Search

Aims: Position statement guidelines should help people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) improve glucose outcomes during exercise., Methods: In a 4-week observational study, continuous glucose, insulin, and nutrient data were collected from 561 adults with T1D. Glucose outcomes were calculated during exercise, post-exercise, and overnight, and were compared for sessions when participants used versus did not use exercise guidelines for open-loop (OL) and automated insulin delivery (AID) therapy., Results: Guidelines requiring behaviour modification were rarely used while guidelines not requiring modification were often used. The guideline recommending reduced meal insulin before exercise was associated with lower time <3.9 mmol/L during exercise (-2.2 %, P=0.02) for OL but not significant for AID (-1.4 %, P=0.27). Compared to exercise with low glucose (<3.9 mmol/L) in prior 24-hours, sessions without recent low glucose had lower time <3.9 mmol/L during exercise (-1.2 %, P<0.001). The AID guideline for no carbohydrates before exercise when CGM is flat, or increasing, was not associated with improved glycaemia., Conclusions: Free-living datasets may be used to evaluate usage and benefit of position statement guidelines. Evidence suggests OL participants who reduced meal insulin prior to exercise and did not have low glucose in the prior 24 h had less time below range., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Robin Gal reports financial support was provided by The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Robin Gal reports equipment, drugs, or supplies was provided by Verily Life Sciences LLC. Robin Gal reports equipment, drugs, or supplies was provided by Dexcom. Peter Jacobs reports a relationship with Dexcom that includes: funding grants. Peter Jacobs reports a relationship with Pacific Diabetes Technologies that includes: board membership and equity or stocks. Peter Jacobs reports a relationship with Eli Lilly and Company that includes: consulting or advisory. Jessica Castle reports a relationship with JDRF that includes: funding grants. Jessica Castle reports a relationship with National Institutes of Health that includes: funding grants. Jessica Castle reports a relationship with Dexcom that includes: funding grants. Jessica Castle reports a relationship with Medtronic Inc that includes: funding grants. Jessica Castle reports a relationship with Novo Nordisk Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. Jessica Castle reports a relationship with Insulet Corporation that includes: consulting or advisory. Jessica Castle reports a relationship with Zealand Pharma US, Inc. that includes: consulting or advisory. Michael Riddell reports a relationship with Zealand Pharma US, Inc. that includes: consulting or advisory. Michael Riddell reports a relationship with Zucara Therapeutics Inc. that includes: consulting or advisory. Michael Riddell reports a relationship with Indigo Diabetes that includes: consulting or advisory. Michael Riddell reports a relationship with Jaeb Center for Health Research that includes: consulting or advisory. Michael Riddell reports a relationship with Dexcom that includes: speaking and lecture fees. Michael Riddell reports a relationship with Novo Nordisk that includes: speaking and lecture fees. Michael Riddell reports a relationship with Sanofi that includes: speaking and lecture fees. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: Adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) face the necessity of balancing the benefits of exercise with the potential hazards of hypoglycemia., Objective: This work aimed to assess whether impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) affects exercise-associated hypoglycemia in adults with T1D., Methods: We compared continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-measured glucose during exercise and for 24 hours following exercise from 95 adults with T1D and IAH (Clarke score ≥4 or ≥1 severe hypoglycemic event within the past year) to 95 "aware" adults (Clarke score ≤2 and no severe hypoglycemic event within the past year) matched on sex, age, insulin delivery modality, and glycated hemoglobin A1c. A total of 4236 exercise sessions, and 1794 exercise days and 839 sedentary days, defined as 24 hours following exercise or a day without exercise, respectively, were available for analysis., Results: Participants with IAH exhibited a nonsignificant trend toward greater decline in glucose during exercise compared to "aware" (-21 ± 44 vs -19 ± 43 mg/dL [-1.17 ± 2.44 vs -1.05 ± 2.39 mmol/L], adjusted group difference of -4.2 [95% CI, -8.4 to 0.05] mg/dL [-0.23 95% CI, -.47 to 0.003 mmol/L]; P = .051). Individuals with IAH had a higher proportion of days with hypoglycemic events below 70 mg/dL [3.89 mmol/L] (≥15 minutes <70 mg/dL [<3.89 mmol/L]) both on exercise days (51% vs 43%; P = .006) and sedentary days (48% vs 30%; P = .001). The increased odds of experiencing a hypoglycemic event below 70 mg/dL (<3.89 mmol/L) for individuals with IAH compared to "aware" did not differ significantly between exercise and sedentary days (interaction P = .36)., Conclusion: Individuals with IAH have a higher underlying risk of hypoglycemia than "aware" individuals. Exercise does not appear to differentially increase risk for hypoglycemia during the activity, or in the subsequent 24 hours for IAH compared to aware individuals with T1D., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims/hypothesis: Adults with type 1 diabetes should perform daily physical activity to help maintain health and fitness, but the influence of daily step counts on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics are unclear. This analysis used the Type 1 Diabetes Exercise Initiative (T1DEXI) dataset to investigate the effect of daily step count on CGM-based metrics., Methods: In a 4 week free-living observational study of adults with type 1 diabetes, with available CGM and step count data, we categorised participants into three groups-below (<7000), meeting (7000-10,000) or exceeding (>10,000) the daily step count goal-to determine if step count category influenced CGM metrics, including per cent time in range (TIR: 3.9-10.0 mmol/l), time below range (TBR: <3.9 mmol/l) and time above range (TAR: >10.0 mmol/l)., Results: A total of 464 adults with type 1 diabetes (mean±SD age 37±14 years; HbA 1c 48.8±8.1 mmol/mol [6.6±0.7%]; 73% female; 45% hybrid closed-loop system, 38% standard insulin pump, 17% multiple daily insulin injections) were included in the study. Between-participant analyses showed that individuals who exceeded the mean daily step count goal over the 4 week period had a similar TIR (75±14%) to those meeting (74±14%) or below (75±16%) the step count goal (p>0.05). In the within-participant comparisons, TIR was higher on days when the step count goal was exceeded or met (both 75±15%) than on days below the step count goal (73±16%; both p<0.001). The TBR was also higher when individuals exceeded the step count goals (3.1%±3.2%) than on days when they met or were below step count goals (difference in means -0.3% [p=0.006] and -0.4% [p=0.001], respectively). The total daily insulin dose was lower on days when step count goals were exceeded (0.52±0.18 U/kg; p<0.001) or were met (0.53±0.18 U/kg; p<0.001) than on days when step counts were below the current recommendation (0.55±0.18 U/kg). Step count had a larger effect on CGM-based metrics in participants with a baseline HbA 1c ≥53 mmol/mol (≥7.0%)., Conclusions/interpretation: Our results suggest that, compared with days with low step counts, days with higher step counts are associated with slight increases in both TIR and TBR, along with small reductions in total daily insulin requirements, in adults living with type 1 diabetes., Data Availability: The data that support the findings reported here are available on the Vivli Platform (ID: T1-DEXI; https://doi.org/10.25934/PR00008428 )., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Decision support smartphone applications integrated with continuous glucose monitors may improve glycemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D). We conducted a survey to understand trends and needs of potential users to inform the design of decision support technology., Methods: A 70-question survey was distributed October 2017 through May 2018 to adults aged 18-80 with T1D from a specialty clinic and T1D Exchange online health community (myglu.org). The survey responses were used to evaluate potential features of a diabetes decision support tool by Likert scale and open responses., Results: There were 1542 responses (mean age 46.1 years [SD 15.2], mean duration of diabetes 26.5 years [SD 15.8]). The majority (84.2%) have never used an app to manage diabetes; however, a large majority (77.8%) expressed interest in using a decision support app. The ability to predict and avoid hypoglycemia was the most important feature identified by a majority of the respondents, with 91% of respondents indicating the highest level of interest in these features. The task that respondents find most difficult was management of glucose during exercise (only 47% of participants were confident in glucose management during exercise). The respondents also highly desired features that help manage glucose during exercise (85% of respondents were interested). The responses identified integration and interoperability with peripheral devices/apps and customization of alerts as important. Responses from participants were generally consistent across stratified categories., Conclusions: These results provide valuable insight into patient needs in decision support applications for management of T1D.

The accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensors may be significantly impacted by exercise. We evaluated the impact of three different types of exercise on the accuracy of the Dexcom G6 sensor. Twenty-four adults with type 1 diabetes on multiple daily injections wore a G6 sensor. Participants were randomized to aerobic, resistance, or high intensity interval training (HIIT) exercise. Each participant completed two in-clinic 30-min exercise sessions. The sensors were applied on average 5.3 days prior to the in-clinic visits (range 0.6-9.9). Capillary blood glucose (CBG) measurements with a Contour Next meter were performed before and after exercise as well as every 10 min during exercise. No CGM calibrations were performed. The median absolute relative difference (MARD) and median relative difference (MRD) of the CGM as compared with the reference CBG did not differ significantly from the start of exercise to the end exercise across all exercise types (ranges for aerobic MARD: 8.9 to 13.9% and MRD: -6.4 to 0.5%, resistance MARD: 7.7 to 14.5% and MRD: -8.3 to -2.9%, HIIT MARD: 12.1 to 16.8% and MRD: -14.3 to -9.1%). The accuracy of the no-calibration Dexcom G6 CGM was not significantly impacted by aerobic, resistance, or HIIT exercise.

Background: People with diabetes-related ulcers may benefit from hyperbaric oxygen (HBO 2 ) therapy and from continuous glucose monitors (CGM). Although blood glucose (BG) meters based on glucose oxidase (GO) report erroneously low values at high pO 2 , BG meters based on glucose dehydrogenase (GD) do not. We therefore examined the performance of a GO-based CGM system in comparison to GO-based and GD-based BG systems in normobaric air (NBAir), hyperbaric air (HBAir), and HBO 2 environments. Materials and Methods: Twenty-six volunteers without diabetes mellitus (DM) wore Dexcom G6 CGM systems and provided periodic blood samples before, during, and after a standard HBO 2 treatment consisting of three 30-min intervals of HBO 2 separated by two 5-min intervals of HBAir. Accuracy of the CGM and GO-based BG meter were assessed by comparisons with the GD-based values. Results: The mean absolute relative difference for the CGM system was 15.96% and for the GO-based meter was 8.52%. Compared to NBAir, HBO 2 exposure resulted in significantly higher CGM values (+3.76 mg/dL, P  < 0.001) and significantly lower GO-based meter values (-10.38 mg/dL, P  < 0.001). Pre-HBO 2 and post-HBO 2 values obtained in NBAir were also significantly different when measured by CGM (+4.13 mg/dL, P  = 0.015) or the GO-based meter (-9.04 mg/dL, P  < 0.001). Conclusions: In volunteers without DM, HBO 2 exposure results in statistically significant differences in glucose measurements obtained with GO-based devices, but not a GD-based device. Standard HBO 2 treatment results in statistically significant effects on glucose concentrations. These differences are of unlikely clinical significance.

Background: People with type 1 diabetes (T1D) have varying sensitivities to insulin and also varying responses to meals and exercise. We introduce a new adaptive run-to-run model predictive control (MPC) algorithm that can be used to help people with T1D better manage their glucose levels using an artificial pancreas (AP). The algorithm adapts to individuals' different insulin sensitivities, glycemic response to meals, and adjustment during exercise as a continuous input during free-living conditions., Methods: A new insulin sensitivity adaptation (ISA) algorithm is presented that updates each patient's insulin sensitivity during nonmeal periods to reduce the error between the actual glucose levels and the process model. We further demonstrate how an adaptive learning postprandial hypoglycemia prevention algorithm (ALPHA) presented in the previous work can complement the ISA algorithm, and the algorithm can adapt in several days. We further show that if physical activity is incorporated as a continuous input (heart rate and accelerometry), performance is improved. The contribution of this work is the description of the ISA algorithm and the evaluation of how ISA, ALPHA, and incorporation of exercise metrics as a continuous input can impact glycemic control., Results: Incorporating ALPHA, ISA, and physical activity into the MPC improved glycemic outcome measures. The adaptive learning postprandial hypoglycemia prevention algorithm combined with ISA significantly reduced time spent in hypoglycemia by 71.7% and the total number of rescue carbs by 67.8% to 0.37% events/day/patient. Insulin sensitivity adaptation significantly reduced model-actual mismatch by 12.2% compared to an AP without ISA. Incorporating physical activity as a continuous input modestly improved time in the range 70 to 180 mg/dL during high physical activity days from 84.4% to 84.9% and reduced the percentage time in hypoglycemia by 23.8% from 2.1% to 1.6%., Conclusion: Adapting postprandial insulin delivery, insulin sensitivity, and adapting to physical exercise in an MPC-based AP systems can improve glycemic outcomes.

Background: Labeling prohibits delivery of insulin at the site of subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Integration of the sensing and insulin delivery functions into a single device would likely increase the usage of CGM in persons with type 1 diabetes., Methods: To understand the nature of such interference, we measured glucose at the site of bolus insulin delivery in swine using a flexible electrode strip that was laminated to the outer wall of an insulin delivery cannula. In terms of sensing design, we compared H 2 O 2 -measuring sensors biased at 600 mV with redox mediator-type sensors biased at 175 mV., Results: In H 2 O 2 -measuring sensors, but not in sensors with redox-mediated chemistry, a spurious rise in current was seen after insulin lis-pro boluses. This prolonged artifact was accompanied by electrode poisoning. In redox-mediated sensors, the patterns of sensor signals acquired during delivery of saline and without any liquid delivery were similar to those acquired during insulin delivery., Conclusion: Considering in vitro and in vivo findings together, it became clear that the mechanism of interference is the oxidation, at high bias potentials, of phenolic preservatives present in insulin formulations. This effect can be avoided by the use of redox mediator chemistry using a low bias potential.

Background: There is currently no stable liquid form of glucagon commercially available. The aim of this study is to assess the speed of absorption and onset of action of G-Pump™ glucagon at 3 doses as compared to GlucaGen®, all delivered subcutaneously via an OmniPod®., Methods: Nineteen adult subjects with type 1 diabetes participated in this Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, cross-over, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study. Subjects were given 0.3, 1.2, and 2.0 µg/kg each of G-Pump glucagon and GlucaGen via an OmniPod., Results: G-Pump glucagon effectively increased blood glucose levels in a dose-dependent fashion with a glucose Cmax of 183, 200, and 210 mg/dL at doses of 0.3, 1.2, and 2.0 µg/kg, respectively (P = ns vs GlucaGen). Mean increases in blood glucose from baseline were 29.2, 52.9, and 77.7 mg/dL for G-Pump doses of 0.3, 1.2, and 2.0 µg/kg, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between treatments in the glucose T50%-early or glucagon T50%-early with one exception. The glucagon T50%-early was greater following G-Pump treatment at the 2.0 μg/kg dose (13.9 ± 4.7 min) compared with GlucaGen treatment at the 2.0 μg/kg dose (11.0 ± 3.1 min, P = .018). There was more pain and erythema at the infusion site with G-Pump as compared to GlucaGen. No serious adverse events were reported, and no unexpected safety issues were observed., Conclusions: G-Pump glucagon is a novel, stable glucagon formulation with similar PK/PD properties as GlucaGen, but was associated with more pain and infusion site reactions as the dose increased, as compared to GlucaGen., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: JRC has a financial interest in Pacific Diabetes Technologies, Inc, a company that may have a commercial interest in the results of this research and technology. This potential conflict of interest has been reviewed and managed by OHSU. BN, PS, MC, and SP are employees of Xeris Pharmaceuticals., (© 2016 Diabetes Technology Society.)

While self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is the current standard used by people with diabetes to manage glucose levels, recent improvements in accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology are making it very likely that diabetes-related treatment decisions will soon be made based on CGM values alone. Nonadjunctive use of CGM will lead to a paradigm shift in how patients manage their glucose levels and will require substantial changes in how care providers educate their patients, monitor their progress, and provide feedback to help them manage their diabetes. The approval to use CGM nonadjunctively is also a critical step in the pathway toward FDA approval of an artificial pancreas system, which is further expected to transform diabetes care for people with type 1 diabetes. In this article, we discuss how nonadjunctive CGM is expected to soon replace routine SMBG and how this new usage scenario is expected to transform health outcomes and patient care., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: JRC and PGJ have a financial interest in Pacific Diabetes Technologies Inc, a company that may have a commercial interest in the results of this research and technology. This potential conflict of interest has been reviewed and managed by Oregon Health & Science University., (© 2016 Diabetes Technology Society.)

Objective: Glucagon delivery in closed-loop control of type 1 diabetes is effective in minimizing hypoglycemia. However, high insulin concentration lowers the hyperglycemic effect of glucagon, and small doses of glucagon in this setting are ineffective. There are no studies clearly defining the relationship between insulin levels, subcutaneous glucagon, and blood glucose., Research Design and Methods: Using a euglycemic clamp technique in 11 subjects with type 1 diabetes, we examined endogenous glucose production (EGP) of glucagon (25, 75, 125, and 175 μg) at three insulin infusion rates (0.016, 0.032, and 0.05 units/kg/h) in a randomized, crossover study. Infused 6,6-dideuterated glucose was measured every 10 min, and EGP was determined using a validated glucoregulatory model. Area under the curve (AUC) for glucose production was the primary outcome, estimated over 60 min., Results: At low insulin levels, EGP rose proportionately with glucagon dose, from 5 ± 68 to 112 ± 152 mg/kg (P = 0.038 linear trend), whereas at high levels, there was no increase in glucose output (19 ± 53 to 26 ± 38 mg/kg, P = NS). Peak glucagon serum levels and AUC correlated well with dose (r2 = 0.63, P < 0.001), as did insulin levels with insulin infusion rates (r2 = 0.59, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: EGP increases steeply with glucagon doses between 25 and 175 μg at lower insulin infusion rates. However, high insulin infusion rates prevent these doses of glucagon from significantly increasing glucose output and may reduce glucagon effectiveness in preventing hypoglycemia when used in the artificial pancreas., (© 2014 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered.)

Because insulin promotes glucose uptake into adipocytes, it has been assumed that during measurement of glucose at the site of insulin delivery, the local glucose level would be much lower than systemic glucose. However, recent investigations challenge this notion. What explanations could account for a reduced local effect of insulin in the subcutaneous space? One explanation is that, in humans, the effect of insulin on adipocytes appears to be small. Another is that insulin monomers and dimers (from hexamer disassociation) might be absorbed into the circulation before they can increase glucose uptake locally. In addition, negative cooperativity of insulin action (a lower than expected effect of very high insulin concentrations)may play a contributing role. Other factors to be considered include dilution of interstitial fluid by the insulin vehicle and the possibility that some of the local decline in glucose might be due to the systemic effect of insulin. With regard to future research, redundant sensing units might be able to quantify the effects of proximity, leading to a compensatory algorithm. In summary, when measured at the site of insulin delivery, the decline in subcutaneous glucose level appears to be minimal, though the literature base is not large. Findings thus far support (1) the development of integrated devices that monitor glucose and deliver insulin and (2) the use of such devices to investigate the relationship between subcutaneous delivery of insulin and its local effects on glucose. A reduction in the number of percutaneous devices needed to manage diabetes would be welcome., (© 2014 Diabetes Technology Society.)

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensors are portable devices, employed in the treatment of diabetes, able to measure glucose concentration in the interstitium almost continuously for several days. However, CGM sensors are not as accurate as standard blood glucose (BG) meters. Studies comparing CGM versus BG demonstrated that CGM is affected by distortion due to diffusion processes and by time-varying systematic under/overestimations due to calibrations and sensor drifts. In addition, measurement noise is also present in CGM data. A reliable model of the different components of CGM inaccuracy with respect to BG (briefly, "sensor error") is important in several applications, e.g., design of optimal digital filters for denoising of CGM data, real-time glucose prediction, insulin dosing, and artificial pancreas control algorithms. The aim of this paper is to propose an approach to describe CGM sensor error by exploiting n multiple simultaneous CGM recordings. The model of sensor error description includes a model of blood-to-interstitial glucose diffusion process, a linear time-varying model to account for calibration and sensor drift-in-time, and an autoregressive model to describe the additive measurement noise. Model orders and parameters are identified from the n simultaneous CGM sensor recordings and BG references. While the model is applicable to any CGM sensor, here, it is used on a database of 36 datasets of type 1 diabetic adults in which n = 4 Dexcom SEVEN Plus CGM time series and frequent BG references were available simultaneously. Results demonstrates that multiple simultaneous sensor data and proper modeling allow dissecting the sensor error into its different components, distinguishing those related to physiology from those related to technology.

Objective: To improve glucose sensor accuracy in subjects with type 1 diabetes by using multiple sensors and to assess whether the benefit of redundancy is affected by intersensor distance., Research Design and Methods: Nineteen adults with type 1 diabetes wore four Dexcom SEVEN PLUS subcutaneous glucose sensors during two 9-h studies. One pair of sensors was worn on each side of the abdomen, with each sensor pair placed at a predetermined distance apart and 20 cm away from the opposite pair. Arterialized venous blood glucose levels were measured every 15 min, and sensor glucose values were recorded every 5 min. Sensors were calibrated once at the beginning of the study., Results: The use of four sensors significantly reduced very large errors compared with one sensor (0.4 vs. 2.6% of errors ≥50% from reference glucose, P < 0.001) and also improved overall accuracy (mean absolute relative difference, 11.6 vs. 14.8%, P < 0.001). Using only two sensors also significantly improved very large errors and accuracy. Intersensor distance did not affect the function of sensor pairs., Conclusions: Sensor accuracy is significantly improved with the use of multiple sensors compared with the use of a single sensor. The benefit of redundancy is present even when sensors are positioned very closely together (7 mm). These findings are relevant to the design of an artificial pancreas device.

Patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) must make frequent decisions and lifestyle adjustments in order to manage their disorder. Automated treatment would reduce the need for these self-management decisions and reduce the risk for long-term complications. Investigators in the field of closed-loop glycemic control systems are now moving from inpatient to outpatient testing of such systems. As outpatient systems are developed, the element of safety increases in importance. One such concern is the risk for hypoglycemia, due in part to the delayed onset and prolonged action duration of currently available subcutaneous insulin preparations. We found that, as compared to an insulin-only closed-loop system, a system that also delivers glucagon when needed led to substantially less hypoglycemia. Though the capability of glucagon delivery would mandate the need for a second hormone chamber, glucagon in small doses is tolerated very well. People with T1DM often develop hyperglycemia from emotional stress or medical stress. Automated closed-loop systems should be able to detect such changes in insulin sensitivity and adapt insulin delivery accordingly. We recently verified the adaptability of a model-based closed-loop system in which the gain factors that govern a proportional-integral-derivative-like system are adjusted according to frequently measured insulin sensitivity. Automated systems can be tested by physical exercise to increase glucose uptake and insulin sensitivity or by administering corticosteroids to reduce insulin sensitivity. Another source of risk in closed-loop systems is suboptimal performance of amperometric glucose sensors. Inaccuracy can result from calibration error, biofouling, and current drift. We found that concurrent use of more than one sensor typically leads to better sensor accuracy than use of a single sensor. For example, using the average of two sensors substantially reduces the proportion of large sensor errors. The use of more than two allows the use of voting algorithms, which can temporarily exclude a sensor whose signal is outlying. Elements such as the use of glucagon to minimize hypoglycemia, adaptation to changes in insulin sensitivity, and sensor redundancy will likely increase safety during outpatient use of closed-loop glycemic control systems., (© 2011 Diabetes Technology Society.)

Background: Administration of small, intermittent doses of glucagon during closed-loop insulin delivery markedly reduces the frequency of hypoglycemia. However, in some cases, hypoglycemia occurs despite administration of glucagon in this setting., Methods: Fourteen adult subjects with type 1 diabetes participated in 22 closed-loop studies, duration 21.5±2.0 h. The majority of subjects completed two studies, one with insulin + glucagon, given subcutaneously by algorithm during impending hypoglycemia, and one with insulin+placebo. The more accurate of two subcutaneous glucose sensors was used as the controller input. To better understand reasons for success or failure of glucagon to prevent hypoglycemia, each response to a glucagon dose over 0.5 µg/kg was analyzed (n=19 episodes)., Results: Hypoglycemia occurred in the hour after glucagon delivery in 37% of these episodes. In the failures, estimated insulin on board was significantly higher versus successes (5.8±0.5 versus 2.9±0.5 U, p<.001). Glucose at the time of glucagon delivery was significantly lower in failures versus successes (86±3 versus 95±3 mg/dl, p=.04). Sensor bias (glucose overestimation) was highly correlated with starting glucose (r=0.65, p=.002). Prior cumulative glucagon dose was not associated with success or failure., Conclusion: Glucagon may fail to prevent hypoglycemia when insulin on board is high or when glucagon delivery is delayed due to overestimation of glucose by the sensor. Improvements in sensor accuracy and delivery of larger or earlier glucagon doses when insulin on board is high may further reduce the frequency of hypoglycemia., (© 2010 Diabetes Technology Society.)

Background: A cause of suboptimal accuracy in amperometric glucose sensors is the presence of a background current (current produced in the absence of glucose) that is not accounted for. We hypothesized that a mathematical correction for the estimated background current of a commercially available sensor would lead to greater accuracy compared to a situation in which we assumed the background current to be zero. We also tested whether increasing the frequency of sensor calibration would improve sensor accuracy., Methods: This report includes analysis of 20 sensor datasets from seven human subjects with type 1 diabetes. Data were divided into a training set for algorithm development and a validation set on which the algorithm was tested. A range of potential background currents was tested., Results: Use of the background current correction of 4 nA led to a substantial improvement in accuracy (improvement of absolute relative difference or absolute difference of 3.5-5.5 units). An increase in calibration frequency led to a modest accuracy improvement, with an optimum at every 4 h., Conclusions: Compared to no correction, a correction for the estimated background current of a commercially available glucose sensor led to greater accuracy and better detection of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. The accuracy-optimizing scheme presented here can be implemented in real time.

BackgroundA composite metric for the quality of glycemia from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) tracings could be useful for assisting with basic clinical interpretation of CGM data.MethodsWe assembled a data set of 14-day CGM tracings from 225 insulin-treated adults with diabetes. Using a balanced incomplete block design, 330 clinicians who were highly experienced with CGM analysis and interpretation ranked the CGM tracings from best to worst quality of glycemia. We used principal component analysis and multiple regressions to develop a model to predict the clinician ranking based on seven standard metrics in an Ambulatory Glucose Profile: very low-glucose and low-glucose hypoglycemia; very high-glucose and high-glucose hyperglycemia; time in range; mean glucose; and coefficient of variation.ResultsThe analysis showed that clinician rankings depend on two components, one related to hypoglycemia that gives more weight to very low-glucose than to low-glucose and the other related to hyperglycemia that likewise gives greater weight to very high-glucose than to high-glucose. These two components should be calculated and displayed separately, but they can also be combined into a single Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia (r = 0.95). The GRI can be displayed graphically on a GRI Grid with the hypoglycemia component on the horizontal axis and the hyperglycemia component on the vertical axis. Diagonal lines divide the graph into five zones (quintiles) corresponding to the best (0th to 20th percentile) to worst (81st to 100th percentile) overall quality of glycemia. The GRI Grid enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals.ConclusionThe GRI is a single-number summary of the quality of glycemia. Its hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia components provide actionable scores and a graphical display (the GRI Grid) that can be used by clinicians and researchers to determine the glycemic effects of prescribed and investigational treatments.