Closed-Loop Control During Intense Prolonged Outdoor Exercise in Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: The Artificial Pancreas Ski Study

Themes, Rates, and Risk of Adverse Events of the Artificial Pancreas in the United States Using MAUDE

Three manufacturers sell artificial pancreas systems in the United States for management of Type 1 Diabetes. Given the life-saving task required of an artificial pancreas there needs to be a high level of trust and safety in the devices. This evaluation sought to find the adjusted safety event reporting rate and themes along with device-associated risk in events reported utilizing the MAUDE database. We searched device names in the MAUDE database over the period from 2016 until August 2023 (the date of retrieval). Thematic analysis was performed using dual-reviewer examination with a 96% concurrence. Relative risk (RR) was calculated for injury, malfunction, and overall, for each manufacturer, as well as adjusted event rate per manufacturer. Most events reported related to defects in the manufacturing of the casing materials which resulted in non-delivery of therapy. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. had an adjusted event rate of 50 per 100,000 units and RR of 0.0225. Insulet had an adjusted event rate of 300 per 100,000 units and RR of 0.1684. Medtronic has an adjusted event rate of 2771.43 per 100,000 units and RR of 20.7857. The newer Medtronic devices show improvements in likely event rate. While the artificial pancreas is still in its infancy, these event rates are not at an acceptable level for a device which can precipitate death from malfunctions. Further exploration into safety events and much more research and development is needed for devices to reduce the event rates. Improved manufacturing practices, especially the casing materials, are highly recommended. The artificial pancreas holds promise for millions but must be improved before it becomes a true life-saving device that it has the potential to become.

Real-World Use of Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems during Diabetes Camp: A Preliminary Study for Secure Configuration Strategies in Children and Adolescents

The introduction of closed-loop systems in the pediatric population has been a revolution in the management and evolution of diabetes. However, there are not many published studies in situations in which the feeding, schedules, and activities of the children deviate from the routine for which the systems were programmed, as in the case of a summer camp for children and adolescents with diabetes, where the specific programming of this device is not well known. It was a single-center prospective preliminary study. A total of twenty-seven patients (mean age 11.9 ± 1.9 years, 40% male, duration of diabetes 6.44 ± 2.83 years) were included (twenty with Medtronic MiniMed 780G system and seven with Tandem Control-IQ). Glucometric variables and pump functionality were monitored during the 7-day camp and in the following 3 weeks. There was no decrease from the objective TIR 70% at any moment. The worst results in Time Below Range were at 72 h from starting the camp, and the worst results in Time Above Range were in the first 24 h, with a progressive improvement after that. No episodes of level 3 hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred. The use of specific programming in two integrated systems, with complex blood glucose regulation algorithms and not-prepared-for situations with increased levels of physical activity or abrupt changes in feeding routines, did not result in an increased risk of level 3 hypoglycemia and ketoacidosis for our pediatric type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients, regardless of the closed-loop device.

Impact of a 4-week intensive track and field training intervention on glycaemia in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: The ChilDFiT1 study

AIM

To investigate the safety and efficacy of track and field training compared with intensification of insulin treatment only in adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighteen adolescents (seven females) with T1D were included (age 15.1 ± 1.1 years, HbA1c 7.3% ± 1.0% [56.3 ± 10.9 mmol/mol]). After a 4-week observational control phase, participants were randomized to either stand-alone intensive glycaemic management (IT; telemedicine or on-site visits, three times/week) or additionally performed track and field exercise (EX; three 60-minute sessions/week) for 4 weeks. Glycaemia was assessed via continuous glucose monitoring during observational control and intervention phases.

RESULTS

Time in range (70-180 mg/dL; 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) significantly improved from the observational control phase to the exercise intervention phase in EX (69% ± 13% vs. 72% ± 11%, P = .049), but not in IT (59% ± 22% vs. 62% ± 16%, P = .399). Time below range 1 (54-69 mg/dL; < 3.9 mmol/L) improved in IT (3.1% ± 1.9% vs. 2.0% ± 0.8%, P = .017) and remained stable in EX (2.0% ± 1.7 vs. 1.9% ± 1.1%, P = .999). The EX group's HbA1c ameliorated preintervention to postintervention (mean difference: ΔHbA1c -0.19% ± 0.17%, P = .042), which was not seen within the IT group (ΔHbA1c -0.16% ± 0.37%, P = .40). Glucose standard deviation was reduced significantly in EX (55 ± 11 vs. 51 ± 10 mg/dL [3.1 ± 0.6 vs. 2.8 ± 0.6 mmol/L], P = .011), but not in IT (70 ± 24 vs. 63 ± 18 mg/dL [3.9 ± 1.3 vs. 3.5 ± 1.0 mmol/L], P = .186).

CONCLUSION

Track and field training combined with intensive glycaemic management improved glycaemia in adolescents with T1D, which was not observed in the non-exercise group.

The Acute Effects of Real-World Physical Activity on Glycemia in Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: The Type 1 Diabetes Exercise Initiative Pediatric (T1DEXIP) Study

OBJECTIVE

Data from the Type 1 Diabetes Exercise Initiative Pediatric (T1DEXIP) study were evaluated to understand glucose changes during activity and identify factors that may influence changes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this real-world observational study, adolescents with type 1 diabetes self-reported physical activity, food intake, and insulin dosing (multiple-daily injection users) using a smartphone application. Heart rate and continuous glucose monitoring data were collected, as well as pump data downloads.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-one adolescents (age 14 ± 2 years [mean ± SD]; HbA1c 7.1 ± 1.3% [54 ± 14.2 mmol/mol]; 42% female) logged 3,738 activities over ∼10 days of observation. Preactivity glucose was 163 ± 66 mg/dL (9.1 ± 3.7 mmol/L), dropping to 148 ± 66 mg/dL (8.2 ± 3.7 mmol/L) by end of activity; median duration of activity was 40 min (20, 75 [interquartile range]) with a mean and peak heart rate of 109 ± 16 bpm and 130 ± 21 bpm. Drops in glucose were greater in those with lower baseline HbA1c levels (P = 0.002), shorter disease duration (P = 0.02), less hypoglycemia fear (P = 0.04), and a lower BMI (P = 0.05). Event-level predictors of greater drops in glucose included self-classified "noncompetitive" activities, insulin on board >0.05 units/kg body mass, glucose already dropping prior to the activity, preactivity glucose >150 mg/dL (>8.3 mmol/L) and time 70-180 mg/dL >70% in the 24 h before the activity (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Participant-level and activity event-level factors can help predict the magnitude of drop in glucose during real-world physical activity in youth with type 1 diabetes. A better appreciation of these factors may improve decision support tools and self-management strategies to reduce activity-induced dysglycemia in active adolescents living with the disease.

Developing the UVA/Padova Type 1 Diabetes Simulator: Modeling, Validation, Refinements, and Utility

Arguably, diabetes mellitus is one of the best quantified human conditions. In the past 50 years, the metabolic monitoring technologies progressed from occasional assessment of average glycemia via HbA1c, through episodic blood glucose readings, to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) producing data points every few minutes. The high-temporal resolution of CGM data enabled increasingly intensive treatments, from decision support assisting insulin injection or oral medication, to automated closed-loop control, known as the "artificial pancreas." Throughout this progress, mathematical models and computer simulation of the human metabolic system became indispensable for the technological progress of diabetes treatment, enabling every step, from assessment of insulin sensitivity via the now classic Minimal Model of Glucose Kinetics, to in silico trials replacing animal experiments, to automated insulin delivery algorithms. In this review, we follow these developments, beginning with the Minimal Model, which evolved through the years to become large and comprehensive and trigger a paradigm change in the design of diabetes optimization strategies: in 2007, we introduced a sophisticated model of glucose-insulin dynamics and a computer simulator equipped with a "population" of N = 300 in silico "subjects" with type 1 diabetes. In January 2008, in an unprecedented decision, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accepted this simulator as a substitute to animal trials for the pre-clinical testing of insulin treatment strategies. This opened the field for rapid and cost-effective development and pre-clinical testing of new treatment approaches, which continues today. Meanwhile, animal experiments for the purpose of designing new insulin treatment algorithms have been abandoned.

MiniMed 780G™ advanced hybrid closed-loop system performance in Egyptian patients with type 1 diabetes across different age groups: evidence from real-world users

BACKGROUND

Advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system provides both automated basal rate and correction boluses to keep glycemic values in a target range.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the real-world performance of the MiniMed™ 780G system among different age groups of Egyptian patients with type 1diabetes.

METHODS

One-hundred seven AHCL system users aged from 3 to 71 years were enrolled. Data uploaded by patients were aggregated and analyzed. The mean glucose management indicator (GMI), percentage of time spent within glycemic ranges (TIR), time below range (TBR) and time above range (TAR) were determined.

RESULTS

Six months after initiating Auto Mode, patients spent a mean of 85.31 ± 22.04% of the time in Auto Mode (SmartGuard) and achieved a mean GMI of 6.95 ± 0.58% compared with 7.9 ± 2.1% before AHCL initiation (p < 0.001). TIR 70-180 mg/dL was increased post-AHCL initiation from 63.48 ± 10.14% to 81.54 ± 8.43% (p < 0.001) while TAR 180-250 mg/dL, TAR > 250 mg/dL, TBR < 70 mg/dL and TBR < 54 mg/dL were significantly decreased (p < 0.001). After initiating AHCL, TIR was greater in children and adults compared with adolescents (82.29 ± 7.22% and 83.86 ± 9.24% versus 78.4 ± 7.34%, respectively; p < 0.05). The total daily dose of insulin was increased in all age groups primarily due to increased system-initiated insulin delivery including auto correction boluses and basal insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

MiniMed™ 780G system users across different age groups achieved international consensus-recommended glycemic control with no serious adverse effects even in challenging age group as children and adolescents.

Integrating metabolic expenditure information from wearable fitness sensors into an AI-augmented automated insulin delivery system: a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Exercise can rapidly drop glucose in people with type 1 diabetes. Ubiquitous wearable fitness sensors are not integrated into automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. We hypothesised that an AID can automate insulin adjustments using real-time wearable fitness data to reduce hypoglycaemia during exercise and free-living conditions compared with an AID not automating use of fitness data.

METHODS

Our study population comprised of individuals (aged 21-50 years) with type 1 diabetes from from the Harold Schnitzer Diabetes Health Center clinic at Oregon Health and Science University, OR, USA, who were enrolled into a 76 h single-centre, two-arm randomised (4-block randomisation), non-blinded crossover study to use (1) an AID that detects exercise, prompts the user, and shuts off insulin during exercise using an exercise-aware adaptive proportional derivative (exAPD) algorithm or (2) an AID that automates insulin adjustments using fitness data in real-time through an exercise-aware model predictive control (exMPC) algorithm. Both algorithms ran on iPancreas comprising commercial glucose sensors, insulin pumps, and smartwatches. Participants executed 1 week run-in on usual therapy followed by exAPD or exMPC for one 12 h primary in-clinic session involving meals, exercise, and activities of daily living, and 2 free-living out-patient days. Primary outcome was time below range (<3·9 mmol/L) during the primary in-clinic session. Secondary outcome measures included mean glucose and time in range (3·9-10 mmol/L). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04771403.

FINDINGS

Between April 13, 2021, and Oct 3, 2022, 27 participants (18 females) were enrolled into the study. There was no significant difference between exMPC (n=24) versus exAPD (n=22) in time below range (mean [SD] 1·3% [2·9] vs 2·5% [7·0]) or time in range (63·2% [23·9] vs 59·4% [23·1]) during the primary in-clinic session. In the 2 h period after start of in-clinic exercise, exMPC had significantly lower mean glucose (7·3 [1·6] vs 8·0 [1·7] mmol/L, p=0·023) and comparable time below range (1·4% [4·2] vs 4·9% [14·4]). Across the 76 h study, both algorithms achieved clinical time in range targets (71·2% [16] and 75·5% [11]) and time below range (1·0% [1·2] and 1·3% [2·2]), significantly lower than run-in period (2·4% [2·4], p=0·0004 vs exMPC; p=0·012 vs exAPD). No adverse events occurred.

INTERPRETATION

AIDs can integrate exercise data from smartwatches to inform insulin dosing and limit hypoglycaemia while improving glucose outcomes. Future AID systems that integrate exercise metrics from wearable fitness sensors may help people living with type 1 diabetes exercise safely by limiting hypoglycaemia.

FUNDING

JDRF Foundation and the Leona M and Harry B Helmsley Charitable Trust, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Efficacy and safety of closed-loop control system for type one diabetes in adolescents a meta analysis

This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of Closed-Loop Control (CLC) to Sensor-Augmented Insulin Pump (SAP) for adolescent patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM). Eleven randomized-controlled trials were included with a total of 570 patients, from a total of 869 articles found adhering to PRISMA guidelines. The efficacy of the therapies were evaluated from the day, night and during physical activities monitoring of the of the mean blood glucose (BG), Time In Range (TIR), and Standard Deviation (SD) of the glucose variability. The safety measure of the therapies, was assessed from the day and night recording of the hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events occurred. Pooled results of comparison of mean BG values for day, night and physical activities, - 4.33 [- 6.70, - 1.96] (P = 0.0003), - 16.61 [- 31.68, - 1.54] (P = 0.03) and - 8.27 [- 19.52, 2.99] (P = 0.15). The monitoring for day, night and physical activities for TIR - 13.18 [- 19.18, - 7.17] (P < 0.0001), - 15.36 [- 26.81, - 3.92] (P = 0.009) and - 7.39 [- 17.65, 2.87] (P = 0.16). The day and night results of SD of glucose variability was - 0.40 [- 0.79, - 0.00] (P = 0.05) and - 0.86 [- 2.67, 0.95] (P = 0.35). These values shows the superiority of CLC system in terms of efficacy. The safety evaluation, of the day, night and physical activities observations of average blood glucose goal hypoglycemic events - 0.54 [- 1.86, 0.79] (P = 0.43), 0.04 [- 0.20, 0.27] (P = 0.77) and 0.00 [- 0.25, 0.25] (P = 1.00) and hyperglycemic events - 0.04 [- 0.20, 0.27] (P = 0.77), - 7.11 [- 12.77, - 1.45] (P = 0.01) and - 0.00 [- 0.10, 0.10] (P = 0.97), highlights the commendable safety factor of CLC. The CLC systems can be considered as an ideal preference in the management of adolescents with type 1 diabetes to be used during a 24 h basis.

The efficacy of automated insulin delivery systems in children and adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

Insulin administration is the treatment of choice for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D). Technological advances have led to the development of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, aiming to optimize the quality of life of patients with T1D. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature about the efficacy of AID systems in children and adolescents with T1D.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) until August 8^th, 2022, investigating the efficacy of AID systems in the management of patients <21 years of age with T1D. A priori subgroup and sensitivity analyses based on different settings (free-living settings, type of AID system, parallel group or crossover design) were also conducted.

RESULTS

In total, 26 RCTs reporting a total of 915 children and adolescents with T1D were included in the meta-analysis. AID systems revealed statistically significant differences in the main outcomes, such as the proportion of time in the target glucose range (3.9-10 mmol/L) (p<0.00001), in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) (p=0.003) and mean proportion of HbA1C (p=0.0007) compared to control group.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the present meta-analysis, AID systems are superior to insulin pump therapy, sensor-augmented pumps and multiple daily insulin injections. Most of the included studies have a high risk of bias because of allocation, blinding of patients and blinding of assessment. Our sensitivity analyses showed that patients <21 years of age with T1D can use AID systems, after proper education, following their daily activities. Further RCTs examining the effect of AID systems on nocturnal hypoglycemia, under free-living settings and studies examining the effect of dual-hormone AID systems are pending.

Examining the Acute Glycemic Effects of Different Types of Structured Exercise Sessions in Type 1 Diabetes in a Real-World Setting: The Type 1 Diabetes and Exercise Initiative (T1DEXI)

OBJECTIVE

Maintenance of glycemic control during and after exercise remains a major challenge for individuals with type 1 diabetes. Glycemic responses to exercise may differ by exercise type (aerobic, interval, or resistance), and the effect of activity type on glycemic control after exercise remains unclear.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The Type 1 Diabetes Exercise Initiative (T1DEXI) was a real-world study of at-home exercise. Adult participants were randomly assigned to complete six structured aerobic, interval, or resistance exercise sessions over 4 weeks. Participants self-reported study and nonstudy exercise, food intake, and insulin dosing (multiple daily injection [MDI] users) using a custom smart phone application and provided pump (pump users), heart rate, and continuous glucose monitoring data.

RESULTS

A total of 497 adults with type 1 diabetes (mean age ± SD 37 ± 14 years; mean HbA1c ± SD 6.6 ± 0.8% [49 ± 8.7 mmol/mol]) assigned to structured aerobic (n = 162), interval (n = 165), or resistance (n = 170) exercise were analyzed. The mean (± SD) change in glucose during assigned exercise was -18 ± 39, -14 ± 32, and -9 ± 36 mg/dL for aerobic, interval, and resistance, respectively (P < 0.001), with similar results for closed-loop, standard pump, and MDI users. Time in range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was higher during the 24 h after study exercise when compared with days without exercise (mean ± SD 76 ± 20% vs. 70 ± 23%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with type 1 diabetes experienced the largest drop in glucose level with aerobic exercise, followed by interval and resistance exercise, regardless of insulin delivery modality. Even in adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes, days with structured exercise sessions contributed to clinically meaningful improvement in glucose time in range but may have slightly increased time below range.

Effectiveness and safety of a model predictive control (MPC) algorithm for an artificial pancreas system in outpatients with type 1 diabetes (T1D): systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of a model predictive control (MPC) algorithm for an artificial pancreas system in outpatients with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and the Web of Science to December 2021. The eligibility criteria for study selection were randomized controlled trials comparing artificial pancreas systems (MPC, PID, and fuzzy algorithms) with conventional insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes patients. The heterogeneity of the overall results was identified by subgroup analysis of two factors including the intervention duration (overnight and 24 h) and the follow-up periods (< 1 week, 1 week to 1 month, and > 1 month).

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included a total of 41 studies. Considering the effect on the percentage of time maintained in the target range between the MPC-based artificial pancreas and conventional insulin therapy, the results showed a statistically significantly higher percentage of time maintained in the target range in overnight use (10.03%, 95% CI [7.50, 12.56] p < 0.00001). When the follow-up period was considered, in overnight use, the MPC-based algorithm showed a statistically significantly lower percentage of time maintained in the hypoglycemic range (-1.34%, 95% CI [-1.87, -0.81] p < 0.00001) over a long period of use (> 1 month).

CONCLUSIONS

Overnight use of the MPC-based artificial pancreas system statistically significantly improved glucose control while increasing time maintained in the target range for outpatients with type 1 diabetes. Results of subgroup analysis revealed that MPC algorithm-based artificial pancreas system was safe while reducing the time maintained in the hypoglycemic range after an overnight intervention with a long follow-up period (more than 1 month).

Closed-loop insulin delivery: update on the state of the field and emerging technologies

INTRODUCTION

Over the last five years, closed-loop insulin delivery systems have transitioned from research-only to real-life use. A number of systems have been commercialized and are increasingly used in clinical practice. Given the rapidity of new developments in the field, understanding the capabilities and key similarities and differences of current systems can be challenging. This review aims to provide an update on the state of the field of closed-loop insulin delivery systems, including emerging technologies.

AREAS COVERED

We summarize key clinical safety and efficacy evidence of commercial and emerging insulin-only hybrid closed-loop systems for type 1 diabetes. A literature search was conducted and clinical trials using closed-loop systems during free-living conditions were identified to report on safety and efficacy data. We comment on emerging technologies and adjuncts for closed-loop systems, as well as non-technological priorities in closed-loop insulin delivery.

EXPERT OPINION

Commercial hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems are efficacious, consistently improving glycemic control when compared to standard therapy. Challenges remain in widespread adoption due to clinical inertia and the lack of resources to embrace technological developments by health care professionals.

Impact of Temporary Glycemic Target Use in the Hybrid and Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems

The Medtronic advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) and MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems provide the option to temporarily increase the glucose target to 150 mg/dL (8.3 mmol/L). This analysis investigated the efficacy of the AHCL compared with that of the HCL after the use of this setting. Data from 60 participants in the Fuzzy Logic Automated Insulin Regulation (FLAIR) study were used to compare the AHCL and HCL systems after the use of the temporary target (TT), and during analogous periods where this setting was not used. Differences in time in range 70-180 mg/dL between the systems were similar after the use of the TT setting and during analogous non-TT periods (interaction P = 0.87). Similar trends were observed for mean glucose, percentage time >180 mg/dL, and percentage time >250 mg/dL. Differences between AHCL and HCL systems were similar after the use of the TT setting compared with those of non-TT periods. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03040414.

Letting the World See through Your Eyes: Using Photovoice to Explore the Role of Technology in Physical Activity for Adolescents Living with Type 1 Diabetes

This paper qualitatively explores how technologies and physical activity are experienced by adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Type 1 diabetes is a life-threatening autoimmune condition, which is highly prevalent in young children. Physical activity is underutilised as part of treatment goals due to multifactorial challenges and lack of education in both the family setting and across society as a whole. Using photovoice methodology, 29 participants (parents and adolescents), individually or as dyads, shared and described in reflective journal format examples of technology and physical activity in their lives. In total, 120 personal photographs with accompanying narratives were provided. The data were thematically coded by the researcher and then collaboratively with participants. Four key themes (and 12 subthemes) were generated including: (i) benefits of technology; (ii) complexity and difficulty; (iii) emotional impact; (iv) reliance and risk. Findings demonstrate that current technology does not address the complex needs of adolescents with type 1 diabetes to enable participation in physical activity without life risk. We conclude from our findings that future technologies for supporting engagement in physical activity as part of diabetes management need to be: more interoperable, personalised and integrated better with ongoing education and support.

Strengths and Challenges of Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery During Exercise in People With Type 1 Diabetes: Potential Future Directions

Exercise has many physical and psychological benefits and is recommended for people with type 1 diabetes; however, there are many barriers to exercise, including glycemic instability and fear of hypoglycemia. Closed-loop (CL) systems have shown benefit in the overall glycemic management of type 1 diabetes, including improving HbA1c levels and reducing the incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia; however, these systems are challenged by the rapidly changing insulin needs with exercise. This commentary focuses on the principles, strengths, and challenges of CL in the management of exercise, and discusses potential approaches, including the use of additional physiological signals, to address their shortcomings in the pursuit of fully automated CL systems.

Where can you wear your Libre? Using the FreeStyle Libre continuous glucose monitor on alternative sites

AIM

To investigate the accuracy and acceptability of the FreeStyle Libre Flash continuous glucose monitoring system (FSL-CGM) at alternative sites during free living and under experimental conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants with type 1 diabetes were provided with three FSL-CGM sensors applied to the upper arm, the lower back, and the anterior chest. On day 2 or 3, FSL-CGM sensor glucose was compared with venous glucose following a standard meal, during and after an exercise test, and after skin cooling. Participants completed 14-day use of the sensors with concomitant sensor scanning at all sites and capillary glucose tests. The primary outcome was accuracy between sensor sites of 14-day mean glucose. Clarke's error grids, precision absolute relative deviation, and mean absolute relative deviation were calculated.

RESULTS

In the 20 participants, compared with the arm sensor, the accuracy of the back sensor and the chest sensor was 97.9% and 98%, respectively. Under experimental conditions, the arm sensor was more accurate than that of the back and chest. All the sensors recorded higher glucose concentration than venous samples during exercise. The arm and chest sites were most preferred, with the greatest sensor failures from the back.

CONCLUSIONS

The FSL-CGM is clinically accurate when the sensors are applied to alternate chest or back sites. Greater variability occurs during rapid changes in glucose concentration with all sensor sites compared with venous glucose. Understanding these variabilities allows appropriate use of an economically viable continuous glucose monitor.

Prevalence of nocturnal hypoglycemia in free-living conditions in adults with type 1 diabetes: What is the impact of daily physical activity?

OBJECTIVE

Studies investigating strategies to limit the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia associated with physical activity (PA) are scarce and have been conducted in standardized, controlled conditions in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). This study sought to investigate the effect of daily PA level on nocturnal glucose management in free-living conditions while taking into consideration reported mitigation strategies to limit the risk of nocturnal hyoglycemia in people with T1D.

METHODS

Data from 25 adults (10 males, 15 females, HbA_1c: 7.6 ± 0.8%), 20-60 years old, living with T1D, were collected. One week of continuous glucose monitoring and PA (assessed using an accelerometer) were collected in free-living conditions. Nocturnal glucose values (midnight-6:00 am) following an active day "ACT" and a less active day "L-ACT" were analyzed to assess the time spent within the different glycemic target zones (<3.9 mmol/L; 3.9 - 10.0 mmol/L and >10.0 mmol/L) between conditions. Self-reported data about mitigation strategies applied to reduce the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia was also analyzed.

RESULTS

Only 44% of participants reported applying a carbohydrate- or insulin-based strategy to limit the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia on ACT day. Nocturnal hypoglycemia occurrences were comparable on ACT night versus on L-ACT night. Additional post-meal carbohydrate intake was higher on evenings following ACT (27.7 ± 15.6 g, ACT vs. 19.5 ± 11.0 g, L-ACT; P=0.045), but was frequently associated with an insulin bolus (70% of participants). Nocturnal hypoglycemia the night following ACT occurred mostly in people who administrated an additional insulin bolus before midnight (3 out of 5 participants with nocturnal hypoglycemia).

CONCLUSIONS

Although people with T1D seem to be aware of the increased risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia associated with PA, the risk associated with additional insulin boluses may not be as clear. Most participants did not report using compensation strategies to reduce the risk of PA related late-onset hypoglycemia which may be because they did not consider habitual PA as something requiring treatment adjustments.

A Randomized Crossover Trial Comparing Glucose Control During Moderate-Intensity, High-Intensity, and Resistance Exercise With Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery While Profiling Potential Additional Signals in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To compare glucose control with hybrid closed-loop (HCL) when challenged by high intensity exercise (HIE), moderate intensity exercise (MIE), and resistance exercise (RE) while profiling counterregulatory hormones, lactate, ketones, and kinetic data in adults with type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This study was an open-label multisite randomized crossover trial. Adults with type 1 diabetes undertook 40 min of HIE, MIE, and RE in random order while using HCL (Medtronic MiniMed 670G) with a temporary target set 2 h prior to and during exercise and 15 g carbohydrates if pre-exercise glucose was <126 mg/dL to prevent hypoglycemia. Primary outcome was median (interquartile range) continuous glucose monitoring time-in-range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL) for 14 h post-exercise commencement. Accelerometer data and venous glucose, ketones, lactate, and counterregulatory hormones were measured for 280 min post-exercise commencement.

RESULTS

Median TIR was 81% (67, 93%), 91% (80, 94%), and 80% (73, 89%) for 0-14 h post-exercise commencement for HIE, MIE, and RE, respectively (n = 30), with no difference between exercise types (MIE vs. HIE; P = 0.11, MIE vs. RE, P = 0.11; and HIE vs. RE, P = 0.90). Time-below-range was 0% for all exercise bouts. For HIE and RE compared with MIE, there were greater increases, respectively, in noradrenaline (P = 0.01 and P = 0.004), cortisol (P < 0.001 and P = 0.001), lactate (P ≤ 0.001 and P ≤ 0.001), and heart rate (P = 0.007 and P = 0.015). During HIE compared with MIE, there were greater increases in growth hormone (P = 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

Under controlled conditions, HCL provided satisfactory glucose control with no difference between exercise type. Lactate, counterregulatory hormones, and kinetic data differentiate type and intensity of exercise, and their measurement may help inform insulin needs during exercise. However, their potential utility as modulators of insulin dosing will be limited by the pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous insulin delivery.

Barriers to Uptake of Insulin Technologies and Novel Solutions

Diabetes-related technology has undergone great advancement in recent years. These technological devices are more commonly utilized in the type 1 diabetes population, which requires insulin as the primary treatment modality. Available devices include insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, and hybrid systems referred to as automated insulin delivery systems or hybrid closed-loop systems, which combine those two devices along with software algorithms to achieve advanced therapeutic capabilities, including automatic modulation of insulin delivery based on sensor-derived glucose levels to minimize abnormal glucose trends. Use of diabetes technology is associated with significant positive health and psychosocial outcomes, yet utilization rates are generally lacking across both adult and pediatric type 1 diabetes populations in the United States and other countries. There are consistent themes in existing barriers to technology uptake reported by individuals with type 1 diabetes or parents of children with type 1 diabetes, including physical burdens associated with wearing the devices, concerns in navigating the technology and the devices’ abilities to meet user expectations, high cost, inadequate resources within the healthcare team to support device use, disparities in technology access, and psychosocial barriers. It is important to understand the common barriers to uptake of not only the automated insulin delivery systems but also their component devices (insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors) to fully support individuals in utilizing these devices and optimizing health benefits. The purpose of this article is to summarize the current automated insulin delivery devices that are available for use in management of type 1 diabetes, review common barriers to uptake of those systems and their component devices, and provide expert opinion on existing and future solutions to identified barriers.

Personalized Approach for the Management of Exercise-Related Glycemic Imbalances in Type 1 Diabetes: Comparison with Reference Method

BACKGROUND

One of the most frequently adopted strategies to counterbalance the risk of exercise-induced hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes is carbohydrates supplement. Nevertheless, the estimation of its amount is still challenging. We investigated the efficacy of the personalized Exercise Carbohydrate Requirement Estimation System (ECRES) method compared to a tabular approach to estimate the glucose supplement needed for the prevention of exercise-related glycemic imbalances.

METHOD

Twenty-six patients performed two one-hour constant intensity exercises one week apart; the amount of extra carbohydrates was estimated, in random order, by the personalized ECRES method or through the tabular approach; glycemia was determined every 30 minutes. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics were calculated over the 48 hours preceding, and the afternoon and night following the trials.

RESULTS

Applying the personalized ECRES method, a significantly lower amount of carbohydrates was administered to the active patients compared to the tabular approach, median (interquartile range): 9.0 (0.5-21.0) g vs 23.0 (21.0-25.0) g; P < .01; the two methods were similar for the sedentary patients, 18 (13.5-36.0) g vs 23.0 (21.0-27.0) g; P = NS. After overlapping CGM metrics before the exercises, both methods avoided hypoglycemia and resulted in similar glucose levels throughout them. The ECRES method led to CGM metrics within the guidelines for either the afternoon and the night just following the trials, whereas the tabular approach resulted in a significantly greater time below range in the afternoon (11.8% ± 18.2%; P < .05) and time above range during the night (39.3% ± 29.8%; P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results support the validity of the personalized ECRES method: although the estimated amounts of carbohydrates were lower, patients' glycemia was maintained within safe clinical limits.

Advanced Closed-Loop Control System Improves Postprandial Glycemic Control Compared With a Hybrid Closed-Loop System Following Unannounced Meal

OBJECTIVE

Meals are a major hurdle to glycemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Our objective was to test a fully automated closed-loop control (CLC) system in the absence of announcement of carbohydrate ingestion among adolescents with T1D, who are known to commonly omit meal announcement.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Eighteen adolescents with T1D (age 15.6 ± 1.7 years; HbA1c 7.4 ± 1.5%; 9 females/9 males) participated in a randomized crossover clinical trial comparing our legacy hybrid CLC system (Unified Safety System Virginia [USS]-Virginia) with a novel fully automated CLC system (RocketAP) during two 46-h supervised admissions (each with one announced and one unannounced dinner), following 2 weeks of data collection. Primary outcome was the percentage time-in-range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) following the unannounced meal, with secondary outcomes related to additional continuous glucose monitoring-based metrics.

RESULTS

Both TIR and time-in-tight-range 70-140 mg/dL (TTR) were significantly higher using RocketAP than using USS-Virginia during the 6 h following the unannounced meal (83% [interquartile range 64-93] vs. 53% [40-71]; P = 0.004 and 49% [41-59] vs. 27% [22-36]; P = 0.002, respectively), primarily driven by reduced time-above-range (TAR >180 mg/dL: 17% [1.3-34] vs. 47% [28-60]), with no increase in time-below-range (TBR <70 mg/dL: 0% median for both). RocketAP also improved control following the announced meal (mean difference TBR: -0.7%, TIR: +7%, TTR: +6%), overall (TIR: +5%, TAR: -5%, TTR: +8%), and overnight (TIR: +7%, TTR: +19%, TAR: -5%). RocketAP delivered less insulin overall (78 ± 23 units vs. 85 ± 20 units, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

A new fully automated CLC system with automatic prandial dosing was proven to be safe and feasible and outperformed our legacy USS-Virginia in an adolescent population with and without meal announcement.

Initiating hybrid closed loop: A program evaluation of an educator-led Control-IQ follow-up at a large pediatric clinic

BACKGROUND

Control-IQ (Tandem Diabetes) is a hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system that users self-initiate after completing online training. Best practices for clinical follow-up are not known. Our quality improvement objective was to evaluate the usefulness of an educator-led follow-up program for new HCL users in a type 1 diabetes pediatric clinic.

METHODS

We implemented an ''HCLCheck-in'' program, first determining when users started HCL, then having diabetes educators contact them for a follow-up call 2-weeks after start. Educators used a Clinical Tool to inform insulin dose and behavior recommendations, and used four benchmarks to determine need for further follow-up: ≥71% HCL use, ≥71% CGM use, ≥60% Time-in-Range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL), <5% below 70 mg/dL. Family and educator satisfaction were surveyed.

RESULTS

One-hundred-twenty-three youth [mean age 13.6 ± 3.7 y, 53.7% female, mean HbA1c 7.6 ± 1.4% (60 mmol/mol)] completed an HCLCheck-in call a median (IQR) of 18(15, 21) days post-HCL start. 74 users (60%) surpassed benchmarks with 94% HCL use and 71% TIR. Of the 49 who did not, 16 completed a second call, and improved median TIR 12.5% (p = 0.03). HCL users reported high satisfaction with the program overall [median 10 (9, 10) out of 10]. Educators spent a median of 45 (32,70) minutes per user and rated satisfaction with the program as 8 (7,9.5) and the Tool as 9 (9, 10).

CONCLUSION

Our HCLCheck-in program received high satisfaction ratings and resulted in improved TIR for those initially not meeting benchmarks, suggesting users may benefit from early follow-up. Similar programs may be beneficial for other new technologies.

Time in Range for Closed-Loop Systems versus Standard of Care during Physical Exercise in People with Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare time in range (TIR) (70–180 mg/dL (3.9–10.0 mmol/L)) between fully closed-loop systems (CLS) and standard of care (including hybrid systems) during physical exercise in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). A systematic literature search was conducted in EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ISI Web of Science from January 1950 until January 2020. Randomized controlled trials including studies with different CLS were compared against standard of care in people with T1D. The meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model and restricted maximum likelihood estimation method. Six randomized controlled trials involving 153 participants with T1D of all age groups were included. Due to crossover test designs, studies were included repeatedly (a–d) if CLS or physical exercise interventions were different. Applying this methodology increased the comparisons to a total number of 266 participants. TIR was higher with an absolute mean difference (AMD) of 6.18%, 95% CI: 1.99 to 10.38% in favor of CLS. In a subgroup analysis, the AMD was 9.46%, 95% CI: 2.48% to 16.45% in children and adolescents while the AMD for adults was 1.07% 95% CI: −0.81% to 2.96% in favor of CLS. In this systematic review and meta-analysis CLS moderately improved TIR in comparison to standard of care during physical exercise in people with T1D. This effect was particularly pronounced for children and adolescents showing that the use of CLS improved TIR significantly compared to standard of care.

More Time in Glucose Range During Exercise Days than Sedentary Days in Adults Living with Type 1 Diabetes

Objective: This study analysis was designed to examine the 24-h effects of exercise on glycemic control as measured by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Methods: Individuals with type 1 diabetes (ages: 15-68 years; hemoglobin A1c: 7.5% ± 1.5% [mean ± standard deviation (SD)]) were randomly assigned to complete twice-weekly aerobic, high-intensity interval, or resistance-based exercise sessions in addition to their personal exercise sessions for a period of 4 weeks. Exercise was tracked with wearables and glucose concentrations assessed using CGM. An exercise day was defined as a 24-h period after the end of exercise, while a sedentary day was defined as any 24-h period with no recorded exercise ≥10 min long. Sedentary days start at least 24 h after the end of exercise. Results: Mean glucose was lower (150 ± 45 vs. 166 ± 49 mg/dL, P = 0.01), % time in range [70-180 mg/dL] higher (62% ± 23% vs. 56% ± 25%, P = 0.03), % time >180 mg/dL lower (28% ± 23% vs. 37% ± 26%, P = 0.01), and % time <70 mg/dL higher (9.3% ± 11.0% vs. 7.1% ± 9.1%, P = 0.04) on exercise days compared with sedentary days. Glucose variability and % time <54 mg/dL did not differ significantly between exercise and sedentary days. No significant differences in glucose control by exercise type were observed. Conclusion: Participants had lower 24-h mean glucose levels and a greater time in range on exercise days compared with sedentary days, with mode of exercise affecting glycemia similarly. In summary, this study offers data supporting frequency of exercise as a method of facilitating glucose control but does not suggest an effect for mode of exercise.

Post-exercise recovery for the endurance athlete with type 1 diabetes: a consensus statement

There has been substantial progress in the knowledge of exercise and type 1 diabetes, with the development of guidelines for optimal glucose management. In addition, an increasing number of people living with type 1 diabetes are pushing their physical limits to compete at the highest level of sport. However, the post-exercise recovery routine, particularly with a focus on sporting performance, has received little attention within the scientific literature, with most of the focus being placed on insulin or nutritional adaptations to manage glycaemia before and during the exercise bout. The post-exercise recovery period presents an opportunity for maximising training adaption and recovery, and the clinical management of glycaemia through the rest of the day and overnight. The absence of clear guidance for the post-exercise period means that people with type 1 diabetes should either develop their own recovery strategies on the basis of individual trial and error, or adhere to guidelines that have been developed for people without diabetes. This Review provides an up-to-date consensus on post-exercise recovery and glucose management for individuals living with type 1 diabetes. We aim to: (1) outline the principles and time course of post-exercise recovery, highlighting the implications and challenges for endurance athletes living with type 1 diabetes; (2) provide an overview of potential strategies for post-exercise recovery that could be used by athletes with type 1 diabetes to optimise recovery and adaptation, alongside improved glycaemic monitoring and management; and (3) highlight the potential for technology to ease the burden of managing glycaemia in the post-exercise recovery period.

Anticipation of Historical Exercise Patterns by a Novel Artificial Pancreas System Reduces Hypoglycemia During and After Moderate-Intensity Physical Activity in People with Type 1 Diabetes

Objective: Physical activity is a major challenge to glycemic control for people with type 1 diabetes. Moderate-intensity exercise often leads to steep decreases in blood glucose and hypoglycemia that closed-loop control systems have so far failed to protect against, despite improving glycemic control overall. Research Design and Methods: Fifteen adults with type 1 diabetes (42 ± 13.5 years old; hemoglobin A_1c 6.6% ± 1.0%; 10F/5M) participated in a randomized crossover clinical trial comparing two hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems, a state-of-the-art hybrid model predictive controller and a modified system designed to anticipate and detect unannounced exercise (APEX), during two 32-h supervised admissions with 45 min of planned moderate activity, following 4 weeks of data collection. Primary outcome was the number of hypoglycemic episodes during exercise. Continuous glucose monitor (CGM)-based metrics and hypoglycemia are also reported across the entire admissions. Results: The APEX system reduced hypoglycemic episodes overall (9 vs. 33; P = 0.02), during exercise (5 vs. 13; P = 0.04), and in the 4 h following (2 vs. 11; P = 0.02). Overall CGM median percent time <70 mg/dL decreased as well (0.3% vs. 1.6%; P = 0.004). This protection was obtained with no significant increase in time >180 mg/dL (18.5% vs. 16.6%, P = 0.15). Overnight control was notable for both systems with no hypoglycemia, median percent in time 70-180 mg/dL at 100% and median percent time 70-140 mg/dL at ∼96% for both. Conclusions: A new closed-loop system capable of anticipating and detecting exercise was proven to be safe and feasible and outperformed a state-of-the-art HCL, reducing participants' exposure to hypoglycemia during and after moderate-intensity physical activity. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03859401.

Time in range centered diabetes care

Optimal glycemic control remains challenging and elusive for many people with diabetes. With the comprehensive clinical evidence on safety and efficiency in large populations, and with broader reimbursement, the adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is rapidly increasing. Standardized visual reporting and interpretation of CGM data and clear and understandable clinical targets will help professionals and individuals with diabetes use diabetes technology more efficiently, and finally improve long-term outcomes with less everyday disease burden. For the majority of people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, time in range (between 70 and 180 mg/dL, or 3.9 and 10 mmol/L) target of more than 70% is recommended, with each incremental increase of 5% towards this target being clinically meaningful. At the same time, the goal is to minimize glycemic excursions: a recommended target for a time below range (< 70 mg/dL or < 3.9 mmol/L) is less than 4%, and time above range (> 180 mg/dL or 10 mmol/L) less than 25%, with less stringent goals for older individuals or those at increased risk. These targets should be individualized: the personal use of CGM with the standardized data presentation provides all necessary means to accurately tailor diabetes management to the needs of each individual with diabetes.

Assessment of the "Second Day" Exercise Effect on Glycemic Control, Insulin Requirements, and CHO Intake in Type 1 Diabetes Adults

BACKGROUND

Glucose control during consecutive days of aerobic exercise has not been well studied. We assessed glycemia, insulin requirements, and carbohydrate (CHO) needs during two consecutive days of prolonged cycling in type 1 diabetes (T1D) adults using sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy.

METHODS

Twenty adults with well-controlled T1D and six healthy adults (for comparison) were enrolled. Assessments were made during two consecutive days of cycling activities (30 miles per day). On day 1 (D1), basal rates were reduced 50% and CHO intake was guided by real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) data to maintain a target range (70-180 mg/dL). On day 2 (D2), basal insulin infusion was stopped for the first hour of biking and resumed at a minimal rate during biking. Carbohydrate intake one hour before, during, and ten minutes after biking was recorded. Times within/below target range, glycemic variability, and mean glucose were calculated from rtCGM data.

RESULTS

Among 17 T1D participants who completed the study, mean glucose levels at the start of cycling were slightly lower on D2 vs D1: 138 ± 16 mg/dL and 122 ± 16, respectively, P = NS. Type 1 diabetes participants achieved near-normal glucose levels at the end of both cycling events; however, the reduction in glucose was most notable at one hour into the event on D2 vs D1. Carbohydrate intake was notably lower during D2 vs D1 with no difference in time <54 mg/dL (both P = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Type 1 diabetes individuals using rtCGM-augmented insulin pump therapy can safely engage in consecutive days of prolonged aerobic exercise by significantly reducing insulin dosages with no increase in CHO intake.

Review of the Long-Term Implantable Senseonics Continuous Glucose Monitoring System and Other Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems

The article published by Kevin Cowart in this issue of the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (JDST) is a detailed overview of the clinical trial data and analysis used to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the Eversense continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) System for regulatory approval and clinical acceptance. The article describes the published study results for safety, accuracy, reliability, ease of insertion/removal, adverse events, and ease of diabetes patient-use for controlling their glucose levels short and long term. The author nicely compares Eversense CGM System safety and performance with the short-term subcutaneous tissue CGM systems being commercialized by Dexcom, Medtronic Diabetes, and Abbott Diabetes. This comparison may help the clinician define which type of patient with diabetes might benefit the most from the long-term implantable CGM system. The majority of studied patients describe a positive experience managing their diabetes with the Eversense CGM System and request implantation of a new sensor 90 or 180 days later.

Artificial Pancreas With Carbohydrate Suggestion Performance for Unannounced and Announced Exercise in Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and performance of a new multivariable closed-loop (MCL) glucose controller with automatic carbohydrate recommendation during and after unannounced and announced exercise in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A randomized, 3-arm, crossover clinical trial was conducted. Participants completed a heavy aerobic exercise session including three 15-minute sets on a cycle ergometer with 5 minutes rest in between. In a randomly determined order, we compared MCL control with unannounced (CLNA) and announced (CLA) exercise to open-loop therapy (OL). Adults with T1D, insulin pump users, and those with hemoglobin (Hb)A1c between 6.0% and 8.5% were eligible. We investigated glucose control during and 3 hours after exercise.

RESULTS

Ten participants (aged 40.8 ± 7.0 years; HbA1c of 7.3 ± 0.8%) participated. The use of the MCL in both closed-loop arms decreased the time spent <70 mg/dL of sensor glucose (0.0%, [0.0-16.8] and 0.0%, [0.0-19.2] vs 16.2%, [0.0-26.0], (%, [percentile 10-90]) CLNA and CLA vs OL respectively; P = 0.047, P = 0.063) and the number of hypoglycemic events when compared with OL (CLNA 4 and CLA 3 vs OL 8; P = 0.218, P = 0.250). The use of the MCL system increased the proportion of time within 70 to 180 mg/dL (87.8%, [51.1-100] and 91.9%, [58.7-100] vs 81.1%, [65.4-87.0], (%, [percentile 10-90]) CLNA and CLA vs OL respectively; P = 0.227, P = 0.039). This was achieved with the administration of similar doses of insulin and a reduced amount of carbohydrates.

CONCLUSIONS

The MCL with automatic carbohydrate recommendation performed well and was safe during and after both unannounced and announced exercise, maintaining glucose mostly within the target range and reducing the risk of hypoglycemia despite a reduced amount of carbohydrate intake.Register Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03577158.

Weight Management in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes and Obesity: Challenges and Possible Solutions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review highlights challenges associated with weight management in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Our purpose is to propose potential solutions to improve weight outcomes in youth with T1D.

RECENT FINDINGS

A common barrier to weight management in T1D is reluctance to engage in exercise for fear of hypoglycemia. Healthcare practitioners generally provide limited guidance for insulin dosing and carbohydrate modifications to maintain stable glycemia during exercise. Adherence to dietary guidelines is associated with improved glycemia; however, youth struggle to meet recommendations. When psychosocial factors are addressed in combination with glucose trends, this often leads to successful T1D management. Newer medications also hold promise to potentially aid in glycemia and weight management, but further research is necessary. Properly addressing physical activity, nutrition, pharmacotherapy, and psychosocial factors while emphasizing weight management may reduce the likelihood of obesity development and its perpetuation in this population.

Glucose management for exercise using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) systems in type 1 diabetes: position statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) endorsed by JDRF and supported by the American Diabetes Association (ADA)

Physical exercise is an important component in the management of type 1 diabetes across the lifespan. Yet, acute exercise increases the risk of dysglycaemia, and the direction of glycaemic excursions depends, to some extent, on the intensity and duration of the type of exercise. Understandably, fear of hypoglycaemia is one of the strongest barriers to incorporating exercise into daily life. Risk of hypoglycaemia during and after exercise can be lowered when insulin-dose adjustments are made and/or additional carbohydrates are consumed. Glycaemic management during exercise has been made easier with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) systems; however, because of the complexity of CGM and isCGM systems, both individuals with type 1 diabetes and their healthcare professionals may struggle with the interpretation of given information to maximise the technological potential for effective use around exercise (i.e. before, during and after). This position statement highlights the recent advancements in CGM and isCGM technology, with a focus on the evidence base for their efficacy to sense glucose around exercise and adaptations in the use of these emerging tools, and updates the guidance for exercise in adults, children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Graphical abstract.

Glucose management for exercise using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) systems in type 1 diabetes: position statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) endorsed by JDRF and supported by the American Diabetes Association (ADA)

Physical exercise is an important component in the management of type 1 diabetes across the lifespan. Yet, acute exercise increases the risk of dysglycaemia, and the direction of glycaemic excursions depends, to some extent, on the intensity and duration of the type of exercise. Understandably, fear of hypoglycaemia is one of the strongest barriers to incorporating exercise into daily life. Risk of hypoglycaemia during and after exercise can be lowered when insulin-dose adjustments are made and/or additional carbohydrates are consumed. Glycaemic management during exercise has been made easier with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) systems; however, because of the complexity of CGM and isCGM systems, both individuals with type 1 diabetes and their healthcare professionals may struggle with the interpretation of given information to maximise the technological potential for effective use around exercise (ie, before, during and after). This position statement highlights the recent advancements in CGM and isCGM technology, with a focus on the evidence base for their efficacy to sense glucose around exercise and adaptations in the use of these emerging tools, and updates the guidance for exercise in adults, children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

Closed-loop insulin delivery systems in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes

Introduction: Optimal glycemic control remains challenging in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes due to highly variable day-to-day and night-to-night insulin requirements. This hurdle could be addressed by glucose-responsive insulin delivery based on real-time continuous glucose measurements.Areas covered: This review summaries recent advances of closed-loop systems in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes, using both single- and dual-hormone closed-loop systems. The main outcomes, proportions of time spent in target range 70-180 mg/dl, and time spent in hypoglycemia below 70 mg/dl, are assessed particularly during unsupervised free-living randomized controlled trials.Expert opinion: Noteworthy and clinically meaningful translation of experimental investigations from controlled in-hospital settings to unrestricted home studies have been achieved over the past years, resulting in the regulatory approval of the first hybrid closed-loop system also in the pediatric population and with several other advanced devices in the pipeline. Large multinational and pivotal clinical trials including broad age populations are underway to facilitate the use of closed-loop systems in routine clinical practice.

Carbohydrate Requirement for Exercise in Type 1 Diabetes: Effects of Insulin Concentration

Physical activity is a keystone of a healthy lifestyle as well as of management of patients with type 1 diabetes. The risk of exercise-induced hypoglycemia, however, is a great challenge for these patients. The glycemic response to exercise depends upon several factors concerning the patient him/herself (eg, therapy, glycemic control, training level) and the characteristics of the exercise performed. Only in-depth knowledge of these factors will allow to develop individualized strategies minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia. The main factors affecting the exercise-induced hypoglycemia in patients with T1D have been analyzed, including the effects of insulin concentration. A model is discussed, which has the potential to become the basis for providing patients with individualized suggestions to keep constant glucose levels on each exercise occasion.

Dual-Hormone Closed-Loop System Using a Liquid Stable Glucagon Formulation Versus Insulin-Only Closed-Loop System Compared With a Predictive Low Glucose Suspend System: An Open-Label, Outpatient, Single-Center, Crossover, Randomized Controlled Trial

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% VO_2max) 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.

A single-blind, randomised, crossover study to reduce hypoglycaemia risk during postprandial exercise with closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes: announced (with or without bolus reduction) vs unannounced exercise strategies

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

For individuals living with type 1 diabetes, closed-loop insulin delivery improves glycaemic control. Nonetheless, maintenance of glycaemic control during exercise while a prandial insulin bolus remains active is a challenge even to closed-loop systems. We investigated the effect of exercise announcement on the efficacy of a closed-loop system, to reduce hypoglycaemia during postprandial exercise.

METHODS

A single-blind randomised, crossover open-label trial was carried out to compare three strategies applied to a closed-loop system at mealtime in preparation for exercise taken 90 min after eating at a research testing centre: (1) announced exercise to the closed-loop system (increases target glucose levels) in addition to a 33% reduction in meal bolus (A-RB); (2) announced exercise to the closed-loop system and a full meal bolus (A-FB); (3) unannounced exercise and a full meal bolus (U-FB). Participants performed 60 min of exercise at 60% [Formula: see text] 90 min after eating breakfast. The investigators were not blinded to the interventions. However, the participants were blinded to the sensor glucose readings and to the insulin infusion rates throughout the intervention visits.

RESULTS

The trial was completed by 37 adults with type 1 diabetes, all using insulin pumps: mean±SD, 40.0 ± 15.0 years of age, HbA_1c 57.1 ± 10.8 mmol/mol (7.3 ± 1.0%). Reported results were based on plasma glucose values. During exercise and the following 1 h recovery period, time spent in hypoglycaemia (<3.9 mmol/l; primary outcome) was reduced with A-RB (mean ± SD; 2.0 ± 6.2%) and A-FB (7.0 ± 12.6%) vs U-FB (13.0 ± 19.0%; p < 0.0001 and p = 0.005, respectively). During exercise, A-RB had the least drop in plasma glucose levels: A-RB -0.3 ± 2.8 mmol/l, A-FB -2.6 ± 2.9 mmol/l vs U-FB -2.4 ± 2.7 mmol/l (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.5, respectively). Comparison of A-RB vs U-FB revealed a decrease in the time spent in target (3.9-10 mmol/l) by 12.7% (p = 0.05) and an increase in the time spent in hyperglycaemia (>10 mmol/l) by 21% (p = 0.001). No side effects were reported during the applied strategies.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Combining postprandial exercise announcement, which increases closed-loop system glucose target levels, with a 33% meal bolus reduction significantly reduced time spent in hypoglycaemia compared with the other two strategies, yet at the expense of more time spent in hyperglycaemia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0285530 FUNDING: JDRF (2-SRA-2016-210-A-N), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (354024) and the Fondation J.-A. DeSève chair held by RR-L.

A clinical review of the t:slim X2 insulin pump

Insulin pumps are commonly used for intensive insulin therapy to treat type 1 diabetes in adults and youth. Insulin pump technologies have advanced dramatically in the last several years to integrate with continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and incorporate control algorithms. These control algorithms automate some insulin delivery in response to the glucose information received from the CGM to reduce the occurrence of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia and improve overall glycemic control. The t:slim X2 insulin pump system became commercially available in 2016. It is an innovative insulin pump technology that can be updated remotely by the user to install new software onto the pump device as new technologies become available. Currently, the t:slim X2 pairs with the Dexcom G6 CGM and there are two advanced software options available: Basal-IQ, which is a predictive low glucose suspend (PLGS) technology, and Control-IQ, which is a Hybrid Closed Loop (HCL) technology. This paper will describe the different types of advanced insulin pump technologies, review how the t:slim X2 insulin pump works, and summarize the clinical studies leading to FDA approval and commercialization of the Basal-IQ and Control-IQ technologies.

A Randomized Trial of Closed-Loop Control in Children with Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

A closed-loop system of insulin delivery (also called an artificial pancreas) may improve glycemic outcomes in children with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

In a 16-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial, we assigned, in a 3:1 ratio, children 6 to 13 years of age who had type 1 diabetes to receive treatment with the use of either a closed-loop system of insulin delivery (closed-loop group) or a sensor-augmented insulin pump (control group). The primary outcome was the percentage of time that the glucose level was in the target range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter, as measured by continuous glucose monitoring.

RESULTS

A total of 101 children underwent randomization (78 to the closed-loop group and 23 to the control group); the glycated hemoglobin levels at baseline ranged from 5.7 to 10.1%. The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the glucose level was in the target range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter increased from 53±17% at baseline to 67±10% (the mean over 16 weeks of treatment) in the closed-loop group and from 51±16% to 55±13% in the control group (mean adjusted difference, 11 percentage points [equivalent to 2.6 hours per day]; 95% confidence interval, 7 to 14; P<0.001). In both groups, the median percentage of time that the glucose level was below 70 mg per deciliter was low (1.6% in the closed-loop group and 1.8% in the control group). In the closed-loop group, the median percentage of time that the system was in the closed-loop mode was 93% (interquartile range, 91 to 95). No episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this 16-week trial involving children with type 1 diabetes, the glucose level was in the target range for a greater percentage of time with the use of a closed-loop system than with the use of a sensor-augmented insulin pump. (Funded by Tandem Diabetes Care and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03844789.).

Safety and Efficacy of Initializing the Control-IQ Artificial Pancreas System Based on Total Daily Insulin in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes

Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of a simplified initialization for the Tandem t:slim X2 Control-IQ hybrid closed-loop system, using parameters based on total daily insulin ("MyTDI") in adolescents with type 1 diabetes under usual activity and during periods of increased exercise. Research Design and Methods: Adolescents with type 1 diabetes 12-18 years of age used Control-IQ for 5 days at home using their usual parameters. Upon arrival at a 60-h ski camp, participants were randomized to either continue Control-IQ using their home settings or to reinitialize Control-IQ with MyTDI parameters. Control-IQ use continued for 5 days following camp. The effect of MyTDI on continuous glucose monitoring outcomes were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA): baseline, camp, and at home. Results: Twenty participants were enrolled and completed the study; two participants were excluded from the analysis due to absence from ski camp (1) and illness (1). Time in range was similar between both groups at home and camp. A tendency to higher time <70 mg/dL in the MyTDI group was present but only during camp (median 3.8% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.057). MyTDI users with bolus/TDI ratios >40% tended to show greater time in the euglycemic range improvements between baseline and home than users with ratios <40% (+16.3% vs. -9.0%, P = 0.012). All participants maintained an average of 95% time in closed loop (84.1%-100%). Conclusions: MyTDI is a safe, effective, and easy way to determine insulin parameters for use in the Control-IQ artificial pancreas. Future modifications to account for the influence of carbohydrate intake on MyTDI calculations might further improve time in range.

Closed-loop control in insulin pumps for type-1 diabetes mellitus: safety and efficacy

INTRODUCTION

Type 1 diabetes is a lifelong disease with high management burden. The majority of people with type 1 diabetes fail to achieve glycemic targets. Algorithm-driven automated insulin delivery (closed-loop) systems aim to address these challenges. This review provides an overview of commercial and emerging closed-loop systems.

AREAS COVERED

We review safety and efficacy of commercial and emerging hybrid closed-loop systems. A literature search was conducted and clinical trials using day-and-night closed-loop systems during free-living conditions were used to report on safety data. We comment on efficacy where robust randomized controlled trial data for a particular system are available. We highlight similarities and differences between commercial systems.

EXPERT OPINION

Study data shows that hybrid closed-loop systems are safe and effective, consistently improving glycemic control when compared to standard therapy. While a fully closed-loop system with minimal burden remains the end-goal, these hybrid closed-loop systems have transformative potential in diabetes care.