Search

We present a robust insulin delivery system that includes automated meal detection and carbohydrate content estimation using machine learning for meal insulin dosing called robust artificial pancreas (RAP). We conducted a randomized, single-center crossover trial to compare postprandial glucose control in the four hours following unannounced meals using a hybrid model predictive control (MPC) algorithm and the RAP system. The RAP system includes a neural network model to automatically detect meals and deliver a recommended meal insulin dose. The meal detection algorithm has a sensitivity of 83.3%, false discovery rate of 16.6%, and mean detection time of 25.9 minutes. While there is no significant difference in incremental area under the curve of glucose, RAP significantly reduces time above range (glucose >180 mg/dL) by 10.8% (P = 0.04) and trends toward increasing time in range (70–180 mg/dL) by 9.1% compared with MPC. Time below range (glucose <70 mg/dL) is not significantly different between RAP and MPC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the efficacy and feasibility of a dual-hormone (DH) closed-loop system with insulin and a novel liquid stable glucagon formulation compared with an insulin-only closed-loop system and a predictive low glucose suspend (PLGS) system.Research Design and Methods: In a 76-h, randomized, crossover, outpatient study, 23 participants with type 1 diabetes used three modes of the Oregon Artificial Pancreas system: 1) dual-hormone (DH) closed-loop control, 2) insulin-only single-hormone (SH) closed-loop control, and 3) PLGS system. The primary end point was percentage time in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) from the start of in-clinic aerobic exercise (45 min at 60% VO2max) to 4 h after.Results: DH reduced hypoglycemia compared with SH during and after exercise (DH 0.0% [interquartile range 0.0-4.2], SH 8.3% [0.0-12.5], P = 0.025). There was an increased time in hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dL) during and after exercise for DH versus SH (20.8% DH vs. 6.3% SH, P = 0.038). Mean glucose during the entire study duration was DH, 159.2; SH, 151.6; and PLGS, 163.6 mg/dL. Across the entire study duration, DH resulted in 7.5% more time in target range (70-180 mg/dL) compared with the PLGS system (71.0% vs. 63.4%, P = 0.044). For the entire study duration, DH had 28.2% time in hyperglycemia vs. 25.1% for SH (P = 0.044) and 34.7% for PLGS (P = 0.140). Four participants experienced nausea related to glucagon, leading three to withdraw from the study.Conclusions: The glucagon formulation demonstrated feasibility in a closed-loop system. The DH system reduced hypoglycemia during and after exercise, with some increase in hyperglycemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate subjects with type 1 diabetes for hepatic glycogen depletion after repeated doses of glucagon, simulating delivery in a bihormonal closed-loop system.Research Design and Methods: Eleven adult subjects with type 1 diabetes participated. Subjects underwent estimation of hepatic glycogen using (13)C MRS. MRS was performed at the following four time points: fasting and after a meal at baseline, and fasting and after a meal after eight doses of subcutaneously administered glucagon at a dose of 2 µg/kg, for a total mean dose of 1,126 µg over 16 h. The primary and secondary end points were, respectively, estimated hepatic glycogen by MRS and incremental area under the glucose curve for a 90-min interval after glucagon administration.Results: In the eight subjects with complete data sets, estimated glycogen stores were similar at baseline and after repeated glucagon doses. In the fasting state, glycogen averaged 21 ± 3 g/L before glucagon administration and 25 ± 4 g/L after glucagon administration (mean ± SEM) (P = NS). In the fed state, glycogen averaged 40 ± 2 g/L before glucagon administration and 34 ± 4 g/L after glucagon administration (P = NS). With the use of an insulin action model, the rise in glucose after the last dose of glucagon was comparable to the rise after the first dose, as measured by the 90-min incremental area under the glucose curve.Conclusions: In adult subjects with well-controlled type 1 diabetes (mean A1C 7.2%), glycogen stores and the hyperglycemic response to glucagon administration are maintained even after receiving multiple doses of glucagon. This finding supports the safety of repeated glucagon delivery in the setting of a bihormonal closed-loop system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite new glucose sensing technologies, nocturnal hypoglycemia is still a problem for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) as symptoms and sensor alarms may not be detected while sleeping. Accurately predicting nocturnal hypoglycemia before sleep may help minimize nighttime hypoglycemia. Methods: A support vector regression (SVR) model was trained to predict, before bedtime, the overnight minimum glucose and overnight nocturnal hypoglycemia for people with T1D. The algorithm was trained on continuous glucose measurements and insulin data collected from 124 people (22,804 valid nights of data) with T1D. The minimum glucose threshold for announcing nocturnal hypoglycemia risk was derived by applying a decision theoretic criterion to maximize expected net benefit. Accuracy was evaluated on a validation set from 10 people with T1D during a 4-week trial under free-living sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy. The primary outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity of prediction, the correlation between predicted and actual minimum nocturnal glucose, and root-mean-square error. The impact of using the algorithm to prevent nocturnal hypoglycemia is shown in-silico. Results: The algorithm predicted 94.1% of nocturnal hypoglycemia events (<3.9 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval [CI], 71.3-99.9) with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75-0.98). Correlation between actual and predicted minimum glucose was high (R = 0.71, P < 0.001). In-silico simulations showed that the algorithm could reduce nocturnal hypoglycemia by 77.0% (P = 0.006) without impacting time in target range (3.9-10 mmol/L). Conclusion: An SVR model trained on a big data set and optimized using decision theoretic criterion can accurately predict at bedtime if overnight nocturnal hypoglycemia will occur and may help reduce nocturnal hypoglycemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Several studies have shown that closed-loop automated insulin delivery (the artificial pancreas) improves glucose control compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy. We aimed to confirm these findings using our automated insulin delivery system based on the iPancreas platform. Research Design and Methods: We conducted a two-center, randomized crossover trial comparing automated insulin delivery with sensor-augmented pump therapy in 36 adults with type 1 diabetes. Each intervention lasted 12 days in outpatient free-living conditions with no remote monitoring. The automated insulin delivery system used a model predictive control algorithm that was a less aggressive version of our earlier dosing algorithm to emphasize safety. The primary outcome was time in the range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L. Results: The automated insulin delivery system was operational 90.2% of the time. Compared with the sensor-augmented pump therapy, automated insulin delivery increased time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) from 61% (interquartile range 53-74) to 69% (60-73; P = 0.006) and increased time in tight target range (3.9-7.8 mmol/L) from 37% (30-49) to 45% (35-51; P = 0.011). Automated insulin delivery also reduced time spent below 3.9 and 3.3 mmol/L from 3.5% (0.8-5.4) to 1.6% (1.1-2.7; P = 0.0021) and from 0.9% (0.2-2.1) to 0.5% (0.2-1.1; P = 0.0122), respectively. Time spent below 2.8 mmol/L was 0.2% (0.0-0.6) with sensor-augmented pump therapy and 0.1% (0.0-0.4; P = 0.155) with automated insulin delivery. Conclusions: Our study confirms findings that automated insulin delivery improves glucose control compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT02846831. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]