Search

Around a bend in the road, sitting right out on the blacktop, a rocking chair. Adam touched his brakes and steered to miss it. He laughed. The thing passed behind [...]

Each morning the wind blew from the west and made the hard dry leaves of the sea grape trees rattle idly, lifelessly. About ten the gray and purple overcast began [...]

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: The amount and type of food consumed impacts the glycemic response and insulin needs of people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Daily variability in consumption, reflected in diet quality, may acutely impact glycemic levels and insulin needs., Objective: Type 1 Diabetes Exercise Initiative (T1DEXI) data were examined to evaluate the impact of daily diet quality on near-term glycemic control and interaction with exercise., Methods: Using the Remote Food Photography Method, ≤8 d of dietary intake data were analyzed per participant. Diet quality was quantified with the Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI), where a score of 100 indicates the highest-quality diet. Each participant day was classified as low HEI (≤57) or high HEI (>57) based on the mean of nationally reported HEI data. Within participants, the relationship between diet quality and subsequent glycemia measured by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and total insulin dose usage was evaluated using a paired t -test and robust regression models., Results: Two hundred twenty-three adults (76% female) with mean ± SD age, HbA1c, and body mass index (BMI) of 37 ± 14 y, 6.6% ± 0.7%, and 25.1 ± 3.6 kg/m 2 , respectively, were included in these analyses. The mean HEI score was 56 across all participant days. On high HEI days (mean, 66 ± 4) compared with low HEI days (mean, 47 ± 5), total time in range (70-180 mg/dL) was greater (77.2% ± 14% compared with 75.7% ± 14%, respectively, P = 0.01), whereas time above 180 mg/dL (19% ± 14% compared with 21% ± 15%, respectively, P = 0.004), mean glucose (143 ± 22 compared with 145 ± 22 mg/dL, respectively, P = 0.02), and total daily insulin dose (0.52 ± 0.18 compared with 0.54 ± 0.18 U/kg/d, respectively, P = 0.009) were lower. The interaction between diet quality and exercise on glycemia was not significant., Conclusions: Higher HEI scores correlated with improved glycemia and lower insulin needs, although the impact of diet quality was modest and smaller than the previously reported impact of exercise., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Aims: To evaluate factors affecting within-participant reproducibility in glycemic response to different forms of exercise., Methods: Structured exercise sessions ~30 minutes in length from the Type 1 Diabetes Exercise Initiative (T1DEXI) study were used to assess within-participant glycemic variability during and after exercise. The effect of several pre-exercise factors on the within-participant glycemic variability was evaluated., Results: Data from 476 adults with type 1 diabetes were analyzed. A participant's change in glucose during exercise was reproducible within 15 mg/dL of the participant's other exercise sessions only 32% of the time. Participants who exercised with lower and more consistent glucose level, insulin on board (IOB), and carbohydrate intake at exercise start had less variability in glycemic change during exercise. Participants with lower mean glucose ( P < .001), lower glucose coefficient of variation (CV) ( P < .001), and lower % time <70 mg/dL ( P = .005) on sedentary days had less variable 24-hour post-exercise mean glucose., Conclusions: Reproducibility of change in glucose during exercise was low in this cohort of adults with T1D, but more consistency in pre-exercise glucose levels, IOB, and carbohydrates may increase this reproducibility. Mean glucose variability in the 24 hours after exercise is influenced more by the participant's overall glycemic control than other modifiable factors., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Z.L. reports no conflict of interests. M.R.R. reports consultancy fees from Zealand Pharma. R.L.G. reports no conflict of interests. P.C. reports no conflict of interests. P.G.J. reports receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, The Leona M. and Harry B. Charitable Trust, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Dexcom, and the Oregon Health & Science University Foundation; consultancy fees from CDISC; US patents 62/352,939, 63/269,094, 62/944,287, 8810388, 9,480,418, 8,317,700, 61/570382, 8,810,388, 7,976,466, and 6,558,321; and reports stock options from Pacific Diabetes Technologies, outside submitted work. M.A.C. is Chief Medical Officer of Glooko, Inc and has received grants or contracts from Dexcom, Abbott Diabetes Care, National Institutes of Health, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Emily Rosebud Foundation, Eli Lilly, Tolerion, and Garmin. F.J.D. reports no conflict of interests. S.R.P. reports receiving grants from The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the National Institutes of Health, and the Jaeb Center for Health Research and honorarium from the American Diabetes Association, outside the submitted work. J.R.C. reports receiving grants from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Dexcom, and Medtronic and consultancy fees from Novo Nordisk, Insulet, and Zealand, outside the submitted work. M.B.G. reports no conflict of interest. R.W.B. reports receiving consulting fees, paid to his institution, from Insulet, Bigfoot Biomedical, vTv Therapeutics, and Eli Lilly, grant support and supplies, provided to his institution, from Tandem and Dexcom, and supplies from Ascenia and Roche. C.K.M. reports no conflict of interests. M.C.R. reports receiving consulting fees from the Jaeb Center for Health Research, Eli Lilly, Zealand Pharma, and Zucara Therapuetics; speaker fees from Sanofi Diabetes, Eli Lilly, Dexcom Canada, and Novo Nordisk; and stock options from Supersapiens and Zucara Therapeutics.

Background: Managing glucose levels during exercise is challenging for individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) since multiple factors including activity type, duration, intensity and other factors must be considered. Current decision support tools lack personalized recommendations and fail to distinguish between aerobic and resistance exercise. We propose an exercise-aware decision support system (exDSS) that uses digital twins to deliver personalized recommendations to help people with T1D maintain safe glucose levels (70-180 mg/dL) and avoid low glucose (<70 mg/dL) during and after exercise., Methods: We evaluated exDSS using various exercise and meal scenarios recorded from a large, free-living study of aerobic and resistance exercise. The model inputs were heart rate, insulin, and meal data. Glucose responses were simulated during and after 30-minute exercise sessions (676 aerobic, 631 resistance) from 247 participants. Glucose outcomes were compared when participants followed exDSS recommendations, clinical guidelines, or did not modify behavior (no intervention)., Results: exDSS significantly improved mean time in range for aerobic (80.2% to 92.3%, P < .0001) and resistance (72.3% to 87.3%, P < .0001) exercises compared with no intervention, and versus clinical guidelines (aerobic: 82.2%, P < .0001; resistance: 80.3%, P < .0001). exDSS reduced time spent in low glucose for both exercise types compared with no intervention (aerobic: 15.1% to 5.1%, P < .0001; resistance: 18.2% to 6.6%, P < .0001) and was comparable with following clinical guidelines (aerobic: 4.5%, resistance: 8.1%, P = N.S.)., Conclusions: The exDSS tool significantly improved glucose outcomes during and after exercise versus following clinical guidelines and no intervention providing motivation for clinical evaluation of the exDSS system., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: PGJ reports grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Leona M. and Harry B. Charitable Trust, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Dexcom, and the Oregon Health & Science University Foundation; consultancy fees from the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; participation as a member of an advisory board for Eli Lilly; and PGJ and JRC report stock options from Pacific Diabetes Technologies, outside the submitted work.

Objective: Artificial intelligence and machine learning are transforming many fields including medicine. In diabetes, robust biosensing technologies and automated insulin delivery therapies have created a substantial opportunity to improve health. While the number of manuscripts addressing the topic of applying machine learning to diabetes has grown in recent years, there has been a lack of consistency in the methods, metrics, and data used to train and evaluate these algorithms. This manuscript provides consensus guidelines for machine learning practitioners in the field of diabetes, including best practice recommended approaches and warnings about pitfalls to avoid., Methods: Algorithmic approaches are reviewed and benefits of different algorithms are discussed including importance of clinical accuracy, explainability, interpretability, and personalization. We review the most common features used in machine learning applications in diabetes glucose control and provide an open-source library of functions for calculating features, as well as a framework for specifying data sets using data sheets. A review of current data sets available for training algorithms is provided as well as an online repository of data sources., Significance: These consensus guidelines are designed to improve performance and translatability of new machine learning algorithms developed in the field of diabetes for engineers and data scientists.

Objective: Nocturnal hypoglycemia is a known challenge for people with type 1 diabetes, especially for physically active individuals or those on multiple daily injections. We developed an evidential neural network (ENN) to predict at bedtime the probability and timing of nocturnal hypoglycemia (0-4 vs 4-8 h after bedtime) based on several glucose metrics and physical activity patterns. We utilized these predictions in silico to prescribe bedtime carbohydrates with a Smart Snack intervention specific to the predicted minimum nocturnal glucose and timing of nocturnal hypoglycemia., Materials and Methods: We leveraged free-living datasets collected from 366 individuals from the T1DEXI Study and Glooko. Inputs to the ENN used to model nocturnal hypoglycemia were derived from demographic information, continuous glucose monitoring, and physical activity data. We assessed the accuracy of the ENN using area under the receiver operating curve, and the clinical impact of the Smart Snack intervention through simulations., Results: The ENN achieved an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.80 and 0.71 to predict nocturnal hypoglycemic events during 0-4 and 4-8 h after bedtime, respectively, outperforming all evaluated baseline methods. Use of the Smart Snack intervention reduced probability of nocturnal hypoglycemia from 23.9 ± 14.1% to 14.0 ± 13.3% and duration from 7.4 ± 7.0% to 2.4 ± 3.3% in silico., Discussion: Our findings indicate that the ENN-based Smart Snack intervention has the potential to significantly reduce the frequency and duration of nocturnal hypoglycemic events., Conclusion: A decision support system that combines prediction of minimum nocturnal glucose and proactive recommendations for bedtime carbohydrate intake might effectively prevent nocturnal hypoglycemia and reduce the burden of glycemic self-management., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)