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.

Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The value of continuous glucose monitoring in the management of type 1 diabetes mellitus has not been determined. METHODS: In a multicenter clinical trial, we randomly assigned 322 adults and children who were already receiving intensive therapy for type 1 diabetes to a group with continuous glucose monitoring or to a control group performing home monitoring with a blood glucose meter. All the patients were stratified into three groups according to age and had a glycated hemoglobin level of 7.0 to 10.0%. The primary outcome was the change in the glycated hemoglobin level at 26 weeks. RESULTS: The changes in glycated hemoglobin levels in the two study groups varied markedly according to age group (P=0.003), with a significant difference among patients 25 years of age or older that favored the continuous-monitoring group (mean difference in change, -0.53%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.71 to -0.35; P<0.001). The between-group difference was not significant among those who were 15 to 24 years of age (mean difference, 0.08; 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.33; P=0.52) or among those who were 8 to 14 years of age (mean difference, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.38 to 0.11; P=0.29). Secondary glycated hemoglobin outcomes were better in the continuous-monitoring group than in the control group among the oldest and youngest patients but not among those who were 15 to 24 years of age. The use of continuous glucose monitoring averaged 6.0 or more days per week for 83% of patients 25 years of age or older, 30% of those 15 to 24 years of age, and 50% of those 8 to 14 years of age. The rate of severe hypoglycemia was low and did not differ between the two study groups; however, the trial was not powered to detect such a difference. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous glucose monitoring can be associated with improved glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes. Further work is needed to identify barriers to effectiveness of continuous monitoring in children and adolescents. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00406133.)

Can we really close the loop and how soon? Accelerating the availability of an artificial pancreas: a roadmap to better diabetes outcomes.

Development of a closed-loop artificial pancreas has been a long-time goal that could transform diabetes management. The primary limitation until recent years was the lack of a robust and portable continuous glucose sensor. There has been significant progress over the past 5 years in the development and commercialization of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices. Used adjunctively, CGM has been demonstrated to add significant value in improving diabetes management by increasing time spent in glycemic targets and improving overall glycemic control. However, these benefits are limited by the human user's finite capacity to respond to the data provided by the device. By automating even a portion of the insulin delivery functionality of combined sensor/pump systems via computer algorithm, impending excursions could be handled more quickly and effectively. This review will describe very promising preliminary closed-loop studies, describe a potential roadmap to an artificial pancreas that will be safe and effective, and propose a solution-a hypo- and hyperglycemia minimizing control-to-range approach-that may allow for near-term delivery of a semiautomated system to people with diabetes.

Navigating Two Roads to Glucose Normalization in Diabetes: Automated Insulin Delivery Devices and Cell Therapy.

Incredible strides have been made since the discovery of insulin almost 100 years ago. Insulin formulations have improved dramatically, glucose levels can be measured continuously, and recently first-generation biomechanical "artificial pancreas" systems have been approved by regulators around the globe. However, still only a small fraction of patients with diabetes achieve glycemic goals. Replacement of insulin-producing cells via transplantation shows significant promise, but is limited in application due to supply constraints (cadaver-based) and the need for chronic immunosuppression. Over the past decade, significant progress has been made to address these barriers to widespread implementation of a cell therapy. Can glucose levels in people with diabetes be normalized with artificial pancreas systems or via cell replacement approaches? Here we review the road ahead, including the challenges and opportunities of both approaches.

Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range.

Improvements in sensor accuracy, greater convenience and ease of use, and expanding reimbursement have led to growing adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). However, successful utilization of CGM technology in routine clinical practice remains relatively low. This may be due in part to the lack of clear and agreed-upon glycemic targets that both diabetes teams and people with diabetes can work toward. Although unified recommendations for use of key CGM metrics have been established in three separate peer-reviewed articles, formal adoption by diabetes professional organizations and guidance in the practical application of these metrics in clinical practice have been lacking. In February 2019, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address this issue. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations for relevant aspects of CGM data utilization and reporting among the various diabetes populations.

Open Source Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery Systems: A Clash of Cultures or Merging of Diverse Approaches?

Biomedical outcomes for people with diabetes remain suboptimal for many. Psychosocial care in diabetes does not fare any better. "Artificial pancreas" (also known as "closed-loop" and "automated insulin delivery") systems present a promising therapeutic option for people with diabetes (PWD)-simultaneously improving glycemic outcomes, reducing the burden of self-management, and improving health-related quality of life. In recent years there has emerged a growing movement of PWD innovators rallying behind the mantra #WeAreNotWaiting, developing "do-it-yourself artificial pancreas systems (DIY APS)." Self-reported results by DIY APS users show improved metabolic outcomes such as impressive stability of glucose profiles, significant reduction of A1c, and more time within their glycemic target range. However, the benefits remain unclear for the broader population of PWD beyond these highly engaged, highly tech-savvy users willing and able to engage in the demands of building and maintaining their DIY APS. We discuss the challenges faced by key stakeholder groups in terms of potential collaboration and open debate of these challenges.

Glucose Management Indicator (GMI): A New Term for Estimating A1C From Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

While A1C is well established as an important risk marker for diabetes complications, with the increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to help facilitate safe and effective diabetes management, it is important to understand how CGM metrics, such as mean glucose, and A1C correlate. Estimated A1C (eA1C) is a measure converting the mean glucose from CGM or self-monitored blood glucose readings, using a formula derived from glucose readings from a population of individuals, into an estimate of a simultaneously measured laboratory A1C. Many patients and clinicians find the eA1C to be a helpful educational tool, but others are often confused or even frustrated if the eA1C and laboratory-measured A1C do not agree. In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration determined that the nomenclature of eA1C needed to change. This led the authors to work toward a multipart solution to facilitate the retention of such a metric, which includes renaming the eA1C the glucose management indicator (GMI) and generating a new formula for converting CGM-derived mean glucose to GMI based on recent clinical trials using the most accurate CGM systems available. The final aspect of ensuring a smooth transition from the old eA1C to the new GMI is providing new CGM analyses and explanations to further understand how to interpret GMI and use it most effectively in clinical practice. This Perspective will address why a new name for eA1C was needed, why GMI was selected as the new name, how GMI is calculated, and how to understand and explain GMI if one chooses to use GMI as a tool in diabetes education or management.

Increased expression of the remodeling- and tumorigenic-associated factor osteopontin in pyramidal neurons of the Alzheimer's disease brain.

Osteopontin (OPN) is a glycophosphoprotein expressed by several cell types and has pro-adhesive, chemotactic, and cytokine-like properties. OPN is involved in a number of physiologic and pathologic events including angiogenesis, apoptosis, inflammation, oxidative stress, remyelination, wound healing, bone remodeling, cell migration and tumorigenesis. Since these functions of OPN, and the events that it regulates, are involved with neurodegeneration, we examined whether OPN was differentially expressed in the hippocampus of the Alzheimer's disease (AD) compared with age-matched (59-93 years) control brain. We report for the first time the immunocytochemical localization of OPN in the cytoplasm of pyramidal neurons. In AD brains, there was a significant 41 % increase in the expression of neuron OPN compared with age-matched control brain. No staining of other neuronal cell types was observed. Additionally, there was a significant positive correlation between OPN staining intensity and both amyloid-beta load (r(2) = 0.25; P < 0.05; n = 20) and aging (r(2) = 0.32; P < 0.01; n = 20) among all control and AD subjects. Controlling for age indicated that OPN expression was significantly influenced by amyloid-beta load, but not age. While the functional consequences of this amyloid-beta associated increase in OPN expression are unclear, it is notable that OPN is primarily localized to those neurons that are known to be vulnerable to AD-related neurite loss, degeneration and death. Given that the induction of OPN expression (and amyloid-beta generation) is associated with remodeling and tumorigenesis, our results suggest that OPN may play a role in the aberrant re-entry of neurons into the cell cycle and/or neuronal remyelination in AD.

Standardizing Clinically Meaningful Outcome Measures Beyond HbA1c for Type 1 Diabetes: A Consensus Report of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, JDRF International, The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the T1D Exchange.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and define clinically meaningful type 1 diabetes outcomes beyond hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) based upon a review of the evidence, consensus from clinical experts, and input from researchers, people with type 1 diabetes, and industry. Priority outcomes include hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, time in range, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). While priority outcomes for type 1 and type 2 diabetes may overlap, type 1 diabetes was the focus of this work. RESEARCH AND METHODS: A Steering Committee-comprising representatives from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, JDRF International, The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the T1D Exchange-was the decision-making body for the Type 1 Diabetes Outcomes Program. Their work was informed by input from researchers, industry, and people with diabetes through Advisory Committees representing each stakeholder group. Stakeholder surveys were used to identify priority outcomes. The outcomes prioritized in the surveys were hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, time in range, DKA, and PROs. To develop consensus on the definitions of these outcomes, the Steering Committee relied on published evidence, their clinical expertise, and feedback from the Advisory Committees. RESULTS: The Steering Committee developed definitions for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, time in range, and DKA in type 1 diabetes. The definitions reflect their assessment of the outcome's short- and long-term clinical impact on people with type 1 diabetes. Knowledge gaps to be addressed by future research were identified. The Steering Committee discussed PROs and concluded that further type 1 diabetes-specific development is needed. CONCLUSIONS: The Steering Committee recommends use of the defined clinically meaningful outcomes beyond HbA1c in the research, development, and evaluation of type 1 diabetes therapies.

Exercise management in type 1 diabetes: a consensus statement.

Type 1 diabetes is a challenging condition to manage for various physiological and behavioural reasons. Regular exercise is important, but management of different forms of physical activity is particularly difficult for both the individual with type 1 diabetes and the health-care provider. People with type 1 diabetes tend to be at least as inactive as the general population, with a large percentage of individuals not maintaining a healthy body mass nor achieving the minimum amount of moderate to vigorous aerobic activity per week. Regular exercise can improve health and wellbeing, and can help individuals to achieve their target lipid profile, body composition, and fitness and glycaemic goals. However, several additional barriers to exercise can exist for a person with diabetes, including fear of hypoglycaemia, loss of glycaemic control, and inadequate knowledge around exercise management. This Review provides an up-to-date consensus on exercise management for individuals with type 1 diabetes who exercise regularly, including glucose targets for safe and effective exercise, and nutritional and insulin dose adjustments to protect against exercise-related glucose excursions.

International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) has been the traditional method for assessing glycemic control. However, it does not reflect intra- and interday glycemic excursions that may lead to acute events (such as hypoglycemia) or postprandial hyperglycemia, which have been linked to both microvascular and macrovascular complications. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), either from real-time use (rtCGM) or intermittently viewed (iCGM), addresses many of the limitations inherent in HbA1c testing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. Although both provide the means to move beyond the HbA1c measurement as the sole marker of glycemic control, standardized metrics for analyzing CGM data are lacking. Moreover, clear criteria for matching people with diabetes to the most appropriate glucose monitoring methodologies, as well as standardized advice about how best to use the new information they provide, have yet to be established. In February 2017, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address these issues. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations and represents the current understanding of how CGM results can affect outcomes.

Toward Development of Psychosocial Measures for Automated Insulin Delivery.

The INSPIRE study working group launched its initial workshop in February 2015 to facilitate collaboration among key stakeholders interested in automated insulin delivery (AID) systems and the psychosocial outcomes of individuals who may use these new technologies. Specifically, the INSPIRE team's goal is to facilitate measure development assessing the psychosocial factors associated with AID systems. A second working group was held to foster exchange among key stakeholders in AID system development. Patient, health care provider, engineering, industry, academic, regulatory and payer perspectives were presented. The INSPIRE working group will continue to serve as a platform to encourage open dialogue among all stakeholders with the aim of facilitating technology that offers minimal user burden and maximum benefit from both a psychological and physiologic perspective.

Development of the Diabetes Technology Society Blood Glucose Monitor System Surveillance Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Inaccurate blood glucsoe monitoring systems (BGMSs) can lead to adverse health effects. The Diabetes Technology Society (DTS) Surveillance Program for cleared BGMSs is intended to protect people with diabetes from inaccurate, unreliable BGMS products that are currently on the market in the United States. The Surveillance Program will provide an independent assessment of the analytical performance of cleared BGMSs. METHODS: The DTS BGMS Surveillance Program Steering Committee included experts in glucose monitoring, surveillance testing, and regulatory science. Over one year, the committee engaged in meetings and teleconferences aiming to describe how to conduct BGMS surveillance studies in a scientifically sound manner that is in compliance with good clinical practice and all relevant regulations. RESULTS: A clinical surveillance protocol was created that contains performance targets and analytical accuracy-testing studies with marketed BGMS products conducted by qualified clinical and laboratory sites. This protocol entitled "Protocol for the Diabetes Technology Society Blood Glucose Monitor System Surveillance Program" is attached as supplementary material. CONCLUSION: This program is needed because currently once a BGMS product has been cleared for use by the FDA, no systematic postmarket Surveillance Program exists that can monitor analytical performance and detect potential problems. This protocol will allow identification of inaccurate and unreliable BGMSs currently available on the US market. The DTS Surveillance Program will provide BGMS manufacturers a benchmark to understand the postmarket analytical performance of their products. Furthermore, patients, health care professionals, payers, and regulatory agencies will be able to use the results of the study to make informed decisions to, respectively, select, prescribe, finance, and regulate BGMSs on the market.

Osteoclasts resorb protein-free mineral (Osteologic discs) efficiently in the absence of osteopontin.

Osteopontin (OPN) is both a matrix protein in mineralized tissues and a cytokine, and it has a pivotal role in osteoclast-mediated bone resorption. Here, using a proprietary hydroxyapatite substitute for bone mineral (Osteologic discs), we investigated the requirement for OPN in mineral resorption. Resorption pits formed in the Osteologic discs, revealed by staining with silver nitrite (Von Kossa stain), were analyzed using the NIH Image J program, which can determine the number of pits formed per unit area, their average size, and the fractional area resorbed. After a preincubation of bone marrow cells from OPN -/- and OPN +/+ mice with M-CSF to allow the multiplication of osteoclast precursors on cell culture plastic, osteoclast formation on both Osteologic discs and standard cell culture plates was induced with soluble receptor activator of NFkappaB ligand, sRANKL. We did not detect a dramatic difference in osteoclast formation between OPN +/+ and OPN -/- cells, as judged by staining for tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase in osteoclasts formed on cell culture plastic, nor was there a significant difference in the ability of the osteoclasts to form resorption pits in the Osteologic discs. Additionally, none of six different anti-OPN monoclonal antibodies had a significant and reproducible effect on the formation or subsequent functioning of the OPN+/+ osteoclasts. These studies suggest that, in contrast to what has been found for normal bone, the efficiency of dissolution of a ceramic, protein-free (excepting protein adsorbed from the culture medium) hydroxyapatite/tri-calcium phosphate substrate by osteoclasts is not substantially enhanced by endogenous or exogenous OPN.

Pathway to artificial pancreas systems revisited: moving downstream.

Artificial pancreas (AP) systems, a long-sought quest to replicate mechanically islet physiology that is lost in diabetes, are reaching the clinic, and the potential of automating insulin delivery is about to be realized. Significant progress has been made, and the safety and feasibility of AP systems have been demonstrated in the clinical research center and more recently in outpatient "real-world" environments. An iterative road map to AP system development has guided AP research since 2009, but progress in the field indicates that it needs updating. While it is now clear that AP systems are technically feasible, it remains much less certain that they will be widely adopted by clinicians and patients. Ultimately, the true success of AP systems will be defined by successful integration into the diabetes health care system and by the ultimate metric: improved diabetes outcomes.