. PubMed.
  63. Weinzimer SA, Steil GM, Swan KL, et al. Fully automated closed-loop insulin delivery versus semi-automated hybrid control in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes using an artificial pancreas. Diabetes Care2008;31:934–939. Crossref. PubMed.
  64. Spaan NA, Teplova AE, Renard E, Spaan JA. Implantable insulin pumps: an effective option with restricted dissemination. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol2014;2(5):358–360. Crossref. PubMed.
  65. Renard E, Schaepelynck-Bélicar P; EVADIAC Group. Implantable insulin pumps: a position statement about their clinical use. Diabetes Metab2007;33(2):158–166. Crossref. PubMed.
  66. Broussolle C, Jeandidier N, Hanaire-Broutin H; for The Evadiac Study Group. French multicentre experience with implantable insulin pumps. Lancet1994;343:514–515. Crossref. PubMed.
  67. Schaepelynck P, Renard E, Jeandidier N, et al. A recent survey confirms the efficacy and the safety of implanted pumps during long-term use in poorly-controlled Type 1 diabetes patients. Diabetes Technol Ther2011;13:657–660. Crossref. PubMed.
  68. van Dijk PR, Logtenberg SJJ, Groenier KH, et al. Continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion in type 1 diabetes: a 6-year post-trial follow-up. BMC Endocr Disord2014;14:30–37. Crossref. PubMed.
  69. Logtenberg SJ, Kleefstra N, Houweling ST, Groenier KH, Gans RO, Bilo HJ. Health-related quality oflife, treatment satisfaction, and costs associated with intraperitoneal versus subcutaneous insulin administration in type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care2010;33(6):1169–1172. Crossref. PubMed.
  70. Ruotolo G, Parlavecchia M, Taskinen MR, et al. Normalization of lipoprotein composition by intraperitoneal insulin in IDDM. Diabetes Care1994;17(1):66–1212. Crossref.
  71. Hedman CA, Frystyk J, Lindström T, Oskarsson P, Arnqvist HJ. Intraperitoneal insulin delivery to patients with type 1 diabetes results in higher serum IGF-I bioactivity than continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf)2014;81(1):58–62. Crossref. PubMed.
  72. Oskarsson PR, Lins PE, Backman L, Adamson UC. Continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion partly restores the glucagon response to hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetic patients. Diabetes Metab2000;26(2):118–124.PubMed.
  73. Oskarsson PR, Lins PE, Wallberg-Henriksson A, et al. Metabolic and hormonal responses to exercise in type 1 diabetic patients during subcutaneous, as compared to continuous intraperitoneal, insulin infusion. Diabetes Metab1999;25:491–497. PubMed.
  74. Renard E, Bouteleau S, Jacques-Apostol D, et al. Insulin underdelivery from implanted pumps using peritoneal route: determinant role of insulin-pump compatibility. Diabetes Care1996;19(8):812–877. Crossref. PubMed.
  75. Renard E, Baldet P, Picot MC, et al. Catheter complications with implantable systems for peritoneal insulin delivery. An analysis of frequency, predisposing factors and obstructing materials. Diabetes Care1995;18:300–306. Crossref. PubMed.
  76. He J, Renard E, Lord P, et al. Root cause determination of intraperitoneal catheter obstructions: insulin amyloid aggregates vs foreign body reaction. J Control Release2021;336:1–15. Crossref. PubMed.
  77. Renard E, Bringer J, Jacques-Apostol D, et al. Complications of the pump-pocket may represent a significant cause of incidents with implanted systems for intraperitoneal insulin delivery. Diabetes Care1994;17(9):1064–1066. Crossref. PubMed.
  78. Olsen CL, Chan E, Turner DS, et al. Insulin antibody responses after long-term intraperitoneal insulin administration via implantable programmable insulin delivery systems. Diabetes Care1994;17(3):169–676.Crossref. PubMed.
  79. Renard E. Implantable closed loop glucose-sensing and insulin delivery: the future for insulin pump therapy. Curr Opin Pharmacol2002;2(6):708–716. Crossref. PubMed.
  80. Renard E, Costalat G, Chevassus H, Bringer J. Artificial beta cell: clinical experience toward an implantable closed-loop insulin delivery system. Diabetes Metab2006;32(5, pt 2):497–502. Crossref. PubMed.
  81. Renard E, Place J, Cantwell M, Chevassus H, Palerm CC. Closed-loop insulin delivery using a subcutaneous glucose sensor and intraperitoneal insulin delivery. Feasibility study testing a new model for the artificial pancreas. Diabetes Care2010;33(1):121–127. Crossref. PubMed.
  82. Dassau E, Renard E, Place J, et al. Intraperitoneal insulin delivery provides superior glycemic regulation to subcutaneous insulin delivery in model predictive control-based fully-automated artificial pancreas in patients with type 1 diabetes: a pilot study. Diabetes Obes Metab2017;19:1698–1705. Crossref. PubMed.
  83. He J, Renard E, Lord P, et al. Strategies for extended lifetime of implantable intraperitoneal insulin catheters. J Control Release2022;341:487–497. Crossref. PubMed.
  84. Burnett DR, Huyett LM, Zisser HC, Doyle FJ 3rd, Mensh BD. Glucose sensing in the peritoneal space offers faster kinetics than sensing in the subcutaneous space. Diabetes2014;63(7):2498–2505. Crossref. PubMed.
  85. Dalla Libera A, Toffanin C, Drecogna M, Galderisi A, Pillonetto G, Cobelli C. In silico design and validation of a time-varying PID controller for an artificial pancreas with intraperitoneal insulin delivery and glucose sensing. APL Bioeng2023;7(2):026105. Crossref. PubMed.
  86. A bionic invisible pancreas to forget diabetes. Accessed May 3, 2025. https://forgetdiabetes.eu
  87. Al-Haddad H, Guarnera D, Tamadon I, et al. Optimized magnetically docked ingestible capsules for non-invasive refilling of implantable devices. Ad Intell Syst2024;6(1):2470053; Crossref
  88. Music 4 Diabetes. Unobtrusive continuous multi-metabolite monitoring for a physiological care of insulin-treated diabetes. Accessed May 3, 2025. https://music4diabetes.eu
  89. PhysioLogic Devices Inc. Accessed May 3, 2025. https://physiologicdevices.com/
  90. Jarosinski MA, Dhayalan B, Chen YS, Chatterjee D, Varas N, Weiss MA. Structural principles of insulin formulation and analog design: a century of innovation. Mol Metab2021;52:101325; CrossrefPubMed.
  91. Zaykov AN, Mayer JP, DiMarchi RD. Pursuit of a perfect insulin. Nat Rev Drug Discov2016;15(6):425–439; CrossrefPubMed.
  92. Rosenstock J, Bain SC, Gowda A, et al. Weekly Icodec versus daily glargine U100 in type 2 diabetes without previous insulin. N Engl J Med2023;389(4):297–308; CrossrefPubMed.
  93. Wysham C, Bajaj HS, Del Prato S, et al.; QWINT-2 Investigators. Insulin Efsitora versus Degludec in type 2 diabetes without previous insulin treatment. N Engl J Med2024;391(23):2201–2211; CrossrefPubMed.
  94. Chen YS, Gleaton J, Yang Y, et al. Insertion of a synthetic switch into insulin provides metabolite-dependent regulation of hormone-receptor activation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2021;118(30):e2103518118; Crossref
  95. Hoeg-Jensen T, Kruse T, Brand CL, et al. Glucose-sensitive insulin with attenuation of hypoglycaemia. Nature. 2024;634(8035):944–951; CrossrefPubMed.
  96. Glidden MD, Aldabbagh K, Phillips NB, et al. An ultra-stable single-chain insulin analog resists thermal inactivation and exhibits biological signaling duration equivalent to the native protein. J Biol Chem2018;293(1):47–68; Crossref
  97. Weil- Ktorza O, Dhayalan B, Chen YS, Weiss MA, Metanis N. Se-Glargine: chemical synthesis of a basal insulin analogue stabilized by an internal Diselenide bridge. Chembiochem2024;25(5):e202300818; CrossrefPubMed.
  98. Wolkowicz KL, Aiello EM, Vargas E, et al. A review of biomarkers in the context of type 1 diabetes: biological sensing for enhanced glucose control. Bioeng Transl Med2020;6(2):e10201; CrossrefPubMed.
  99. Kong YW, Morrison D, Lu JC, Lee MH, Jenkins AJ, O’Neal DN. Continuous ketone monitoring: exciting implications for clinical practice. Diabetes Obes Metab2024;26(Suppl 7):47–58. Crossref. PubMed.
  100. Aiello EM, Deshpande S, Ozaslan B, et al. Review of automated insulin delivery systems for individuals with type 1 diabetes: tailored solutions for subpopulations. Curr Opin Biomed Eng2021;19:100312; CrossrefPubMed.
  101. Teymourian H, Moonla C, Tehrani F, et al. Microneedle-based detection of ketone bodies along with glucose and lactate: toward real-time continuous interstitial fluid monitoring of diabetic ketosis and ketoacidosis. Anal Chem2020;92(2):2291–2300; CrossrefPubMed.
  102. Vargas E, Povedano E, Krishnan S, et al. Simultaneous cortisol/insulin microchip detection using dual enzyme tagging. Biosens Bioelectron2020;167:112512; CrossrefPubMed.
  103. Vargas E, Nandhakumar P, Ding S, Saha T, Wang J. Insulin detection in diabetes mellitus: challenges and new prospects. Nat Rev Endocrinol2023;19(8):487–495; CrossrefPubMed.
  104. Zhou K, James S, Gaca M, et al. Beyond glucose monitoring: multianalyte sensor use in diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther2024;26(12):885–896. Crossref. PubMed.
PDF (українська)

Published
2025

How to Cite

Richard M. Bergenstal, Adam Heller, Marc D. Breton, RobertVigersky, Susan A. Brown, Gregory P. Forlenza, Jennifer L. Sherr, Roman Hovorka, Steven J. Russell, Edward R.Damiano, Melissa S. Putman, Roy W. Beck, Eric Renard, Rayhan Lal, Claudio Cobelli, Eyal Dassau, Halis K. Akturk, Michael A. Weiss, Jay S. Skyler(2025). Evolution of the Artificial Pancreas: Components and Integration—CGMs, Insulin, and AP Systems* Diabetes Obesity Metabolic Syndrome. 5(14), 8-21.