Impact of Missed and Late Meal Boluses on Glycemic Outcomes in Automated Insulin Delivery-Treated Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: A Two-Center, Population-Based Cohort Study.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of missed or late meal boluses (MLBs) on glycemic outcomes in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. Research Design and Methods: AID-treated (Tandem Control-IQ or Medtronic MiniMed 780G) children and adolescents (aged 6-21 years) from Stanford Medical Center and Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen with ≥10 days of data were included in this two-center, binational, population-based, retrospective, 1-month cohort study. The primary outcome was the association between the number of algorithm-detected MLBs and time in target glucose range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL). Results: The study included 189 children and adolescents (48% females with a mean ± standard deviation age of 13 ± 4 years). Overall, the mean number of MLBs per day in the cohort was 2.2 ± 0.9. For each additional MLB per day, TIR decreased by 9.7% points (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.3; 8.1), and compared with the quartile with fewest MLBs (Q1), the quartile with most (Q4) had 22.9% less TIR (95% CI: 27.2; 18.6). The age-, sex-, and treatment modality-adjusted probability of achieving a TIR of >70% in Q4 was 1.4% compared with 74.8% in Q1 (P < 0.001). Conclusions: MLBs significantly impacted glycemic outcomes in AID-treated children and adolescents. The results emphasize the importance of maintaining a focus on bolus behavior to achieve a higher TIR and support the need for further research in technological or behavioral support tools to handle MLBs.

Modeling the effect of glucagon on endogenous glucose production in type 1 diabetes: On the role of glucagon receptor dynamics.

This paper validates a glucoregulatory model including glucagon receptors dynamics in the description of endogenous glucose production (EGP). A set of models from literature are selected for a head-to-head comparison in order to evaluate the role of glucagon receptors. Each EGP model is incorporated into an existing glucoregulatory model and validated using a set of clinical data, where both insulin and glucagon are administered. The parameters of each EGP model are identified in the same optimization problem, minimizing the root mean square error (RMSE) between the simulation and the clinical data. The results show that the RMSE for the proposed receptors-based EGP model was lower when compared to each of the considered models (Receptors approach: 7.13±1.71 mg/dl vs. 7.76±1.45 mg/dl (p=0.066), 8.45±1.38 mg/dl (p=0.011) and 8.99±1.62 mg/dl (p=0.007)). This raises the possibility of considering glucagon receptors dynamics in type 1 diabetes simulators.

Performance of a dual-hormone closed-loop system versus insulin-only closed-loop system in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. A single-blind, randomized, controlled, crossover trial.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of a dual-hormone (DH [insulin and glucagon]) closed-loop system compared to a single-hormone (SH [insulin only]) closed-loop system in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Methods: This was a 26-hour, two-period, randomized, crossover, inpatient study involving 11 adolescents with type 1 diabetes (nine males [82%], mean ± SD age 14.8 ± 1.4 years, diabetes duration 5.7 ± 2.3 years). Except for the treatment configuration of the DiaCon Artificial Pancreas: DH or SH, experimental visits were identical consisting of: an overnight stay (10:00 pm until 7:30 am), several meals/snacks, and a 45-minute bout of moderate intensity continuous exercise. The primary endpoint was percentage of time spent with sensor glucose values below range (TBR [<3.9 mmol/L]) during closed-loop control over the 26-h period (5:00 pm, day 1 to 7:00 pm, day 2). Results: Overall, there were no differences between DH and SH for the following glycemic outcomes (median [IQR]): TBR 1.6 [0.0, 2.4] vs. 1.28 [0.16, 3.19]%, p=1.00; time in range (TIR [3.9-10.0 mmol/L]) 68.4 [48.7, 76.8] vs. 75.7 [69.8, 87.1]%, p=0.08; and time above range (TAR [>10.0 mmol/L]) 28.1 [18.1, 49.8] vs. 23.3 [12.3, 27.2]%, p=0.10. Mean ( ± SD) glucose was higher during DH than SH (8.7 ( ± 3.2) vs. 8.1 ( ± 3.0) mmol/L, p<0.001) but coefficient of variation was similar (34.8 ( ± 6.8) vs. 37.3 ( ± 8.6)%, p=0.20). The average amount of rescue carbohydrates was similar between DH and SH (6.8 ( ± 12.3) vs. 9.5 ( ± 15.4) grams/participant/visit, p=0.78). Overnight, TIR was higher, TAR was lower during the SH visit compared to DH. During and after exercise (4:30 pm until 7 pm) the SH configuration produced higher TIR, but similar TAR and TBR compared to the DH configuration. Conclusions: DH and SH performed similarly in adolescents with type 1 diabetes during a 26-hour inpatient monitoring period involving several metabolic challenges including feeding and exercise. However, during the night and around exercise, the SH configuration outperformed DH.

Correlation in Dose-Response to Rapid- and Long-Acting Insulin for People with Type 1 Diabetes.

In diabetes, it can become necessary to switch between pump- and pen-based insulin treatment. This switch involves a translation between rapid- and long-acting insulin analogues. In standard-of-care translation algorithms, a unit-to-unit conversion is applied. However, this simplification may not fit all individuals. In this paper, we investigate the correlation between dose-response to rapid- and long-acting insulin in the same individual, and compare the correlation across individuals. As a measure of dose-response, we estimate the insulin sensitivity in clinical data from 25 subjects with type 1 diabetes. For parameter estimation, we use maximum likelihood with a continuous-discrete extended Kalman filter and Bergman's minimal model. The results show a weak correlation between insulin sensitivity to rapid- and long-acting insulin across individuals. On this sparse data set, the analysis suggests that the standardized unit-to-unit translation between insulin analogues may not benefit all subjects.

Comparison of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Accuracy Between Abdominal and Upper Arm Insertion Sites.

Background: The aim was to compare the accuracy of the Dexcom® G4 Platinum continuous glucose monitor (CGM) sensor inserted on the upper arm and the abdomen in adults. Methods: Fourteen adults with type 1 diabetes wore two CGMs, one placed on the upper arm and one placed on the abdomen. Three in-clinic visits of 5 h with YSI (2300 STAT, Yellow Springs Instrument) measurements as comparator were performed. Each visit was followed by 4 days with seven-point self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in free-living conditions. Accuracy analyses on the paired CGM-YSI and CGM-SMBG measurements of the two CGM sensors were performed. Results: Using YSI as comparator, the overall Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD) for the CGMabd was 12.3% and CGMarm was 12.0%. The percentage of the CGM measurements in zone A of Clarke error grid analysis for the CGMabd was 85.6% and CGMarm was 86.0%. The hypoglycemia sensitivity for the CGMabd and CGMarm was 69.3%. Using SMBG as comparator, the overall MARD for the CGMabd was 12.5% and CGMarm was 12.0%. The percentage of the CGM measurements in zone A for the CGMabd was 84.1% and the CGMarm was 85.0%. The hypoglycemia sensitivity for the CGMabd was 60.0% and the CGMarm was 71.1%. All the P-values from the comparisons between the accuracy of CGMabd and CGMarm were >0.05. Conclusion: The accuracy of a Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM sensor placed on the upper arm was not different from the accuracy of the sensor placed on the abdomen in adults with type 1 diabetes.

Closed-Loop Control with Unannounced Exercise for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes using the Ensemble Model Predictive Control.

This paper presents an individualized Ensemble Model Predictive Control (EnMPC) algorithm for blood glucose (BG) stabilization and hypoglycemia prevention in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) who exercise regularly. The EnMPC formulation can be regarded as a simplified multi-stage MPC allowing for the consideration of N en scenarios gathered from the patient's recent behavior. The patient's physical activity behavior is characterized by an exercise-specific input signal derived from the deconvolution of the patient's continuous glucose monitor (CGM), accounting for known inputs such as meal, and insulin pump records. The EnMPC controller was tested in a cohort of in silico patients with representative inter-subject and intra-subject variability from the FDA-accepted UVA/Padova simulation platform. Results show a significant improvement on hypoglycemia prevention after 30 min of mild to moderate exercise in comparison to a similarly tuned baseline controller (rMPC); with a reduction in hypoglycemia occurrences (< 70 mg/dL), from 3.08% ± 3.55 with rMPC to 0.78% ± 2.04 with EnMPC (P < 0.05).

Cross-Validation of a Glucose-Insulin-Glucagon Pharmacodynamics Model for Simulation Using Data From Patients With Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Currently, no consensus exists on a model describing endogenous glucose production (EGP) as a function of glucagon concentrations. Reliable simulations to determine the glucagon dose preventing or treating hypoglycemia or to tune a dual-hormone artificial pancreas control algorithm need a validated glucoregulatory model including the effect of glucagon. METHODS: Eight type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients each received a subcutaneous (SC) bolus of insulin on four study days to induce mild hypoglycemia followed by a SC bolus of saline or 100, 200, or 300 µg of glucagon. Blood samples were analyzed for concentrations of glucagon, insulin, and glucose. We fitted pharmacokinetic (PK) models to insulin and glucagon data using maximum likelihood and maximum a posteriori estimation methods. Similarly, we fitted a pharmacodynamic (PD) model to glucose data. The PD model included multiplicative effects of insulin and glucagon on EGP. Bias and precision of PD model test fits were assessed by mean predictive error (MPE) and mean absolute predictive error (MAPE). RESULTS: Assuming constant variables in a subject across nonoutlier visits and using thresholds of ±15% MPE and 20% MAPE, we accepted at least one and at most three PD model test fits in each of the seven subjects. Thus, we successfully validated the PD model by leave-one-out cross-validation in seven out of eight T1D patients. CONCLUSIONS: The PD model accurately simulates glucose excursions based on plasma insulin and glucagon concentrations. The reported PK/PD model including equations and fitted parameters allows for in silico experiments that may help improve diabetes treatment involving glucagon for prevention of hypoglycemia.

An Adaptive Nonlinear Basal-Bolus Calculator for Patients With Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Bolus calculators help patients with type 1 diabetes to mitigate the effect of meals on their blood glucose by administering a large amount of insulin at mealtime. Intraindividual changes in patients physiology and nonlinearity in insulin-glucose dynamics pose a challenge to the accuracy of such calculators. METHOD: We propose a method based on a continuous-discrete unscented Kalman filter to continuously track the postprandial glucose dynamics and the insulin sensitivity. We augment the Medtronic Virtual Patient (MVP) model to simulate noise-corrupted data from a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). The basal rate is determined by calculating the steady state of the model and is adjusted once a day before breakfast. The bolus size is determined by optimizing the postprandial glucose values based on an estimate of the insulin sensitivity and states, as well as the announced meal size. Following meal announcements, the meal compartment and the meal time constant are estimated, otherwise insulin sensitivity is estimated. RESULTS: We compare the performance of a conventional linear bolus calculator with the proposed bolus calculator. The proposed basal-bolus calculator significantly improves the time spent in glucose target ( P < .01) compared to the conventional bolus calculator. CONCLUSION: An adaptive nonlinear basal-bolus calculator can efficiently compensate for physiological changes. Further clinical studies will be needed to validate the results.

Comparison of three nonlinear filters for fault detection in continuous glucose monitors.

The purpose of this study is to compare the performance of three nonlinear filters in online drift detection of continuous glucose monitors. The nonlinear filters are the extended Kalman filter (EKF), the unscented Kalman filter (UKF), and the particle filter (PF). They are all based on a nonlinear model of the glucose-insulin dynamics in people with type 1 diabetes. Drift is modelled by a Gaussian random walk and is detected based on the statistical tests of the 90-min prediction residuals of the filters. The unscented Kalman filter had the highest average F score of 85.9%, and the smallest average detection delay of 84.1%, with the average detection sensitivity of 82.6%, and average specificity of 91.0%.

An artificial pancreas for automated blood glucose control in patients with Type 1 diabetes.

Automated glucose control in patients with Type 1 diabetes is much-coveted by patients, relatives and healthcare professionals. It is the expectation that a system for automated control, also know as an artificial pancreas, will improve glucose control, reduce the risk of diabetes complications and markedly improve patient quality of life. An artificial pancreas consists of portable devices for glucose sensing and insulin delivery which are controlled by an algorithm residing on a computer. The technology is still under development and currently no artificial pancreas is commercially available. This review gives an introduction to recent progress, challenges and future prospects within the field of artificial pancreas research.

Predicting Plasma Glucose From Interstitial Glucose Observations Using Bayesian Methods.

One way of constructing a control algorithm for an artificial pancreas is to identify a model capable of predicting plasma glucose (PG) from interstitial glucose (IG) observations. Stochastic differential equations (SDEs) make it possible to account both for the unknown influence of the continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and for unknown physiological influences. Combined with prior knowledge about the measurement devices, this approach can be used to obtain a robust predictive model. A stochastic-differential-equation-based gray box (SDE-GB) model is formulated on the basis of an identifiable physiological model of the glucoregulatory system for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients. A Bayesian method is used to estimate robust parameters from clinical data. The models are then used to predict PG from IG observations from 2 separate study occasions on the same patient. First, all statistically significant diffusion terms of the model are identified using likelihood ratio tests, yielding inclusion of [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text]. Second, estimates using maximum likelihood are obtained, but prediction capability is poor. Finally a Bayesian method is implemented. Using this method the identified models are able to predict PG using only IG observations. These predictions are assessed visually. We are also able to validate these estimates on a separate data set from the same patient. This study shows that SDE-GBs and a Bayesian method can be used to identify a reliable model for prediction of PG using IG observations obtained with a CGM. The model could eventually be used in an artificial pancreas.

Model-based closed-loop glucose control in type 1 diabetes: the DiaCon experience.

BACKGROUND: To improve type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) management, we developed a model predictive control (MPC) algorithm for closed-loop (CL) glucose control based on a linear second-order deterministic-stochastic model. The deterministic part of the model is specified by three patient-specific parameters: insulin sensitivity factor, insulin action time, and basal insulin infusion rate. The stochastic part is identical for all patients but identified from data from a single patient. Results of the first clinical feasibility test of the algorithm are presented. METHODS: We conducted two randomized crossover studies. Study 1 compared CL with open-loop (OL) control. Study 2 compared glucose control after CL initiation in the euglycemic (CL-Eu) and hyperglycemic (CL-Hyper) ranges, respectively. Patients were studied from 22:00-07:00 on two separate nights. RESULTS: Each study included six T1DM patients (hemoglobin A1c 7.2% ± 0.4%). In study 1, hypoglycemic events (plasma glucose < 54 mg/dl) occurred on two OL and one CL nights. Average glucose from 22:00-07:00 was 90 mg/dl [74-146 mg/dl; median (interquartile range)] during OL and 108 mg/dl (101-128 mg/dl) during CL (determined by continuous glucose monitoring). However, median time spent in the range 70-144 mg/dl was 67.9% (3.0-73.3%) during OL and 80.8% (70.5-89.7%) during CL. In study 2, there was one episode of hypoglycemia with plasma glucose <54 mg/dl in a CL-Eu night. Mean glucose from 22:00-07:00 and time spent in the range 70-144 mg/dl were 121 mg/dl (117-133 mg/dl) and 69.0% (30.7-77.9%) in CL-Eu and 149 mg/dl (140-193 mg/dl) and 48.2% (34.9-72.5%) in CL-Hyper, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that our novel MPC algorithm can safely and effectively control glucose overnight, also when CL control is initiated during hyperglycemia.

Model identification using stochastic differential equation grey-box models in diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The acceptance of virtual preclinical testing of control algorithms is growing and thus also the need for robust and reliable models. Models based on ordinary differential equations (ODEs) can rarely be validated with standard statistical tools. Stochastic differential equations (SDEs) offer the possibility of building models that can be validated statistically and that are capable of predicting not only a realistic trajectory, but also the uncertainty of the prediction. In an SDE, the prediction error is split into two noise terms. This separation ensures that the errors are uncorrelated and provides the possibility to pinpoint model deficiencies. METHODS: An identifiable model of the glucoregulatory system in a type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patient is used as the basis for development of a stochastic-differential-equation-based grey-box model (SDE-GB). The parameters are estimated on clinical data from four T1DM patients. The optimal SDE-GB is determined from likelihood-ratio tests. Finally, parameter tracking is used to track the variation in the "time to peak of meal response" parameter. RESULTS: We found that the transformation of the ODE model into an SDE-GB resulted in a significant improvement in the prediction and uncorrelated errors. Tracking of the "peak time of meal absorption" parameter showed that the absorption rate varied according to meal type. CONCLUSION: This study shows the potential of using SDE-GBs in diabetes modeling. Improved model predictions were obtained due to the separation of the prediction error. SDE-GBs offer a solid framework for using statistical tools for model validation and model development.

Effects of everyday life events on glucose, insulin, and glucagon dynamics in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion-treated type 1 diabetes: collection of clinical data for glucose modeling.

BACKGROUND: In the development of glucose control algorithms, mathematical models of glucose metabolism are useful for conducting simulation studies and making real-time predictions upon which control calculations can be based. To obtain type 1 diabetes (T1D) data for the modeling of glucose metabolism, we designed and conducted a clinical study. METHODS: Patients with insulin pump-treated T1D were recruited to perform everyday life events on two separate days. During the study, patients wore their insulin pumps and, in addition, a continuous glucose monitor and an activity monitor to estimate energy expenditure. The sequence of everyday life events was predetermined and included carbohydrate intake, insulin boluses, and bouts of exercise; the events were introduced, temporally separated, in different orders and in different quantities. Throughout the study day, 10-min plasma glucose measurements were taken, and samples for plasma insulin and glucagon analyses were obtained every 10 min for the first 30 min after an event and subsequently every 30 min. RESULTS: We included 12 patients with T1D (75% female, 34.3±9.1 years old [mean±SD], hemoglobin A1c 6.7±0.4%). During the 24 study days we collected information-rich, high-quality data during fast and slow changes in plasma glucose following carbohydrate intake, exercise, and insulin boluses. CONCLUSIONS: This study has generated T1D data suitable for glucose modeling, which will be used in the development of glucose control strategies. Furthermore, the study has given new physiologic insight into the metabolic effects of carbohydrate intake, insulin boluses, and exercise in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion-treated patients with T1D.