Table 2.
Review of glycemic outcomes of DIYAPS as reported from the published studies
| Authors and year of publication | Publication type | Aims | Glycemic outcomes (P < 0.05) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lewis et al. 2016 | Conference abstract | To analyze the shared and self-reported data and experiences from 18 DIYAPS users | HbA1c | 7.1% (SD 0.8%) vs 6.2% (SD 0.5%) | |
| %TIR (80–180 mg/dL) | 58% (SD 14%) vs 81% (SD 8%) | ||||
| Lewis et al. 2018 | Conference abstract | To conduct a retrospective cross-over analysis with 20 OpenAPS users | BG | 135.7 to 128.3 mg/dL | |
| HbA1c | 6.4% vs 6.1% | ||||
| %TIR | 75.8% vs 82.2% | ||||
| Overnight, BG time < 70 | 6.4% vs 4.2% | ||||
| Overnight time < 50 | 2.3% vs 1.0% | ||||
| BG excursions > 300 | 1.7% vs 0.35% | ||||
| Choi et al. 2018 | Conference abstract | To present the clinical experience of 20 patients (11.9 ± 6.9 years) using OpenAPS | HbA1c | 6.8 ± 1.0% vs 6.3 ± 0.7% | |
| %TIR | 70.1 ± 16.4% vs 83.3 ± 10.1% | ||||
| %TAR | 24.7 ± 16.5% vs 13.3 ± 9.4% | ||||
| %TBR | 5.1 ± 3.3% vs 3.4 ± 2.3% | ||||
| Provenzano et al. 2018 | Conference abstract | To understand if closing the loop with OpenAPS is effective to improve the glucose control in T1D | HbA1c | 7.17 ± 0.49% vs 6.61 ± 0.47% | |
| %TIHypo | 8.55 ± 5.81% vs 2.48 ± 1.16% | ||||
| Wilmot et al. 2019 | Conference abstract | To compare the glycemic outcomes (HbA1c, TIR, and TBR) of 30 people on CSII with either OpenAPS versus FreeStyle Libre (FSL) flash glucose monitor | HbA1c |
OpenAPS (7.3 ± 1.4% vs 6.2 ± 0.4%) FSL (7.6 ± 0.8% vs 7.2 ± 0.6%) |
|
| %TIR | OpenAPS vs FSL (83.6 ± 7.2% vs 55.9 ± 11.5%) | ||||
| %TBR | OpenAPS vs FSL (2.5 ± 1.8% vs 5.7 ± 4.7%) | ||||
| Braune et al. 2019 | Short paper | To conduct an online survey to assess the self-reported clinical outcomes of a pediatric population (median age 10 years) using DIYAPS in the real world | HbA1c | 6.91% [SD 0.88%) to 6.27% [SD 0.67] | |
| %TIR | 64.2% [SD 15.94] to 80.68% [SD 9.26] | ||||
| Melmer et al. 2019 | Brief report | To analyze CGM records of 80 patients with T1D using DIY closed loop systems and to compare the glycemic outcomes of SAP therapy to OpenAPS in 34 of the users | Glycemic parameters of DIY closed loop system users | ||
| Mean BG | 137 ± 20 mg/dL | ||||
| eA1c | 6.40 ± 0.70% | ||||
| TIR | 77.5 ± 10.5% | ||||
| TBR < 70 mg/dL | 4.3% | ||||
| TBR < 54 mg/dL | 1.3% | ||||
| TAR > 180 mg/dL | 18.2% | ||||
| TAR > 250 mg/dL | 4.1% | ||||
| SAP vs OpenAPS | |||||
| Reduction in BG | − 0.6 ± 0.7 | ||||
| Reduction in eA1c | − 0.4 ± 0.5% | ||||
| Increase in %TIR 3.9–10 mmol/L | + 9.3 ± 9.5% | ||||
| Reduction in TBR < 3.0 mmol/L | − 0.7 ± 2.2% | ||||
| Reduction in CV | − 2.4 ± 5.8 | ||||
| Reduction in mean of daily differences | − 0.6 ± 0.9 mmol/L | ||||
| Koutsovasilis et al. 2019 | Conference abstract | To examine the effect of OpenAPS on the glycemic control of T1D patients | HbA1c | 6.63 ± 1.05 vs 7.70 ± 1.14 | |
| BG | 154.14 ± 26.17 vs 117.74 ± 8.73 | ||||
| Bazdraska et al. 2020 | Conference abstract | To evaluate the benefits in children/adolescents using DIY unapproved loops vs SAP therapy | DIY loop vs SAP therapy | ||
| TIR | 83% vs 68.8% | ||||
| TIHypo > 14 mmol/L | 2.1% vs 8.6% | ||||
Glycemic outcomes are either reported as changes from baseline or comparison to another intervention
BG blood glucose, CSII continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, CV coefficient of variation, DIY do it yourself, eA1c estimated HbA1c, SAP sensor‐augmented pump, TAR time above range, TBR time below range, TIHypo time in hypoglycemia, TIR time in range