A New Optimized Percutaneous Access System for CIPII

Abstract

In recent years, continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion (CIPII) has become a favored treatment alternative for patients with subcutaneous insulin resistance, mainly due to its ability of mimicking physiological conditions of insulin absorption. CIPII has been shown to improve glycemic control as well as to reduce hypoglycemic events and to lead to increased patient satisfaction and quality of life (QoL). Among CIPII delivery systems, Diaport stands out due to its low side effects, its demonstrated clinical efficacy and the potential for integration into closed-loop systems.

Keywords

CIPII hypoglycemia subcutaneous insulin resistance type 1 diabetes

Continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion (CIPII) has been employed for the treatment of diabetes since the 1980s. Currently, this is a preferred treatment option for those patients presenting subcutaneous insulin resistance.¹ Subcutaneous insulin resistance is a rare syndrome, often misdiagnosed, in which patients with poorly controlled glucose levels are thought to suffer from insulin degradation in the subcutaneous tissue by protease activation.^2,3 There are, however, other studies on patients where no degrading activity was found subcutaneously, despite extreme insulin resistance.⁴ Several treatment approaches have been used to deal with this situation, namely, oral antidiabetic medication, continuous ambulatory intravenous insulin infusion, and last CIPII, which has been proposed to be the best solution for this problem.^4,5

Moreover, recent data suggest it might be helpful to reduce the frequency of hypoglycemic events, and constitutes a last treatment option for those patients unable to reach adequate glycemic control despite standard therapy with multiple insulin injections per day or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII).^6,7

Intraperitoneal insulin administration mimics physiology more closely than standard therapies.¹ Moreover, in cases of subcutaneous insulin resistance it is preferable to intravenous insulin administration, which has several inherent risks, mostly increased infection rates and an increased risk of thrombosis and vascular damage.^8,4 CIPII is advantageous for various reasons: first, it allows a faster blood glucose normalization after a meal with reproducible and more predictable insulin profiles than CSII;^9-12 second, since most of the insulin is absorbed through the portal venous system,¹³ there is an improved hepatic uptake and lower peripheral plasma insulin levels than with intravenous administration.¹⁴ Last, intraperitoneal insulin may improve glucagon secretion and hepatic glucose production in the face of hypoglycemia by alleviating peripheral hyperglycemia¹⁵ and/or by increasing hepatic sensitivity to glucagon/glucose utilization during hypoglycemia.

Numerous clinical trials as well as observational studies have shown a decrease in HbA1c as well as a lower incidence of hypoglycemia with CIPII in comparison with CSII.^7,16-24 Glycemic variability (standard deviation of capillary glucose) was also smaller with CIPII therapy.^17,20,22-25 Moreover, long-term data from small, nonblinded studies show stabilization of HbA1c levels and lower risk of hyperglycemia.^8-9 In addition, CIPII could be advantageous for closed-loop insulin delivery systems, due to a fast insulin absorption.^26-28 CIPII has also been reported to be beneficial in terms of QoL as well as to have physiological effects beyond glycemic control.^24,29,30

CIPII can be conducted either by the implantation of programmable pumps^10,16,17 or by means of a percutaneous port connected to an external pump for insulin delivery.^12,22,31,32 One method of CIPII administration involves the use of percutaneous access devices,^33,34 its latest implementation being the Accu-Chek® Diaport system (Roche Diabetes Care, Mannheim, Germany).³⁵ This report aims to summarize all evidence supporting this system as part of a CIPII therapy for T1D treatment.

Intraperitoneal Insulin Delivery for Type 1 Diabetes Management

Portal insulin administration—via the umbilical vein—has been shown to be more beneficial in T1D treatment than peripheral insulin administration both in animal models and in humans.^36,37 In a similar but less invasive way, intraperitoneal insulin administration permits its absorption via the capillaries of the visceral peritoneum into the portal vein. This absorption will be faster or slower depending on factors such as injected volume, insulin concentration or injection duration, but it will be mostly absorbed directly into the portal system and detectable already within a minute after administration.¹⁴ Due to the portal absorption, insulin uptake at the liver is higher, with first-pass liver insulin extraction right after absorption. This in turn achieves a greater reduction of peripheral plasma insulin levels than with subcutaneously administered insulin. Among other likely positive effects are the improvement of the glucagon secretion and glucose production in the liver in response to hypoglycemia and/or exercise. This is possibly either because lower peripheral plasma insulin might restore glucagon release or due to a restoration of hepatic sensitivity to glucagon/hepatic glucose utilization during hypoglycemia.^6,15 Subcutaneous delivery, specially of fast-acting insulins, is preferred to multiple daily injections (MDI), among other reasons because contrary to MDI, an increase in bolus-delivered dose does not alter the time-to-peak and the duration of effects. In contrast to subcutaneous delivery, intraperitoneal delivery is characterized for faster effects and a stark reduction of glucose variability.³⁸ In general, human insulin is preferred for CIPII, even when close attention to insulin aggregation and pump blockade is needed.³⁹ For a depiction of differences between subcutaneous and portal delivery see Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Intraperitoneal insulin administration.

Next, we summarize some of the beneficial aspects of CIPII described thus far. Table 1 shows a summary of evidence for/against CIPII.

Table 1.

Summary of Proven Benefits of CIPII Therapy.

Benefit	References
Reduced hypoglycemic events	16, 19, 22, 24, 25, 35, 43
Reduced glycemic variation	16, 20, 40, 46
Improved glycemic control	23, 24, 31, 32, 34, 40, 41, 43, 46
Improved QoL	24, 29, 30, 33, 64
Increased treatment satisfaction	24, 29, 30
Positive effect on GH-IGF-1 axis	49-51
Increased free circulating testosterone	53

Glycemic control. Several clinical trials have compared CIPII, via an implantable pump, with insulin injections or CSII for glycemic control in T1D patients. A 6-month, randomized, prospective, cross-over study on 10 patients described an improvement in HbA1c as well as in the frequency of hypoglycemia in patients treated with CIPII versus those on multiple daily insulin injections.²⁰ Another 6-month trial on 21 T1D patients, however, did not find differences between patients treated with CIPII and multiple daily injections, but concedes that CIPII can be beneficial for maintaining a low level of glycemic fluctuations.⁴⁰ A more recent 16 month, open-label, randomized, prospective, cross-over study on 24 patients with poorly controlled T1D compared CIPII with subcutaneous insulin delivery either with CSII or MDI. The study found an improved glycemic control in the CIPII group versus the CSII treated group—absolute mean HbA1c difference −0.76% (95% CI −1.41 to −0.11) (P = .03)—without an increase of reported hypoglycemia.²³ A retrospective longitudinal analysis with CIPII usage data from 1983 to 2005 (48 patients) concluded that CIPII improves glycemic control along with less self-reported hypoglycemia in poorly controlled T1D patients.²⁴ Since the early 1990s there are reports on the use of percutaneous access devices as CIPII delivery mechanism: an initial pilot study on 6 patients³⁴ as well as a small prospective study³¹ reported an improvement in diabetic control but there were some device related complications that needed refinement. In the study, it also was reported that in patients with a clinically proven subcutaneous insulin resistance the daily insulin dose was largely reduced by intraperitoneal delivery.³¹ Despite possible complications, case-study reports recount successful implantation and glycemic control in a pregnant patient,³³ in a child with scarce subcutaneous fat tissue and skin infections,³² and in a patient with inflammation at the insulin injection site.⁴¹ More recently, a prospective, 26-week follow up observational case-control study on more than 180 T1D patients performed a noninferiority analysis of CIPII vs CSII, and reported a noninferior difference in HbA1c levels between both experimental groups.⁴²

Hypoglycemic event reduction. A number of observational studies, mostly using implantable pumps as CIPII method, also found a lower incidence of hypoglycemic events along with HbA1c reduction.^16,19,22,24 Furthermore, an open, randomized, controlled, cross-over, multinational, 12-month study with 60 patients with type 1 diabetes with frequent hypoglycemia and/or HbA1c > 7.0% with CSII, CIPII mediated via an external pump in association with catheter delivery to the portal system showed a reduction of the incidence of severe hypoglycemia to half of that with CSII.²² A new study has demonstrated a further hypoglycemia reduction up to 83%.³⁵ The results of long-term studies also corroborate the stabilization of HbA1c levels and the lower occurrence of hypoglycemia in comparison with intensive subcutaneous insulin administration.^25,43

Glycemic variation. Glycemic variation is not only supposed to help predict hypoglycemic events and other diabetes-related complications, but it is also a very important aspect of glycemic control, that has been suggested to be a further independent risk factor for diabetes-related complications.^44,45 CIPII has been shown superior to subcutaneous insulin administration in several studies, independently of the glucose measurement system employed. Three studies performed before access to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)^16,20,40 and a recent one⁴⁶ making use of it, have all demonstrated less glycemic variability with CIPII than with subcutaneous insulin administration (MDI and CSII).

Other physiological effects. Besides its effects on glycemic control, further physiological benefits have been associated with CIPII treatment. The more physiological insulin concentration in portal circulation provided by CIPII could have a positive effect on the GH-IGF-1 axis. In T1D, the lack of endogenous portal insulin circulation leads to insufficient liver insulinization and consequently to a low concentration of IGF-1 and IGF-binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) and high IGFBP-1 and GH levels. Low IGF-1 levels have been proposed to contribute to increased insulin resistance and an increased risk of long-term diabetes complications by influencing IGF-1 sensitive tissues like the vasculature, bone and muscle.^47,48 For instance, a longitudinal study on T1D patients showed higher IGF-1 concentrations with CIPII than with previous CSII.⁴⁹ Furthermore, IGFBP-1 levels have been shown to decrease significantly over 6 months of CIPII therapy⁵⁰ and, in addition to higher IGF-1 levels, another study found increased IGF-1 bioactivity during CIPII in comparison with CSII treated patients.⁵¹ A collateral effect of low insulin concentration in the portal circulation is a higher production of the hepatic glycoprotein sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), which in male T1D patients with normal testosterone levels results in lower free testosterone concentration, even under subcutaneous insulin therapy.⁵² CIPII has been shown to significantly decrease SHBG levels in T1D patients that switched from CSII to CIPII,⁵³ and therefore constitute a potential advantageous alternative for male patients with diabetes. Lipoprotein metabolism, which is also affected by abnormal insulin levels, is improved by CIPII induced lower peripheral circulating insulin, which has been shown to normalize cholesteryl-ester-transferase and lipoprotein lipase (LPL) activity⁵⁴ and increase hepatic lipase activity.⁵⁵ Despite several studies^54-56 that have tried to answer if CIPII produces a benefit or even normalization of lipids/lipoproteins, limitations due to study design make them inconclusive to this effect. Microvascular complications and increased general as well as cardiovascular mortality in T1D patients are related to elevated adiponectin levels, which are also associated with insulin resistance.^57-59 Since adiponectin levels, an adipocyte-related peptide hormone, are positively associated with LPL activity and inversely with hepatic lipase activity,^60,61 it was expected that CIPII would have a better effect on adiponectin concentration than CSII, however, a small 2-year study on less than 10 patients found no differences between treatments.⁶² Another study on differential effects of CIPII versus CSII on metabolism focused on vitamin D, and reported no differences in calcitriol (1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D) levels but a higher plasma concentration of calcidiol (25-hydroxyvitamin D) in CIPII treated individuals, which may be due to the better stimulation of the enzymatic activity of the hepatic 25-hydroxylase which transforms cholecalciferol (vit. D3) and ergocalciferol (vit. D2) to calcidiol.⁶³

Nonphysiological effects. Other effects, such as QoL have been shown to improve with CIPII. For instance, various cross-over trials showed a significant improvement on self-reported QoL during CIPII treatment in comparison with CSII therapy, the same was true for other randomized trials^24,29,30 and several case studies.^33,64 Apart from QoL improvement, treatment satisfaction was also higher with CIPII than with CSII.

Potential for Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery Systems (Artificial Pancreas)

Closed-loop insulin delivery systems are based on a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system that sends information to a controller which, by running an algorithm, adjusts the insulin output of a pump in an automatic manner, thereby conducing to a better glycemic control.^28,65-69 However, insulin delivery via CSII has the problem of the slow insulin absorption and a relatively high concomitant risk for hypoglycemia.⁷⁰ CIPII as part of a closed-loop system would potentially imply an improvement on both issues, due to the almost physiological insulin absorption route, which allows a faster blood glucose normalization after a meal ^9-12 and the positive results obtained with CIPII for hypoglycemia control.^{16,19,22,24,25,43} A small study on the use of intraperitoneal insulin delivery as part of a closed-loop system also showed the potential for this combination.²⁷

Suitability of CIPII Therapy

CIPII is recommended for diabetes patients with the following characteristics:

Frequent severe hypoglycemia during subcutaneous insulin therapy

Hypoglycemia unawareness

Subcutaneous insulin resistance

HbA1c targets not reached (or only at the expense of an increased frequency of hypoglycemic episodes)

High insulin requirements in marked insulin resistance

Lipoatrophy associated with subcutaneous insulin

Insulin-associated lipohypertrophy not controlled by injection site rotation

Skin disorders interfering with subcutaneous insulin administration

Subcutaneous site issues, such as allergic reactions to tapes, nickel or Teflon, as well as insulin absorption issues

Marked fluctuations of glucose levels and insulin requirements during subcutaneous insulin therapy (brittle diabetes)

However, CIPII is not suitable for every diabetes patient. There are a number of contraindications. For example,

Presence of high insulin-antibody levels

Poor therapy compliance

Evidence of psychiatric conditions

Gastrointestinal disorders (colon disease, peritoneal adhesions . . .)

Unsuitability for external pump use in CSII

In addition, there are situations where CIPII might have an increased associated risk. Namely, patients with severe impairment of liver function, severely impaired immune response or those receiving concomitant drugs by intraperitoneal infusion (eg, chemotherapy) or under CAPD.⁶⁹

A marked and sustained elevation of anti-insulin antibodies (IAs), possibly due to the use of unstable insulin and consequently, the formation of immunogenic aggregates of insulin has been reported with CIPII.⁷¹ Even when the clinical impact of these circulating anti-IAs is not yet clear, some studies imply a possible retarding effect on insulin action, leading to a worsening of postprandial hyperglycemia and/or to unexpected hypoglycemia.⁷¹ However, another study found no significant effects on metabolic control from the increased presence of anti-IAs, and others consider the clinical effects of reduced impact on glycemic control or diabetes-related complications.^71,72

An Improved CIPII System

As mentioned previously, port-mediated systems are an alternative to implantable pumps for CIPII treatment. In summary, this new system facilitates insulin infusion into the peritoneal cavity using the Spirit Combo insulin pump and a special stainless steel ball cannula infusion set. The system involves a titanium port-body with a flexible catheter that is to be placed in the abdomen. The top of the port with the membrane sits above the surface of the skin by approximately 5 millimeters. To help stabilize the port, a flower-shaped plate (Ø26 mm) and a polyester felt band that acts as a microbial barrier, are placed under the skin during a surgical procedure. All system components are depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

System components.

Clinical Evidence

Despite reports on earlier percutaneous access devices for CIPII^27,32-34 described an improvement in diabetes control, there were also accounts of device-related complications^27,32-34,73 that have been recently resolved by the development of the technology. To date, only two clinical trials have employed this system for CIPII treatment and compared it to CSII. The first, a large, open, randomized, controlled, cross-over, multinational, 12-month clinical trial on 60 T1D patients with frequent hypoglycemia and/or HbA1c > 7.0% and previous CSII treatment were assigned either to CIPII therapy with this new system or a continuation of CSII. In T1D, CIPII via this new system was found to reduce the incidence of severe hypoglycemia—34.8 vs 86.1 per 100 patient years. Despite other glycemic control-related parameters like HbA1c, mean blood glucose, and glucose fluctuations were not statistically different between groups, CIPII was reported to improve QoL with no weight gain. As in previous reports of older percutaneous access devices some adverse complications like port infection, insufficient insulin delivery or abdominal pain were reported, yet appropriate control of system functioning should overcome these limitations.²²

A recent 12-month, open, mono-center, single-arm, interventional clinical trial (NCT01483352) on 12 T1D patients unsuccessfully treated with subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII)—patients with frequent or severe hypoglycemia and/or an HbA1c > 8.5%—evaluated its suitability to perform continuous intraperitoneal insulin delivery. The initial report on the 12-month data found no major issues regarding surgical procedures, tolerability and function of the system. Minor local infections around the port could be easily treated locally and with oral antibiotics. Frequent catheter obstructions were found when in combination with insulin lispro. However, changing to human insulin effectively resolved this issue. The analysis of glycemic outcomes showed a significant improvement of HbA1c after 6 months (7.6% ± 0.6% SD, P = .002), with a similar trend toward improvement at 12 months (8.4% ± 0.2% SD, P = .07). Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) showed significant improvements in the percentage of interstitial glucose values above 180 mg/dL (53% baseline versus 38% at month 6, P = .036), and in the percentage of glucose values within the target range 70-180 mg/dl (45% vs 58%, P = .027), without increase in hypoglycemia. With respect to hypoglycemic events, the intervention also dramatically reduced the occurrence of severe hypoglycemia, from 12 cases/year before this therapy to two cases afterward. Furthermore, therapy satisfaction was rated high by study participants and so was QoL.³⁵ Recently published case-study reports also reflect on the benefits both psychological and physiological of this device for diabetes control.³⁵

In summary, this newly developed system for CIPII represents a valuable treatment alternative for patients where CSII has proven unsuccessful for maintaining an adequate glycemic control.

Advantages Versus Other High-End Insulin Therapy Approaches

Despite the development of new fast-acting insulins like aspart, lispro, and glulisine that can better mimic pancreatic insulin secretion due to a rapid onset and fast reached peak, they are still not as fast and short-acting as needed.⁷⁴ Therefore, CIPII stands currently as the best method to achieve a closely resembling physiological insulin delivery.

Another alternative to achieve physiological insulin production are pancreas or islet cell transplants. However, while pancreas transplantation is a treatment of choice for selected T1D patients to provide insulin independence, islet transplantation is, to date, still an experimental procedure aimed to avoid hypoglycemia.⁷⁵ Although, if successful, both alternatives represent the only biologic treatment options to prevent long-term hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes, several considerations make these techniques a less than desired option for many patients, namely the need for immunosuppressive therapy, the high rejection rate, and the need for donors, without mentioning the inherent risk of the surgery. Moreover, the cost of these types of transplants is certainly high.⁷⁶ Because of these disadvantages, CIPII stands as a preferable alternative for glycemic control in patients with brittle diabetes.

One of the main advantages of CIPII via this system in comparison with insulin administration via programmable implantable pumps is that it provides intraperitoneal insulin delivery at a lower cost and with higher patient autonomy. The elevated cost of implantable pumps is related not only to the device cost itself, but also to the man-time cost needed to refill the pump reservoir with insulin at hospital every 6-8 weeks and to maintain reliable insulin delivery, as well as the regular need for pump extirpation due to end of battery life. Furthermore, an external pump system allows more flexibility and autonomy to the patient; it is easier to repair/update and offers the possibility of changing to a closed loop approach.^27,38

The most reported complications of CIPII via implantable pumps are related to the delivery system. Common complications refer to catheter occlusions (≈30%), pump dysfunction (17.1%), pump replacements due to end-of-battery life and, unfrequently, infections leading to pump removal.^19,77,78 In addition, a study reported no pump-related complications in a 15-year period in 80% patients under CIPII.⁷⁷ By comparison, the most common treatment-related severe complications of CIPII via this new delivery system were infections at the port site (0.025 events/patient month), replacement of 8 catheters used with fast acting insulin (0.17 events/patient month), and 7 catheter replacements due to catheter occlusion with human insulin (0.02 events/patient month). Only one case report found severe complications associated with an old generation of percutaneous access device for CIPII, namely 3 catheter obstructions and a subcutaneous access that led to removal of the system.⁷⁹ Therefore, CIPII via an external pump with direct insulin delivery to the portal circulation represents a safer and more comfortable way of CIPII administration than implantable pumps.

Conclusion

CIPII has achieved better results than subcutaneous insulin delivery (CSII or MDI) in the treatment of T1D in several clinical trials. Despite the invasiveness of the two possible delivery systems, an implantable pump or an external pump connected to direct delivery via catheter, CIPII constitutes a first line treatment option in severe subcutaneous insulin resistance, and it is a preferred alternative for cases of “brittle diabetes”. Based on its low side effects, economic and patient autonomy reasons, Diaport is preferable to implantable pumps as a delivery system for CIPII therapy. Clinical results of the recently optimized version confirm its clinical efficacy as well as a reduction of system-associated complications. Moreover, recent data underline its potential for hypoglycemia reduction and thanks to the unique insulin kinetics provided by the intraperitoneal delivery, stands as an ideal alternative for closed-loop systems.

Footnotes

Abbreviations

AI, anti-insulin antibodies; CAPD, continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis; CGM, continuous glucose monitoring; CIPII, continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion; CSII, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; GH, growth hormone; IGFBP, IGF-binding protein; IGF1, (GH)–insulin-like growth hormone-1; LPL, lipoprotein lipase; MDI, multiple daily injections; QoL, quality of life. SD, standard deviation; SHBG, sex hormone-binding globulin; T1D, type 1 diabetes.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Medical writing was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Roche Diabetes Care.

References

Renard

. Continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion from implantable pumps. In: Bruttomesso

, ed. Technological Advances in the Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes. Basel, Switzerland: Karger; 2015:190-209.

Schade

Duckworth

WC.

In search of the subcutaneous-insulin-resistance syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1986;315(3):147-153.

Mantzoros

Flier

JS.

Insulin resistance: the clinical spectrum. Adv Endocrinol Metab. 1995;6:193-232.

Soudan

Girardot

Fermon

. Extreme subcutaneous insulin resistance: a misunderstood syndrome. Diabetes Metab. 29(5):539-546.

Ahmed

Prasad

Rahman

. A male with extreme subcutaneous insulin resistance: a case report. Rom J Diabetes Nutr Metab Dis. 2016;23(2):209-213.

Spaan

Teplova

Stam

. Systematic review: continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion with implantable insulin pumps for diabetes mellitus. Acta Diabetol. 2014;51(3):339-351.

van Dijk

Logtenberg

Gans

. Intraperitoneal insulin infusion: treatment option for type 1 diabetes resulting in beneficial endocrine effects beyond glycaemia. Clin Endocrinol. 2014;81(4):488-497.

Koballa

SHM

Hickstein

Unusual intravenous application of insulin in a case of patient with juvenile diabetes and subcutaneous insulin resistance. J Endocrinol Metab. 2012;2(3):151-153.

Micossi

Cristallo

Librenti

. Free-insulin profiles after intraperitoneal, intramuscular, and subcutaneous insulin administration. Diabetes Care. 1986;9(6):575-578.

10.

Nathan

Dunn

Bruch

. Postprandial insulin profiles with implantable pump therapy may explain decreased frequency of severe hypoglycemia, compared with intensive subcutaneous regimens, in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus patients. Am J Med. 1996;100(4):412-417.

11.

Schade

Eaton

Friedman

. Normalization of plasma insulin profiles with intraperitoneal insulin infusion in diabetic man. Diabetologia. 1980;19(1):35-39.

12.

Wredling

Liu

Lins

. Variation of insulin absorption during subcutaneous and peritoneal infusion in insulin-dependent diabetic patients with unsatisfactory long-term glycaemic response to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Diabetes Metab. 1991;17(5):456-459.

13.

Radziuk

Pze

Seigler

. Splanchnic and systemic absorption of intraperitoneal insulin using a new double-tracer method. Am J Physiol. 1994;266(5 pt 1):E750-E759.

14.

Giacca

Caumo

Gallimberti

. Peritoneal and subcutaneous absorption of insulin in type I diabetic subjects. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1993;77(3):738-742.

15.

Wan

Giacca

Matsuhisa

. Increased responses of glucagon and glucose production to hypoglycemia with intraperitoneal versus subcutaneous insulin treatment. Metabolism. 2000;49(8):984-989.

16.

Broussolle

Jeandidier

Hanaire-Broutin

French multicentre experience of implantable insulin pumps. The EVADIAC Study Group. Evaluation of active implants in diabetes society. Lancet. 1994;343(8896):514-515.

17.

Catargi

Meyer

Melki

. Comparison of blood glucose stability and HbA1C between implantable insulin pumps using U400 HOE 21PH insulin and external pumps using lispro in type 1 diabetic patients: a pilot study. Diabetes Metab. 2002;28(2):133-137.

18.

DeVries

Eskes

Snoek

. Continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion in patients with ‘brittle’ diabetes: favourable effects on glycaemic control and hospital stay. Diabet Med. 2002;19(6):496-501.

19.

Gin

Renard

Melki

. Combined improvements in implantable pump technology and insulin stability allow safe and effective long term intraperitoneal insulin delivery in type 1 diabetic patients: the EVADIAC experience. Diabetes Metab. 2003;29(6):602-607.

20.

Haardt

Selam

Slama

. A cost-benefit comparison of intensive diabetes management with implantable pumps versus multiple subcutaneous injections in patients with type I diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1994;17(8):847-851.

21.

Hanaire-Broutin

Broussole

Jeandidier

. Feasibility of intraperitoneal insulin therapy with programmable implantable pumps in IDDM. A multicenter study. The EVADIAC Study Group. Evaluation dans le Diabete du Traitement par Implants Actifs. Diabetes Care. 1995;18(3):388-392.

22.

Liebl

Hoogma

Renard

. A reduction in severe hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes in a randomized crossover study of continuous intraperitoneal compared with subcutaneous insulin infusion. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2009;11(11):1001-1008.

23.

Logtenberg

Kleefstra

Houweling

. Improved glycemic control with intraperitoneal versus subcutaneous insulin in type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(8):1372-1377.

24.

Logtenberg

van Ballegooie

Israel-Bultman

. Glycaemic control, health status and treatment satisfaction with continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion. Neth J Med. 2007;65(2):65-70.

25.

Schaepelynck

Renard

Jeandidier

. A recent survey confirms the efficacy and the safety of implanted insulin pumps during long-term use in poorly controlled type 1 diabetes patients. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13(6):657-660.

26.

Dassau

Lee

JJS

Renard

Zisser

Doyle

FJ.

Clinical and engineering aspects of Ip insulin delivery in closed loop study: the diaport experience. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013;15:A6.

27.

Renard

Place

Cantwell

. Closed-loop insulin delivery using a subcutaneous glucose sensor and intraperitoneal insulin delivery: feasibility study testing a new model for the artificial pancreas. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(1):121-127.

28.

Thabit

Hovorka

Bringing closed-loop home: recent advances in closed-loop insulin delivery. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2014;21(2):95-101.

29.

Logtenberg

Kleefstra

Houweling

. Health-related quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and costs associated with intraperitoneal versus subcutaneous insulin administration in type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(6):1169-1172.

30.

Renard

Apostol

Lauton

. Quality of life in diabetic patients treated by insulin pumps. QoL Newsletter. 2002;28:11-13.

31.

Schnell

OWH

Gerlach

Rauch

Flaschenträger

Mehnert

Standl

. Kontinuierliche intraperitoneale Insulintherapie mit Portsystem bei Typ-I-Diabetikern mit subkutaner Insulinaufnahmestörung. Diabetes und Stoffwechsel. 1994;3:51-55.

32.

Thimm

AKC

Hilgard

Continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion (CIPII) in a diabetic child with little subcutaneous fat tissue and recurrent skin infections. Paper presented at: International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes; 2014. Toronto, Canada.

33.

Schnell

Gerlach

Hillebrand

. A case of diabetic pregnancy controlled with a percutaneous access device for intraperitoneal insulin infusion. Diabetes Care. 1994;17(11):1354-1355.

34.

Wredling

Adamson

Lins

. Experience of long-term intraperitoneal insulin treatment using a new percutaneous access device. Diabet Med. 1991;8(6):597-600.

35.

Liebl

AGB

Kiehling

Rieger

Patte

Frei

. Evaluation of the new ACCU-CHEK® DIAPORT system, a port system for continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion, in patients with type 1 diabetes: final 12-month results. Bad Heilbrunn, Germany: Center for Diabetes and Metabolismus, Fachklinik; 2016.

36.

Gregory

Kraft

Scott

. Insulin delivery into the peripheral circulation: a key contributor to hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. 2015;64(10):3439-3451.

37.

Shishko

Kovalev

Goncharov

. Comparison of peripheral and portal (via the umbilical vein) routes of insulin infusion in IDDM patients. Diabetes. 1992;41(9):1042-1049.

38.

Renard

Insulin delivery route for the artificial pancreas: subcutaneous, intraperitoneal, or intravenous? Pros and cons. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008;2(4):735-738.

39.

Renard

Boutelau

Jacques-Apostol

. Insulin underdelivery from implanted pumps using peritoneal route. Determinant role of insulin pump compatibility. Diabetes Care. 1996;19(8):812-817.

40.

Selam

Raccah

Jean-Didier

. Randomized comparison of metabolic control achieved by intraperitoneal insulin infusion with implantable pumps versus intensive subcutaneous insulin therapy in type I diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 1992;15(1):53-58.

41.

Lee

Narendran

Intraperitoneal insulin therapy for a patient with type 1 diabetes with insulin injection site inflammation. BMJ Case Rep. 2014: bcr2014205278

42.

van Dijk

Logtenberg

Hendirks

. Intraperitoneal versus subcutaneous insulin therapy in the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus. Neth J Med. 2015;73(9):399-409.

43.

van Dijk

Logtenberg

Groenier

. Continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion in type 1 diabetes: a 6-year post-trial follow-up. BMC Endocr Disord. 2014;14:30.

44.

Frontoni

Di Bartolo

Avogaro

. Glucose variability: an emerging target for the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2013;102(2):86-95.

45.

Hirsch

Brownlee

Should minimal blood glucose variability become the gold standard of glycemic control?

J Diabetes Complications. 2005;19(3):178-181.

46.

van Dijk

Groenier

DeVries

. Continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion versus subcutaneous insulin therapy in the treatment of type 1 diabetes: effects on glycemic variability. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17(6):379-384.

47.

Arnqvist

HJ.

The role of IGF-system in vascular insulin resistance. Horm Metab Res. 2008;40(9):588-592.

48.

Clemmons

DR.

Modifying IGF1 activity: an approach to treat endocrine disorders, atherosclerosis and cancer. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2007;6(10):821-833.

49.

Hanaire-Broutin

Sallerin-Caute

Poncet

. Effect of intraperitoneal insulin delivery on growth hormone binding protein, insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, and IGF-binding protein-3 in IDDM. Diabetologia. 1996;39(12):1498-1504.

50.

van Dijk

Logtenberg

Groenier

. Effect of i.p. insulin administration on IGF1 and IGFBP1 in type 1 diabetes. Endocr Connect. 2014;3(1):17-23.

51.

Hedman

Frystyk

Lindstrom

. Intraperitoneal insulin delivery to patients with type 1 diabetes results in higher serum IGF-I bioactivity than continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Clin Endocrinol. 2014;81(1):58-62.

52.

van Dam

Dekker

Lentjes

. Steroids in adult men with type 1 diabetes: a tendency to hypogonadism. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(6):1812-1818.

53.

Lassmann-Vague

Raccah

Pugeat

. SHBG (sex hormone binding globulin) levels in insulin dependent diabetic patients according to the route of insulin administration. Horm Metab Res. 1994;26(9):436-437.

54.

Bagdade

Dunn

Eckel

. Intraperitoneal insulin therapy corrects abnormalities in cholesteryl ester transfer and lipoprotein lipase activities in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Arterioscler Thromb. 1994;14(12):1933-1939.

55.

Ruotolo

Parlavecchia

Taskinen

. Normalization of lipoprotein composition by intraperitoneal insulin in IDDM. Role of increased hepatic lipase activity. Diabetes Care. 1994;17(1):6-12.

56.

Duvillard

Florentin

Baillot-Rudoni

. Comparison of apolipoprotein B100 metabolism between continuous subcutaneous and intraperitoneal insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005;90(10):5761-5764.

57.

Forsblom

Thomas

Moran

. Serum adiponectin concentration is a positive predictor of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in type 1 diabetes. J Intern Med. 2011;270(4):346-355.

58.

Hadjadj

Aubert

Fumeron

. Increased plasma adiponectin concentrations are associated with microangiopathy in type 1 diabetic subjects. Diabetologia. 2005;48(6):1088-1092.

59.

Pereira

Snell-Bergeon

Erickson

. Adiponectin dysregulation and insulin resistance in type 1 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(4):E642-E647.

60.

Schneider

von Eynatten

Schiekofer

. Low plasma adiponectin levels are associated with increased hepatic lipase activity in vivo. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(9):2181-2186.

61.

von Eynatten

Schneider

Humpert

. Decreased plasma lipoprotein lipase in hypoadiponectinemia: an association independent of systemic inflammation and insulin resistance. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(12):2925-2929.

62.

Selam

Kashyap

Alberti

. Comparison of intraperitoneal and subcutaneous insulin administration on lipids, apolipoproteins, fuel metabolites, and hormones in type I diabetes mellitus. Metabolism. 1989;38(9):908-912.

63.

Colette

Pares-Herbute

Monnier

. Effect of different insulin administration modalities on vitamin D metabolism of insulin-dependent diabetic patients. Horm Metab Res. 1989;21(1):37-41.

64.

Chandrin

Sun

Stanton

Continuous intra-peritoneal insulin infusion (CIPII) using the Diaport external pump system, in type 1 diabetes patients with suboptimal control—a case series from an Australian tertiary centre. Paper presented at: Australian Diabetes Society and Australian Diabetes Educators Association Annual Scientific Meeting; 2015.

65.

Battelino

Omladic

Phillip

Closed loop insulin delivery in diabetes. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;29(3):315-325.

66.

Cobelli

Renard

Kovatchev

Artificial pancreas: past, present, future. Diabetes. 2011;60(11):2672-2682.

67.

Freckmann

[New technologies in diabetology. How far are we from a closed loop?]. Internist (Berl). 2015;56(5):484-492.

68.

Kovatchev

Tamborlane

Cefalu

. The artificial pancreas in 2016: a digital treatment ecosystem for diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(7):1123-1126.

69.

Renard

Cobelli

Kovatchev

BP.

Closed loop developments to improve glucose control at home. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2013;102(2):79-85.

70.

Thabit

Hovorka

Closed-loop insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2012;41(1):105-117.

71.

Radermecker

Renard

Scheen

AJ.

Circulating insulin antibodies: influence of continuous subcutaneous or intraperitoneal insulin infusion, and impact on glucose control. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2009;25(6):491-501.

72.

Jean-Didier

Boivin

Sapin

. Immunogenicity of intraperitoneal insulin infusion using programmable implantable devices. Diabetologia. 1995;38(5):577-584.

73.

Haak

Neuer Weg bei der intraperitonealen Insulingabe. Diabetes-Forum. 2016; (6): 11-15.

74.

Cengiz

Undeniable need for ultrafast-acting insulin: the pediatric perspective. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6(4):797-801.

75.

Gruessner

AC.

What defines success in pancreas and islet transplantation-insulin independence or prevention of hypoglycemia? A review. Transplant Proc. 2014;46(6):1898-1899.

76.

Kumar

Chung

Dennison

. Current principles and practice in autologous intra-portal islet transplantation: a meta-analysis of the technical considerations. Clin Transplant. 2016.

77.

Haveman

Logtenberg

Kleefstra

. Surgical aspects and complications of continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion with an implantable pump. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2010;395(1):65-71.

78.

van Dijk

Longtenberg

Groenier

. Complications of continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion with an implantable pump. World J Diabetes. 2012;3(8):142-148.

79.

Meier

Brand

Standl

. Successful treatment with insulin analog lispro in IDDM with delayed absorption of subcutaneously applied human regular insulin and complicated intraperitoneal insulin infusion. A case report. Diabetes Care. 1998;21(7):1044-1045.