KowalskiA: Pathway to artificial pancreas systems revisited: moving downstream. Diabetes Care, 2015; 38:1036–1043.
2.
KowalskiAJ: Can we really close the loop and how soon? Accelerating the availability of an artificial pancreas: a roadmap to better diabetes outcomes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2009; 11(Suppl 1):S113–S119.
3.
TanenbaumML, HanesSJ, MillerKM, et al.: Diabetes device use in adults with type 1 diabetes: barriers to uptake and potential intervention targets. Diabetes Care, 2017; 40:181–187.
4.
ForlenzaGP, BuckinghamB, MaahsDM: Progress in diabetes technology: developments in insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, and progress towards the artificial pancreas. J Pediatr, 2016; 169:13–20.
5.
KropffJ, DeVriesJH: Continuous glucose monitoring, future products, and update on worldwide artificial pancreas projects. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2016; 18(Suppl 2):S253–S263.
6.
WeissR, GargSK, BodeBW, et al.: Hypoglycemia reduction and changes in hemoglobin A1c in the ASPIRE in-home study. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2015; 17:542–547.
7.
GargSK, BrazgRL, BaileyTS, et al.: Hypoglycemia begets hypoglycemia: the order effect in the ASPIRE in-clinic study. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2014; 16:125–130.
8.
ChoudharyP, OlsenBS, CongetI, WelshJB, et al.: Hypoglycemia prevention and user acceptance of an insulin pump system with predictive low glucose management. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2016; 18:288–291.
9.
ForlenzaGP, LiZ, BuckinghamBA, et al.: Predictive low-glucose suspend reduces hypoglycemia in adults, adolescents, and children with type 1 diabetes in an at-home randomized crossover study: results of the PROLOG trial. Diabetes Care, 2018; 41:2155–2161.
10.
WoodMA, ShulmanDI, ForlenzaGP, et al.: In-clinic evaluation of the MiniMed 670G System “Suspend Before Low” feature in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:731–737.
11.
DoyleFJ, HuyettLM, LeeJB, et al.: Closed-loop artificial pancreas systems: engineering the algorithms. Diabetes Care, 2014; 37:1191–1197.
12.
WeismanA, BaiJW, CardinezM, et al.: Effect of artificial pancreas systems on glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outpatient randomised controlled trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 2017; 5:501–512.
13.
BergenstalRM, GargS, WeinzimerSA, et al.: Safety of a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system in patients with type 1 diabetes. JAMA, 2016; 316:1407–1408.
14.
MesserLH, ForlenzaGP, SherrJL, et al.: Optimizing hybrid closed-loop therapy in adolescents and emerging adults using the MiniMed 670G System. Diabetes Care, 2018; 41:789–796.
15.
GargSK, WeinzimerSA, TamborlaneWV, 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 Ther, 2017; 19:155–163.
16.
BekiariE, KitsiosK, ThabitH, et al.: Artificial pancreas treatment for outpatients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 2018; 361:k1310.
17.
QuemeraisMA, DoronM, DutrechF, et al.: 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 Technol, 2014; 8:1177–1184.
18.
BuckinghamBA, ForlenzaGP, PinskerJE, et al.: Safety and feasibility of the OmniPod hybrid closed-loop system in adult, adolescent, and pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes using a personalized model predictive control algorithm. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:257–262.
19.
El-KhatibFH, BalliroC, HillardMA, et al.: Home use of a bihormonal bionic pancreas versus insulin pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre randomised crossover trial. Lancet, 2017; 389:369–380.
20.
TauschmannM, AllenJM, WilinskaME, et al.: Day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a free-living, randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care, 2016; 39:1168–1174.
21.
BrownS, RaghinaruD, EmoryE, KovatchevB: First look at Control-IQ: a new-generation automated insulin delivery system. Diabetes Care, 2018; 41:2634–2636.
22.
BuckinghamBA, ChristiansenMP, ForlenzaGP, et al.: Performance of the Omnipod personalized model predictive control algorithm with meal bolus challenges in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:585–595.
23.
LewisD: History and perspective on DIY closed looping. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2018. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 1932296818808307.
24.
SamadiS, RashidM, TurksoyK, et al.: Automatic detection and estimation of unannounced meals for multivariable artificial pancreas system. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:235–246.
25.
RamkissoonCM, HerreroP, BondiaJ, VehiJ: Unannounced meals in the artificial pancreas: detection using continuous glucose monitoring. Sensors (Basel), 2018; 18:E884.
26.
ForlenzaGP, CameronFM, LyTT, et al.: Fully Closed-loop multiple model probabilistic predictive controller artificial pancreas performance in adolescents and adults in a supervised hotel setting. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:335–343.
27.
CameronFM, LyTT, BuckinghamBA, et al.: Closed-loop control without meal announcement in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2017; 19:527–532.
28.
ChernavvskyDR, DeBoerMD, Keith-HynesP, et al.: Use of an artificial pancreas among adolescents for a missed snack bolus and an underestimated meal bolus. Pediatr Diabetes, 2016; 17:28–35.
29.
ElleriD, MaltoniG, AllenJM, et al.: Safety of closed-loop therapy during reduction or omission of meal boluses in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2014; 16:1174–1178.
30.
GingrasV, Rabasa-LhoretR, MessierV, et al.: Efficacy of dual-hormone artificial pancreas to alleviate the carbohydrate-counting burden of type 1 diabetes: a randomized crossover trial. Diabetes Metab, 2016; 42:47–54.
31.
BlauwH, van BonAC, KoopsR, et al.: Performance and safety of an integrated bihormonal artificial pancreas for fully automated glucose control at home. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2016; 18:671–677.
32.
van BonAC, BrouwerTB, von BasumG, et al.: Future acceptance of an artificial pancreas in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2011; 13:731–736.
33.
MesserLH: Why expectations will determine the future of artificial pancreas. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20(Suppl 2):S265–s268.
34.
MesserLH, ForlenzaGP, WadwaRP, et al.: The dawn of automated insulin delivery: a new clinical framework to conceptualize insulin administration. Pediatr Diabetes, 2018; 19:14–17.
35.
BergetC, ThomasSE, MesserLH, et al.: A clinical training program for hybrid closed loop therapy in a pediatric diabetes clinic. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2019. [Epub ahead of print]. DOI: 10.1177/1932296819835183
36.
KovatchevB, PatekS, DassauE, et al.: Control to range for diabetes: functionality and modular architecture. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2009; 3:1058–1065.
37.
WadwaRP, LaffelLM, ShahVN, GargSK: Accuracy of a factory-calibrated, real-time continuous glucose monitoring system during 10 days of use in youth and adults with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:395–402.
38.
ShahVN, LaffelLM, WadwaRP, GargSK: Performance of a factory-calibrated real-time continuous glucose monitoring system utilizing an automated sensor applicator. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:428–433.
39.
SloverRH, TryggestadJB, DiMeglioLA, et al.: Accuracy of a fourth-generation continuous glucose monitoring system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:576–584.
40.
OlafsdottirAF, AttvallS, SandgrenU, et al.: A clinical trial of the accuracy and treatment experience of the flash glucose monitor FreeStyle libre in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2017; 19:164–172.
41.
ForlenzaGP, MesserLH, BergetC, et al.: Biopsychosocial factors associated with satisfaction and sustained use of artificial pancreas technology and its components: a call to the technology field. Curr Diab Rep, 2018; 18:114.
42.
MesserLH, BergetC, BeatsonC, et al.: Preserving skin integrity with chronic device use in diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20(Suppl 2):S254–s264.